On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> This does not imply that evolution produces consciousness. >>> >> >> > >> Of course it does. >> > > > My body is a product of evolution and my body has mass. This does not > mean that evolution produced mass. > Darwin's theory make no prediction of any sort about mass, but Evolutionary theory does predict that if intelligent behavior and consciousness are not linked then there are no conscious beings on planet Earth. However I know for a fact that there is at least one such being, therefore I must conclude that either Darwin was wrong or intelligent behavior and consciousness are linked. And the evidence is overwhelming that Darwin was not wrong. >>> You can propose a theory on how consciousness emerges from, for >>> example, brain activity. I know of no such theory that doesn't contain a >>> huge explanatory gap. >>> >> >> >> Explanations be damned. >> > > > I know you do recognise the gap. This is why I find your position hard > to understand. > The problem is that consciousness fans around here can't even explain the general sort of explanation they claim to be looking for. Suppose I find a new theory that says A produced B and B produced C [...] and Y produced Z and Z produced consciousness; well people on this list will say that explains nothing because Z is not consciousness. There is no way to win that argument because no argument would satisfy them even in theory, so it's time to get out of that infinite loop and think about other things. >> Although it would be nice to know it is not necessary to understand how >> X causes Y to understand that X does indeed cause Y. >> > > > This is a tricky path, and several fields of science have gone through a > woo period by walking it. Case in point, nutrition science. > Speaking of stuff you put in your mouth, people first created Aspirin and used it to relieve pain in 1897, but only in the last decade have we started to understand how it works. And people have been using hot things to give off light since the stone age, but it was only with Planck in 1900 did we figure out how that worked. > Over-confidence in correlation is [...] > An observation that whenever a change in X is made Y also changes is a correlation; but if you ALSO observe that whenever a change in Y is made X also changes then you've got yourself something more than a correlation. And we note that whenever the neurons in our brains changes (because of drugs for example) our consciousness changes, and whenever our consciousness changes (because of social interaction for example) our neurons change. > > intelligence may provide experiential content to consciousness without > creating it. > I don't know what that means. > Why not philosophical zombies? Because if philosophical zombies exist then a correct theory of Evolution does not. >>>> And I also know for a fact that those very same chemicals degrade my >>>> ability to behave intelligently, and that's exactly what you'd expect if >>>> Darwin was right. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Again, all I believe that can be said about this is that these >>> chemicals change the contents of your experience. >>> >> > >> ALL?!! If you subtract the contents of your experience from your >> consciousness there is nothing remaining. >> > > > Ever tried an isolation tank? > No I never did and I'll tell you why; if I had gone into one I expect I'd still experience my thoughts unless I was asleep or dead, and I don't need a isolation tank to sleep and I'd prefer not to be dead. > > >>> If conscious is a product of biological complexity >> > > >> If? IF!! We have excellent scientific evidence that it is; in fact I >> can't imagine how the evidence could get any better. > > > > We have zero evidence because you can't even measure consciousness. > I don't know about you but there is one particular consciousness that I know for a fact comes in degrees and sometimes shuts off entirely only to come back online later. > > Why aren't you aware of the consciousness that my neurons produce? > Because I can process the data in my brain but for several well understood physical reason (the inverse square law of electrostatic attraction being one of them) I cannot process the data in your brain. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
