Consciousness Unexplained
Offline This thread will serve as a critique of Daniel Dennett's book entitled "Consciousness Explained" (more specifically, it will focus on his explanation for the emergence of consciousness as found on pages 173-176 of Chapter 7)
I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion. The standard response is: "Consciousness is an emergent property." But this isn't really a scientific theory or a materialistic explanation. It's simply an evasive tactic. I would simply prefer the honest reply: "I don't know how. My belief in materialism is ultimately based on a faith commitment."
In his book entitled "Consciousness Explained," philosopher Daniel Dennett states that if your model of consciousness requires that "you have to say "then a miracle" occurs you haven't begun to explain what consciousness is." pg. 455
I basically agree with this sentiment. However, I would hasten to add one qualification: this holds true only for those who would seek to explain the emergence of consciousness based on a strictly materialistic worldview. Certainly, there are explanations based on other worldviews where miracles can be invoked. You may not find such a tactic to be a very compelling argument. But, nevertheless, it is an explanation. Also, there are other worldviews where consciousness is posited simply as a brute fact of existence or as a fundamental aspect of nature; and therefore, it does not require an explanation. In other words, consciousness simply is. This is the view that I personally subscribe to. Now, if you take issue with this, then I would argue that materialists make the same assumption for the existence of the physical world. And if you counter this by arguing: "No, they don't, " then I will kindly ask you to explain to me how and from whence did the physical world emerge.
Dennett stated that his purpose for writing the book was to give a materialistic account of consciousness. In my opinion, he didn't achieve his objective. To put it bluntly, he failed miserably. His arguments were deliberately evasive, specious, and contradictory. At times, he appeared to be arguing for what can only be described as a form of panpsychism (the view that minds or conscious experiences constitute the fundamental units of reality). This is not materialism. At other times, he seemed to be denying the very exisentence of consciousness itself. This is materialism, and it is a particular pernicious form of it known as "eliminative materialism." To say that his arguments were simply bizzare would be a gross understatement. They were convoluted, intentionally vague, and just plain unintelligible. In the following I will focus on one egregious example of this obscurantism.
In Chapter 7 (entitled "The Evolution of Consciousness" ), Dennett makes a spurious argument for the emergence of consciousness in the evolutionary process. He simply ascribes self-awareness to the first replicators (i.e. the self-replicating molecular systems in the primordial soup).
But, as we have seen, the point of view of a conscious observer is not identical to, but a sophisticated descendent of, the primordial points of view of the first replicators who divided their worlds into good and bad. (After all, even plants have points of view in this primordial sense.)(source: pg. 176, "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett)
What is his "scientific" and "materialistic" explanation for how the first replicators acquired these "points of view?"
"The first reasons preexisted their own recognition. Indeed, the first problem faced by the first problem-facers was to learn how to recognize and act on the reasons that their very existence brought into existence."(source: pg. 174, "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett)
Just in case you didn't get it, I will break down the statement for you. The first problem-facers (i.e. the first self-replicating molecular systems) had a problem to solve. And what exactly was this problem? Answer: "To learn how to recognize and act on the reasons that their very existence brought into existence." <== Does anyone here actually think this qualifies as an adequate explanation for the emergence of consciousness? Puhlease! This is where I would insert "then a MIRACLE occurs!" What makes this so laughable is that he has boldly and audaciously proclaimed that he will explain consciousness in materialistic terms. Four-hundred and sixty-eight painfully tedious pages of self-absorbed reflections and bloviated meanderings and this is the nearest thing he offers to the reader as a materialistic explanation for the emergence of consicousness. It's pathetic!
Also, I feel obligated to point out one glaring fact. Ascribing sentience to the first replicators is flirting dangerously with panpsychism. True, he did not ascribe conscious awareness to subatomic particles and molecules. But this compels me to ask the question: Why not? Why not ascribe conscious awareness to the fundamental building blocks of nature? This is what David Bohm (eminent quantum physicist) did. And I would argue that his explanation actually has the backing of science, namely quantum theory.
"Even an electron has at least a rudimentary mental pole, resperesented mathematically by the quantum potential."(source: pg. 387 "The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory" by David Bohm and B.J. Hiley)
Moreover, there are eminent scientists (e.g. Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, and Henry Stapp) who have formulated quantum mind theories which are based not only on quantum theory and neuroscience but also on the process metaphysics (one form of panpsychism) of A. N. Whitehead (mathematician and physicist who co-authored the "Principia Mathematica" with Bertrand Russell).
