--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: (snip) > > > > > Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex > > > > > and assume that it must have been created by something more > > > > > complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the > > > > > case where biology is concerned. > > > > > > > > But not where human consciousness is concerned. > > > > > > That's a belief. And a strange one. There isn't any reason to > > > think human consciousness hasn't evolved. Quite the opposite. > > > Look at the brains of other animals both living and extinct, > > > you can easily plot on a graph how the brain has evolved over > > > the millenia and from there see what animals had what skills > > > and what the difference in structures must mean to our awareness > > > and thought capability. > > > > *Brains* have evolved. But until/unless we crack the "hard > > problem," we can have no idea what the differences in brain > > structures might mean with regard to human awareness and > > thought. > > As it's brains that cause consciousness (get someone to hit > you on the head with a heavy object if you don't believe me)
Brains seem to be necessary for consciousness to function (although there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary), but that doesn't mean they *cause* consciousness. And in any case, that's a different sense of the term "consciousness" than I was using, i.e., what the "hard problem" deals with. > and brains have evolved, then consciousness must have evolved > at the same time. Of course consciousness has evolved. I never said otherwise. But that doesn't explain the nature of human consciousness; it doesn't solve the "hard problem," the nature of what consciousness has evolved *to* in humans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness It's a very knotty philosophical problem that can't just be brushed off. > Do you find it difficult to imagine simpler forms of awareness > and thinking? Such as what it's like to be a bat, perhaps? http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf > Maybe if our brains were simpler we'd understand them. Oh wait... > > > (Or rather, we can have plenty of ideas, but they'll > > remain just that, ideas, guesses.) > > > > (snip) > > > > > God is our vanity. > > > > > > > > I'd say the concept physicists (most if not all) have of > > > > God is *their* vanity. > > > > > > Is zero a number? > > > > You know what I mean: what physicists think God would > > have to be like if there were one. It's no wonder > > they're so resistant. > > Again: why would someone try and invent complexity where it > isn't needed? Especially ineffable complexity. You aren't > explaining something if you have to blame your lack of knowledge > on some higher force. That's right. But I wasn't trying to explain anything. I'm suggesting that there may be a higher-order explanation for what we don't yet (and may never) understand, but I'm not providing such an explanation. I don't know whether it would involve ineffable (or effable) complexity or ineffable simplicity, or whether "simple" and "complex" are terms that would even apply. Nor do I know whether it could be called a "force" or even an "entity." I think physicists (most if not all) are ruling out a straw man of their own creation (or adoption).
