Why would it be entirely dependent on the correlates of human consciousness given what slime molds are capable of without even one neuron?
we can’t hear what bats and bears take for granted in their world. It would be irrational to suppose we are directly aware of more than a little of what exists. Why assume that our cognition is capable of more than a few limited forays into the vastness of reality? Evolution is a process. We know more than mice (though there must also be things they know that we don’t). A more highly evolved creature may one day regard our understanding of the world much as we now view that of the mouse.
‘The wise scientist’, wrote Chargaff, ‘will be aware of the eternal predicament that between him and the world there always is the barrier of the human brain.’
Having not read the entire thread, I must say this comment reminded me of Hegel saying the goal of history is for reason to become conscious of itself.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
43
What has slime mold efficiency got to do with intentional consciousness? And how if consciousness were an entirely basic, independent constituent of the cosmos then how it interacts with matter and life might be along the lines of how water manifests according to local conditions. How?
Mark, I finally got back to the article and the rest of this thread. Thank you for the article. It’s really more my speed — focused on direct obseration, measurement, testing.
Hart was making claim after claim as obvious without what I could see as support. Maybe it was in chapters 1-4? Much of it sounded very nice, but I couldn’t help myself from constantly asking, “Is that true?” and “If it’s true, how do you know?”
Sorry, Hart. I wanted to like you for Mark’s sake.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
52
Aye Mark. But they’re your hows. Do even you not know how they are?
Could be. Maybe not such a good idea to jump in at the middle but I was eager to see what might be worth reading more to get to. Swing and a miss. I’m not sorry to have moved on. I’m setting him aside for now.
How could I? I seriously doubt that we are in any position as a species to know everything about reality, especially as regards what and how we are as we are. I’m just trying to avoid drinking any of the kool aid on offer from any side. I don’t insist that matter/life doesn’t somehow give rise to consciousness. But I do deny that that is an inescapable fact. We just don’t have the necessary distance to examen ourselves to explain how our experience arises from physics, chemistry and biology. I don’t feel any urgency to come up with an answer. It is a mystery and I’m okay with saying so.
we know that A cannot be non-A at the same time and same relationship in every bit and any form of reality
Let that sink in
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
55
How can you deny that that is an inescapable fact? Transubstantiation science isn’t the remit just of Biblical literalists. I.e. taking a leap of faith in the face of the absurd brute facts of existence. Part of me does it yet. But not enough. The inescapable fact is rationally, emotionally total, 100%. Like the way you love each of your kids 100%. Yearning upon yearning all going the same way. Some impossible superpositioned counter-current of yearning goes the other way against the brute fact of meaningless order. That’s a mystery I’m not OK with. It’s weak. Yet I should be grateful for it.
As a rationale that seems more emotional than rational. So being all in for depending on rationality to guide which beliefs to trust cannot quite pull itself up by its own bootstraps. ‘Facts’ based on what maintains the dignity we feel entitled to are no facts at all. I refuse to be rushed into accepting such facts. My jury remains out.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
57
My judge is wearing a black cap. There is nothing emotional about the rational brute facts of meaningless order including the physical emergence of consciousness, apart from on consciousness.
Science doesn’t point to a meaningless order but scientism does.
Creationism is an obvious misuse of science but using it to argue for the philosophical position of determinism is equally inappropriate.
Not a position you’ve espoused but Daniel Dennett argues that consciousness doesn’t exist at all, or else only as an illusion. I wonder what you think consciousness is if you seriously think physics/chemistry/biology should be able to explain what gives rise to whatever this may be?
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
59
Science measures. Order. Unintentional. And intentional. Like this message. Meaning is measurable. Where is the meaning in unintentional order?
I agree that using creationism to argue for the philosophical position of determinism is equally inappropriate. Who does that? Apart from predestinarian primitives. Consciousness is obviously deterministic of ultimately indeterminate nature. A consequence, among everything else communicated, of the collapse of multiple eigenstate superposition of wave functions. For here we are. I could never use creationism as anything other than an argument for the philosophical position of determinism. Strong in this case.
And as for what Dennett argues, in his own words, where?
I am conscious… that only nature explains that. And that we can never understand what it is saying. How a bag of enzymes can know that it is just a bag of enzymes. I don’t see what the problem is. What the gap is that allows for utter unnecessary nonsense like mass is to consciousness as the Higgs field is to…?
I don’t intend to do all the work for you but if you’re interested this might be a source you’d respect.
But of course while it is in a science journal, there is no scientific basis for what Dennett says. His is a philosophical position which many are critical of for a variety reasons. Frankly what he thinks is so absurd on the face of it that I don’t much care exactly what defense he makes for it. Do we really care to consider every YEC apologist’s rationale for their position? Should we jump in and feed the trolls all the indignation they seek? Not me. Dennett is a philosophy troll who fabricates arguments to fight back in kind against positions he doesn’t respect, and I don’t respect that. He doesn’t deserve a more sympathetic reading but this author is more generous than many.
However if you’d like to unearth his best defense in this I’d be happy to take the role debunking his position. I don’t respect him enough to take the time to wade through his original words. Life is too short to give everyone a fair reading. Triage is required.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
61
I’ve already read it. What about your defence of your bizarre claims and analogies?