Now, if we assume that consciousness is fundamental, then it doesn't take much imagination to craft a hypothesis how the first replicators formed self-awareness. Subatomic particles emerge from the quantum void (a field of consciousness) with a rudimentary form of mentality. Atoms (which are composed of the basic subparticles) constitute the next level of consciousness. Molecules and macromolecules constitute the next levels. And if we invoke autocatalytic sets and the self-organizing principle based on the mathematics of chaos theory, we can easily imagine how a higher-level mind known affectionately as a "replicator" emerged from lower-level minds (i.e. molecules in the primordial soup).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Ah! I see. Trying to shut down valid viewpoints instead of engaging them. How enlightened.
If you understand what "awareness" is, Paisley, please define it in a way in which we can discuss it. That is, give some sort of non-tautalogical definition that references something for which we have common knowledge.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I didn't do much. His ass is self-kicking.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
So, since you clearly don't understand it in a meaningful sense, you should surrender immediately....
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I presume that this post is for me. Next time, I suggest you identify me by using my screen name. This would help.
Receiving electromagnetic waves? What are you talking about?
I have already defined consciousness as "awareness." Now, you either immediately understand what this term means or we cannot continue this debate. To do so would be an exercise in futility.
Daniel Dennett (who has co-authored a book with Douglas Hofstadter) has ascribed sentience to the first "robots" (i.e. the first replicators...actually...in his book entitled "Kinds of Minds" he describes "macromolecules" as the first robots). And the argument that I have made in the OP is that if you can accept Daniel Dennett's ascription of sentience to the first-replicators (or macromolecules), then it does not require that much of a leap to accept that subatomic particles have some rudimentary form of mentality, especially when eminent physicists such as David Bohm have argued for this view.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You don't have to take a computer programming class (although, I have) to know that computer programs are not sentient.
Also, you stated that "we observe our conscious states." In "Consciousness Explained" (CE), Dennett argues that there is no observer (which he calls the witness) and there are no conscious states (which he calls the Cartesian theater). In fact, Chapter 11 of CE is entitled "Dismantling the Witness Protection Program." This is why Daniel Dennett is known as an "eliminative materialist." IOW, Dennett's "theory of consciousness" eliminates awareness itself, the very thing that a materialistic theory of consciousness is burden with explaining.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Have you figured out that the majority of us aren't eliminative materialists yet or are you going to continue to be dishonest?
In case you haven't figured it out - the ones who don't agree with Dennett are kicking your rump soundly.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
It's not a disproof of Bell's Theorem. It's recent, it's controversial, and it has not been experimentally validated.
1) Explain to me how mass/energy can both be a particle and a wave.
2) Explain to me what are the constituents of the wave. For example, we understand a water wave as the movement of water molecules in a larger body of water molecules. What are the constituents of the wave?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It's not grounded in empirical research because it denies that very thing that makes empiricism possible - namely, experience itself.
Also, Dennett's argument for his so-called "multiple drafts theory" (which is couched in metaphorical language, not scientific terms) is based on its ability to explain two phenomena (the color phi phenomenon and the blindsight phenomenon) which arguably qualify as genuine psi phenomena.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yes. And he answers those critics. Clifford algebra is noncommutative. It also has direct application to quantum mechanics, and has been used in that way by others. It isn't his definition of locality. It's the definition of the math.
What amuses me is this, though: you are allowed to present very controversial findings, and call it proof. I, however, may not do the same, even though the research I present is both relevant and very solid. (Note that the critics who argue with him don't understand Clifford algebra. Also, they generally argue about his findings, not his math.)
Hypocritical much?
That's easy-peasy.
A wave on the ocean is both particles and waves (EDIT: energy, damnit! particles and energy!). Mass/energy could simply be causal deformations in the quantum foam, traveling in essentially the same fashion as waves travel through the ocean.
But really, the correct answer is, "I don't know. And neither do you." What I do know is that the wave/particle duality is a description of a physical event: the motion of a quark or lepton. They describe physical parameters. Ergo, they are physical.
I still fail to see how they relate to some abstract and unmeasurable "mind."
You seem to be confused, because both the "wave/particle duality" and "mind/body duality" share the word "duality."
