--- 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.
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > Which words did you not understand?
>
> I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my
> heartbeat.
Non sequitur. The heartbeat is a biological thing.
> You mystical types start from the wrong place.
I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers
in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God
who make the points I'm making.
And where they start from is the fact that the biology of
evolution doesn't account for human consciousness.
> You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how
> an alternative might fit in?
An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing
wrong with evolution as it is.
> I mean does the brain have to evolve all its
> motor functions and sensory apparatus and then, to get conscious,
> does it go in search of some quantum things that defy the laws of
> physics to bridge the huge gaps in neurons or what happens instead
> of what seems to happen?
*Nobody knows* how consciousness enters the picture. But I don't
think the brain has to "go in search" of anything, quantum or
otherwise, nor defy the laws of physics, nor bridge huge gaps in
neurons. Your imagination seems to be working overtime here.
> If consciousness isn't part of the brain was it hanging around
> waiting for us to evolve to be able to use it? Or maybe it directed
> us in an SCI fashion to become all it can be? Either belief is in
> direct contradiction of how we understand evolution.
No doubt, but I didn't propose either belief.
> So what is this extra thing you think you need? Whatever it is
> I don't need it, thinking is what brains do, seeing and hearing
> and feeling is what they do, it's all they've ever done. Keep watching
> the brain magnet guys. When you know what part does what you'll
> know how it works, making sense of it in a "how does it feel to be
> a whatever..." will be your own problem to work out as the most
> complex object in the known universe is probably beyond its own
> ability to fathom subjectively
Or objectively. It isn't a matter of whether you "need" it;
you've *got* it, willy-nilly, and you couldn't function without
it. But I'm pleased you agree with me that it's possible we'll
never understand how consciousness works. It's what I said to
start with, and as I recall you made some dismissive crack
about how strange it was for me to say that.
The "super amazing" thing is that *there is something that
it is like to be salyavin*. And only salyavin knows what
that is. Salyavin knows what salyavin's brain is thinking and
seeing and hearing and feeling. All that *could* be going on
without anybody at all knowing about it if it were only the
brain doing its thing, just chemicals and electrical signals,
a physical mechanism. But salyavin *does* know about it. He
experiences it. That's what it's like to be salyavin.
>,but all that energy it sucks up must be doing something.
It's creating all of what salyavin experiences (in addition
to maintaining his body).
> > There is indubitably an "extra thing," a thing science has not
> > been able to account for.
>
> Well give them a chance! They've only had the gear to look for
> a few years and it's getting better all the time, it's the most
> complex object in the known universe!
They haven't made any progress with regard to the "hard problem,"
why there is *something that it is like to be salyavin*. That's
the "hard problem." Neuroscience is very busy on all the "easy
problems" (relatively speaking) and has made great progress on
those. But the "hard problem" is of an entirely different order,
and solving the "easy problems" hasn't gotten them any nearer to
solving the hard one.
Many of them don't even acknowledge that there *is* a "hard
problem," which is strange, because what it is like to be
oneself is *the* most salient fact of human existence, and
they have no idea where it came from. Here's all this incredibly
complicated physical stuff that they've figured out in great
detail, but then there's also this other thing that every one
of them experiences all the time that's obviously *nonphysical*,
and they don't seem to think there's any reason to look into it.
Some of them do acknowledge the existence of this phenomenon,
but they claim it's an *illusion*.
Wait, what?? How can it be an illusion? What can that even
mean?
> > But I'm not "blaming 'other' stuff" or proposing mystical or
> > quantum explanations. I'm not proposing anything in particular
> > other than that neuroscience hasn't told us (and may well never
> > tell us) whether the brain causes consciousness, or given us a
> > solution to the "hard problem." Many neuroscientists and
> > philosophers (and most laypeople) don't recognize that there
> > *is* a "hard problem"--even though it's right under their noses
> > every minute of the day. (Or, more likely, *because* it's right
> > under their noses every minute of the day.)
>
> Well why didn't you say earlier it might have saved me a lot of
> typing.
You mean, typing in which you made up all sorts of mystical and/or
quantum-type proposals and attributed them to me, when I had said
nothing at all to that effect? Why didn't you just *not type* all
that?
> > > > Ever read any David Chalmers?
> >
> > Guess not, huh?
>
> Why?
Why read Chalmers? You don't even know who he is? Seriously?
He is one of the leading thinkers--if not *the* leading thinker--
on the "hard problem" of consciousness (he coined the phrase).
He's an atheist and very definitely not a mystic. He is convinced
that consciousness is an entirely natural phenomenon. But he *is*
a dualist ("property dualist," if you know what that is).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
You snipped my YouTube links, but I'm putting them back.
This is his basic explanation of the "hard problem":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
It's about 10 minutes. If you watch it, you should probably also
watch this so you don't make unwarranted assumptions; it's only
a minute and a half:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p0BjA8mvU4
