--- 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.
It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. Is your personal conviction that it's all biology a function of biology? That seems to me a lot stranger, frankly. I'm not arguing against evolution, BTW. That's settled, as far as I'm concerned. The problem is that it can't account for human consciousness-- e.g., for Judy and salyavin each having a perspective on an issue, for our arguing about which of those perspectives is correct (or at least more likely). > > > > > 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. Where does one find in the human brain the structures that account for, e.g., personal perspectives on whether human consciousness is explained by biology? If you know of any, *how* do you know? > > > > *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 > > Seem? Yes, because of what I went on to mention: > > (although there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to the > > contrary) > > If only the plural of anecdote was data. Indeed. > I think what you mean to say is that some people mistake > altered states of consciousness for something that's > happening somehow outside of them. No, that is not what I mean to say. In fact, actual data are involved (including data from observers), just not the kind that we have the means to replicate by the standard scientific methods. (OTOH, there are some creative solutions to this problem that propose nonstandard methodology that *should* stand up to skeptical scrutiny. But that's another story.) > , but that doesn't mean they *cause* consciousness. > > Nonsense. Oh, a well-formulated scientific argument, salyavin. ;-) My assertion stands, even without the parenthetical. Brains and consciousness are very highly *correlated*, but that doesn't nail causation. Faucets and water are very highly correlated; does that mean faucets *cause* water? See, I can make the water appear and disappear just by turning the faucet handle! That's like bonking you on the head and making your consciousness disappear, right? Ever read any David Chalmers?