As I said: causal deformations in the quantum foam (or fractal space structure, if you prefer), in the same way a wave in the ocean is a causal deformation in the water. And a wave in the ocean is substantially more than the "movement of water molecules." The wave itself is energy. Whoops! Duality again!
Of course, since we really don't know the fundamentals of QM, nobody knows. So that's just me making stuff up on the spot. You should be familiar with that.
Now your turn! How does dualism explain it?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Then you have no proof that it is physical. You are simply expressing a belief - a belief that is in the vast minority.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You need me to prove to you that you have a physical brain?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Yeah jcgladfly, he seems to think consciousness is invisible when we can clearly see the outcome and the effects of it...
Paisley, I also asked you for a definition of awareness... take a look at post #198 so you can understand a little better about definitions and how communication with language works.
Try reading my posts and actually try to understand them, Paisley, you obviously cannot comprehend the kinds of concepts I am giving you. You show this in the kinds of ridiculously absurd assumptions you attribute to me.
Once again, if you think that particles moving is awareness and consciousness then you are a retard. Systems of particles that move in a particular way creates awareness.
Computer programs are not sentient, good job. My example has nothing to do with sentience, it is explaining how something as simple as electronic signals can create an abstract computer program and both exist, particles and the abstractions they create are not exclusive, BOTH EXIST.
This is the same way for our awareness/consciousness (whatever you want to call it), particles are able to create an abstraction through with their system, just like a computer program can create an abstraction from electronic signals.
When a computer program, say, outputs prime numbers from 1-20, can you really say that the electronic signals it is made up of are not truly outputting the prime numbers from 1-20? How could you? That would be ridiculous because we can clearly see an output of prime numbers from 1-20. Can you say that the electronic signals are not operating in a specific way? No you cannot.
This idea is what I am getting at when I am relating physical means to the abstractions that their systems can possibly create. You cannot say that our consciousness does not exist and it is only particles, for it must be both, unless we don't have consciousness, but we obviously do.
Btw, electromagnetic waves=light, genius. Take a physics class before you try to think about materialistic concepts that require at least a basic understanding of physics to visualize the way world works on atomic scales.
But you have failed to identify the first life form(s) to exhibit consciousness. This is what I want to know.
I think you misunderstood what I said. I believe both the interior and the exterior arise correlatively. To the extent that there is some kind of exterior, there is also some kind of interior. Also, the complexity level of each arises correlatively with the other.
It was not meant to list the scientific criteria for evaluating the basis of life, but simply to outline the means how we generally make an inference for it. Also, the first-replicators do not qualify as life forms based on your definition. Therefore, what was the first life form?
I just defined it. And it is simple. To be conscious is to be aware. Now, you either understand what "awareness" means or we cannot continue this discussion.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, it is not a misreading. I have provided a direct quote from Dennett which you have conveniently managed to evade.
I have just provided you with a direct quote in which Dennett states that "sentience comes in every imaginable grade or intensity."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
That's the funniest thing I've seen in a while!
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Dennett said robot, not logic gate. Besides it only takes one light switch to convey information.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Dreams are illusions. However, to experience a dream (e.g. an illusion) presupposes consciousness. IOW, your argument (as well as Dennett's) is question begging.
You have failed to refute that "computers process information. Computers are not conscious. The level of complexity is not a factor."
Actually, any materialistic argument ultimately entails pantheism. Why? Because you are forced to argue that all life and consciousness are mechanical processes. And since the whole natural process qualifies as one mechanical process, then it naturally follows that the whole shebang must be alive and conscious. If you argue otherwise, then you are arguing against your premise.
There is one alternative: eliminative materialism. You can simply deny that consciousness exists. Either way, I win this argument.
You just did make a claim. You stated emphatically and unequivocally that the "mind is most obviously a product of the brain." Correlation does not equal identification. And dualism has a privilege status because that is the way we experience the world. This is indisputable.
Emergence is tantamount to saying "then a miracle occurred." Sorry, but I will not permit materialists to invoke miracles or magic.
You're making my point. Why is there a blurry line? How do you know that cells do not have consciousness?
Calling me a liar simply because I don't agree with your ridiculous premise is not a very good ruse. You have to prove it is a complexity factor. That's how it works!
I believe that everything alive has some form of awareness. Electronic computers (as opposed to organic computers) are not alive and therefore are not conscious. There's no contradiction.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Thanks! I actually got the idea from reading the "Tripartite Tractate" in the Nag Hammadi corpus. If ever there was a book that made me really, really glad the Valentinians didn't survive the 5th century, it was the "Tripartite Tractate." Though Paisley here helped, for sure.
