--- 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. 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> > The heartbeat is a biological thing.
> 
> And I guess the brain isn't......

You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain
is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well
not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is
biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isn't.

> > > 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.
> 
> So?

So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain
consciousness without being a mystic, which means you
can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a
"mystical type" (if I even am).

> > 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.
> 
> Other than that it can't account for human consciousness?

Nothing wrong with that. It just means we have to look
elsewhere for an understanding of consciousness. Why 
would we even expect evolution to provide the answers to
all questions? That it doesn't isn't a flaw in evolution,
it's a flaw in our expectations.

> PS I know what the "hard" problem is.

I'm sorry to hear that. If you didn't know, there'd be
some excuse for your inability to contribute anything
thoughtful to this discussion (not necessarily agreement,
but at least thoughtful disagreement). You want to "win"
without having to do any work.

You're more than welcome to withdraw from the conversation
if it doesn't interest you.


Reply via email to