*Edit* Thus begins Book II in our newest Paisley epic "How I never really get the fucking point but act like I do." Stay tuned, folks, it's gonna be a page-turner. /*Edit*
Actually, this is not true. Contemplatives routinely experience what philosopher Robert Forman describes as the PCE (Pure Consciousness Event) or "awareness without content" (the Sanskrit term is "samadhi" ). Indeed, everyone routinely experiences this state in what is known as "dreamless or deep sleep" (the third state of consciousness). However, since I seriously doubt anyone here is a practitioner of meditation (besides yours truly), then I am not going to debate this point. To do so would be an exercise in futility (as I am finding out!).
That being said, I willing to accept for the purposes of this thread the definition that "awareness is awareness of something."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Actually, this is not true. Contemplatives routinely experience what philosopher Robert Forman describes as the PCE (Pure Consciousness Event) or "awareness without content" (the Sanskrit term is "samadhi" ). Indeed, everyone routinely experiences this state in what is known as "dreamless or deep sleep" (the third state of consciousness). However, since I seriously doubt anyone here is a practitioner of meditation (besides yours truly), then I am not going to debate this point. To do so would be an exercise in futility (as I am finding out!).
That being said, I willing to accept for the purposes of this thread the definition that "awareness is awareness of something."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
*Raises hand*
I am a practitioner of meditation. Specifically Buddhist awareness meditation. I know what you're talking about, and it's not awareness divorced from an object. That is what it is *believed* to be; in fact, it is awareness of the abstraction of awareness. Or awareness of the attempt to not become aware. Either way, it does have an object. An abstract object, but an object nonetheless.
B.F. Skinner would say it's simply a "matter" of "positive" and "negative" reenforcement.
Shocking eh?
I LOVE talking to the Queen Borg of the hive.
Truth be told, you've beenpredictable for qyuite some time.
If you were original thr repetitive posts would not be clones, nor the arguments circular.
Even more original would not have every thread poster I visit be online, day and night.
Just not wondering... when I signon if that delay is for you and your buddies to decide which of you will be take your Meds and putting up some quick posts just for
my benefit.
I love a fan club! Thanks for contributing.'
Dreamless or deep sleep is non-awareness, unconsciousness. To assert that is a kind or state of consciousness is meaningless BS.
It is a state of the brain, not a state of consciousness, except in the sense of the "off" state, where consciousness is completely shut down, by every indication.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I have already defined it. Should I also provide you with the definition of the term "is?" Now, either you immediately undertand the meaning of the term or you forfeit your right to participate in this thread (or any other thread). Clearly, if you cannot grasp the meaning of the term "awareness," then you are incapable of verbally communicating, at least in the English language.
I'm not asking you to define the term "awareness" for me. I already know what the term means.
The terms "consciousness" or "awareness" can only be defined in like terms. There are no metaphors I can employ that says "awareness" is like "this" or like "that." Why? Because the subjective is not like anything in the objective world! It's an interior state that cannot be defined or explained in exterior terms. Now, you either get that or you don't. If you don't, then this debate is over. You cannot debate or discuss an issue with another individual who cannot grasp the most basic of terms.
I never said that "awareness is just interacting in an environment." What I did say is that if you reduce consciousness to information processing, then I can conclude that all information processing exhibits consciousness.
I don't have a problem perceiving consciousness. I experience it and therefore know it with absolute certitude. In fact, it is knowledge-by-identity. However, the materialist has the problem of explaining how something that only has exterior relations can give rise to an interior state. Good luck!
People are able to verbally communicate because they agree on the definitions of terms. And ultimately, the definition of terms are based on our first-person experiences. If you truly do not understand what is meant by the term "awareness," then you are simply incapable of verbally communicating. Either that, or you are playing semantical games in order to evade the issue.
Daniel Dennett's "theory of consciousness" (which, incidentally, is the subject matter of this particular thread) states that the first macromolecules and/or first replicators (i.e. the simplest robots) have sentience.
You are presupposing a dichotomy that the materialist worldview precludes you from accepting - namely, the division between the mechanical and the non-mechanical. IOW, all sensory perception (human or otherwise) are mechanical processes. Also, the brain just didn't magically pop out into existence. The evolution of the brain and the accociated nervous system was an extremely slow and tedious process. So, you have to explain how an insentient stimulus-response system (i.e. a robot without consciousness) becomes a sentient stimulus-response system (i.e. a robot with consciousness). Good luck!
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Conscious and aware have identical meanings when used in an applicative sense today. Being conscious of something and aware of something are indeed interchangeable.
Consciousness and awareness have divergent meanings when one is used to denote the ability to be aware and the other the act one is conscious of when one exercises that ability. The difference used to be crucial to theologians who argued that awareness in itself meant nothing compared to being conscious (ie. aware of the morality and implications) of things. Consciousness was perceived as a particularly refined awareness and the refinement was crucial. John Locke, for example, used only that sense of consciouness when he employed the term in his philosophical essays as it was the one that then held most meaning to his readers. He used the term "awareness" in its most neutral and modern sense. A dog, it was then believed, could be aware but never conscious - such was the disparity in meaning.
So unfortunately you do have to say in what sense you are employing the terms. For that matter so does Dennett. However, having read Dennett's book I am not aware that he ever confuses either term with self-awareness, which is indeed a subjectively specific modern application of the term "awareness".
Which is all very interesting, but I still can't see what the point of you bringing it all up is. You tried to argue before that self-awareness and consciousness were the same thing and when I pointed out to you that you were taking liberties with the meanings of words you got all snotty about it. Is this thread just a re-hash of that one with Dennett thrown in to get the rise out of atheists?
Sad.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
And this is why I stated previously that "whatever 'awareness' is aware of is irrelevant." Obviously, to be aware of something presupposes awareness! So please stop this pretense that I am making some kind of circular argument. Quite the contrary. The materialist is the one who is making the circular argument here because he cannot give an intelligible account how insentient bits of matter give rise to sentient bits of matter without begging the question.
If I have to define the term "awareness" for you, then the discussion is over. I have little patience for those who deliberately play stupid or engage in evasive tactics.
By the way, your screen name "gadfly" is very apt, because you're nothing more than a pest.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You can't express a valid viewpoint on consciousness when you're incapable of understanding the most basic of terms. And speaking of "viewpoints," do you think that a viewpoint may actually, perhaps, presuppose subjective awareness? Answer: "Dah....I don't know....can you please define the term "awareness" for me?"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
My stings make more sense than your argument. Am I hitting nerves?
I know what it means - you're the one with the shifting definitions.
You have it backwards. Awareness presupposes being aware of something.
Thanks for the bonus strawman - you obviously have no clue what you're talking about iwhere it concerns materialism.
If you don'like people who play stupid and use evasive tactics - you must not be able to look at yourself in the mirror.
Oh wait...you're not playing, are you?
While I'm here, can you tell me how one can be aware/conscious without a physical brain? Surely if conscious is non-material and you know so much about it you can answer that.
Oh I forgot...you don't have to be aware of your awareness to be aware (by your definition).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
That you feel it necessary that I must define the term "awareness" for you and your fellow atheists does not give much credence to your claim of rational superiority.
Incidentally I'm still awaiting you to address Dennett's "conservative hypothesis of sentience."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Bob, among others, already gave you coherent, non-circular definitions of consciousness and awareness without resorting to your bullshit strawman 'eliminative materialism.'
Your turn.
If you haven't figured out that this thread is about Daniel Dennett's "theory of consciousness," then I suggest you go back and do your homework by reading the OP.
The ones who don't agree with Dennett are incapable of explaining how an insentient stimulus-response system (i.e. an organic robot without consciousness) evolved into a sentient stimulus-response system (i.e. an organic robot with consciousness). Dennett managed to solve this problem by simply ascribing sentience to all organic robots (beginning with macromolecules and the first replicators).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
And again, the people who are slapping you senseless have explained things to you quite nicely. You just don't like their answers.
Also, no one you're arguing with has eliminated awareness - we just acknoledge its physical origins where you insist that it belongs solely in the woo-woo of your imaginings.
Honestly, if this theatre major can crush your position with questions you don't bother to answer - the big brains here will pulverize you. They're just getting too much laughter from you to finish you off.
Your argument is with Dennett -Mine is with you.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Theater major, huh?
This is no offense to you or your major, because it's a cool major and I got my BA in a borderline 'joke' major that burnouts from the hard sciences ended up falling back on (English Lit- Gender/Sexuality focus; it was a big college) but: damn. If you can swat Paisley's argument..... or if *I* can, for that matter... it's an incredibly feeble argument.
His definitions are also circular, which doesn't help either.
My first degree is in Philosophy and Computer Science. Theatre is a dream I've put off for 20 years and doing now that the university that employs me is paying for it.
Learning is learning and it comes from anywhere.
Hope that makes you feel better
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I can play this same game.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2223
Bell's theorem is arguably one of the greatest achievements in science. If Joy Christian actually disproved it, then I would think that he would have won a Nobel prize (or at least be considered for one).
I have never made the bold statement that "blah, blah, blah" has disproved "blah, blah, blah." If I have, then please provide me with the example.
The bottom line is that you (by your own admission) "don't know." And yet you claim to know that the mental is reducible to the physical.
The abstract wave function represents the mental aspect. The collapse of the wave function into a single abstract point represents the physical aspect.
Agreed.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, you need to prove that consciousness is physical. That's the assertion you are making. If this were a scientifically-established fact, then there would be no mind-body problem in philosophy.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
As consciousness cannot occur without a physical brain generating chemicals (brain chemistry is established) - the problem may not be as big as you are making it out to be.
Do you know of a way that consciousness (awareness/whatever you want to call it this week) exists without a physical brain?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
There is no abstracting (rationalizing) taking place during samadhi. There is no subject, no object - just pure awareness. It is also nonsensory, nontemporal and nonspatial.
I suppose you can argue that it is where subject and object become one. But this is simply saying the same thing in other terms. And also, this is a rational abstraction or reflection of the experience after the experience that should not be confused with the actual experience itself. Either way, it is nondual awareness.
Academic philosopher Robert K. C. Forman addresses this very issue (i.e. that consciousness is always consciousness of something) in his book entitled "Mysticism, Mind, and Consciousness."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
What's a matter of positive and negative reenforcement? Consciousness?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You're speaking from ignorance, not knowledge. However, you have established one thing. You actually do understand what I mean when I use the term "awareness."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
This is the sense I am using the term. I have not made any moral argument here. Also, I have not defined consciousness to be interchangeable with self-awareness (specifically because some would argue that only human beings have self-awareness). So, your point is moot.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
This is so incredibly unreasonable. Is a smile physical? You're banking on the fact that "consciousness" is a noun, so it must be a thing. But it's a noun by convention. A consciousness is a series of behaviours, just like a smile is a series of muscle contractions. A cluster of behaviours that is generated from a human body.
The onus is on you to show the necessity for an extra "thing" that is involved in consciousness. We know that bodies and brains exist. You're arguing that something else is involved with the process. If it's a soul, then how does a soul have consciousness?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
And you and you friends cannot explain how an insentient stimulus-response system (i.e. an organic robot without consciousness) evolved into a sentient stimulus-response system (i.e. an organic robot with consciousness).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Don't be a dumb-ass. That's the exact same argument used against every controversial science before it becomes common place.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Ok I will use my defintion of awareness and so far you haven't shown that molecules or bacteria are aware as per the my defintion of awareness and since you refuse to properly define your use of the term awareness for the rest of us. Then your use of the term awareness for consciousness is incorrect and shall be treated as such from this point on until you are able to properly define the word correctly for the rest of us.
The fact that you refuse to define how you are using the term awareness does not give you credence to your claims either so, in fact it show that you cannot define the term properly or that you do not understand what it means to properly define the word awareness or consciousness. This does not mean that you are correct and we are wrong, in fact that we have define how we are using those terms, and keep showing that you are incorrect on how you use or what you define as conscious or awareness.
But that's hardly an argument for dualism. Just because one alternative to a mind-body duality doesn't work for you, that doesn't mean the only remaining possibility is dualism.
Also, you've created this insentient stimulus-response system entirely in your imagination, and determined that it does not have consciousness, without explaining why it doesn't have consciousness, or how it does not have consciousness.
That, and even if it were true that nobody here could explain the two entities described, and their transition from to one another, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's not valid reasoning.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Yeah! You and your friends can't explain how it works!
Therefore: Magic.
Paisley, can you tell me exactly how the collapse of the World Trade Center occurred, right down to the mathematical formulae? Because, if you can't, I'm saying that it was you, you terrorist dirt bag! You somehow made it fall on all those people!
I feel it in my gut.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Correlation is not identification. You have no proof, just assertions.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead