EPTIf the life science could do so in principle, it would have to look radically different from what it is now. It won't just be a matter of filling the blanks in out present level of knowledge in neuroscience.
Hydras, the origin of eyes! - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
If the life science could do so in principle, it would have to look radically different from what it is now. It won't just be a matter of filling the blanks in out present level of knowledge in neuroscience. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 10 2007 00:25 HnR)hT wrote: I just realized that my overall point can be stated very compactly: science doesn't predict consciousness. If the life science could do so in principle, it would have to look radically different from what it is now. It won't just be a matter of filling the blanks in out present level of knowledge in neuroscience. Assuming that consciousness is an advantage to those that possess it, and I would say that it is, then Evolutionary Theory predicts that were it to develop it would be passed on. Mutation and natural selection... that's really the extent of the involvement of the Theory of Evolution in this problem As for understanding the mechanics behind consciousness, and of the human brain, neuroscientists still have a long way to go, but that has very little if any bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 10 2007 01:29 Mindcrime wrote: Assuming that consciousness is an advantage to those that possess it, and I would say that it is, then Evolutionary Theory predicts that were it to develop it would be passed on. Mutation and natural selection... that's really the extent of the involvement of the Theory of Evolution in this problem This is why I had reservations about posting the above, because people will reply to it instead of refuting the detailed justification I gave in the two earlier posts above. You're the 3rd person to raise this exact point and I feel I've already answered it. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2630 Posts
Would you say, an ability to think ahead is a result of conciousness? So in that case, could we say that any organism capable of thinking ahead for itself is concious? Maybe it's a bit broad, and definately prone to philosophycal interpretation, but I'm interested in what you guys have to say. [edit]: put it another way, what are the effects of conciousness on an organism? | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On November 10 2007 00:25 HnR)hT wrote: I just realized that my overall point can be stated very compactly: science doesn't predict consciousness. If the life science could do so in principle, it would have to look radically different from what it is now. It won't just be a matter of filling the blanks in out present level of knowledge in neuroscience. Ok let me start by throwing out a good definition;o Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. I don't think I am repeating what other's said, but if I missed it, I apologize. ( just quote something if you already responded to it.) I would ask why you think consciousness is "real" in the first place? In your posts you seem to make that assumption. To me, it seems that being self aware, is nothing more then a label for intelligent creatures. You seem to be separating what we as humans experience, and what is physically real. Consciousness is simply a word to describe a very real physical relationship with our brain. Obviously we as humans are different because our intelligence is high enough to "realize" we are self aware, but there is a difference between being being self ware and thinking about it. The bottom line is that externally there is no way to distinguish sentient life from mindless biomechanical automata. An interesting thought is that in all likely hood, consciousness is just a VERY complex form of biochemical automata, controlling what we seem to be aware of and think about. Anyway, I feel your argument is based on an erroneous assumption that consciousness is something more then just a series of chemical reactions in our brain. To me it seems very similar to when people talk about "free will, the mind, and spirit." I haven't read up much on any of this, but those are just my first thoughts. I'll go look into this though, it seems interesting. | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
On November 10 2007 03:03 OverTheUnder wrote: An interesting thought is that in all likely hood, consciousness is just a VERY complex form of biochemical automata, controlling what we seem to be aware of and think about. ^This is the way I see it right now. Also, I don't think there's a precise border for consciousness. I think animals experience something similar, but just more dumbed down since their brain is less complex. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
I might make a comprehensive reply later when I'm not trashed on painkillers. | ||
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
What if consciousness is needed to reach a certain level of intelligence? What if humans and other intelligent animals minds couldnt exist without consciousness? I see consciousness as a sideeffect of having brains developed as far as ours are. I believe the brain = the mind and that every organ in the human body works through chemistry and physics. There is no magic behind it. I cant see why you want to single out the human species from the others on earth and the brain from the other organs and throw away evolution when it has worked so well to explain everything else. Just because we dont understand something yet or cant prove it I see no reason to call for God. If we always called for god whenever we didnt understand something science wouldnt progess far. On November 10 2007 03:29 HnR)hT wrote: Are high IQ people more self-aware than dumb people? If so, does this mean their lives are worth more for the same reason a human life is worth more than that of a chicken? I might make a comprehensive reply later when I'm not trashed on painkillers. I think our conclusion here should be to treat higher standing animals better, not treat dumb people worse. I think it says more about our immoral treatment of animals than about our treatment of humans. But its true in many societys today human life doesnt seem to have much value. There are many places where there is no working healthcare system and where poor people get no help and are left to starve. Im happy I dont live in such a county ._. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Or, better said, it makes sense for sentience to believe it's either sentience or unsentient, but makes no sense for unsentience to believe either, since the fact of its existence requires no subjection to doubt. Basically, barring a large shift in the semantic meaning of the word "conscious," we generally accept this state to be conscious, and if we want to make a connotative shift in the word, we would have to establish it to be philosophically justified. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
1) If all stream-of-consciousness is entirely a consequence of mechanistic phenomena, then consciousness itself is epiphenomenal. The "mind = brain" equation rules out freedom, as opposed to the illusion of freedom. But if all thought and sentience is epiphenomenal, then it could not possibly bestow evolutionary advantages. Thus, to believe that consciousness is mechanistic and arose from evolution by random mutations and natural selection is to believe a contradiction. 2) Imagine that Newtonian mechanics had failed to predict the tides, and that the scientific establishment was unphased by, and downright evasive about, the issue. Imagine that physicists responded to criticisms of the theory on this point by issuing statements like "tides are only illusory since everything in mechanics is adequately explained without mentioning the tides." Absurd? As I've pointed out several times, nothing in the life sciences predicts consciousness. | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
On November 10 2007 04:36 HnR)hT wrote: A couple of quick points: 1) If all stream-of-consciousness is entirely a consequence of mechanistic phenomena, then consciousness itself is epiphenomenal. The "mind = brain" equation rules out freedom, as opposed to the illusion of freedom. But if all thought and sentience is epiphenomenal, then it could not possibly bestow evolutionary advantages. Thus, to believe that consciousness is mechanistic and arose from evolution by random mutations and natural selection is to believe a contradiction. 2) Imagine that Newtonian mechanics had failed to predict the tides, and that the scientific establishment was unphased by, and downright evasive about, the issue. Imagine that physicists responded to criticisms of the theory on this point by issuing statements like "tides are only illusory since everything in mechanics is adequately explained without mentioning the tides." Absurd? As I've pointed out several times, nothing in the life sciences predicts consciousness. Ok, I can see your argument and the problem is the way you look at consciousness. Your argument is essentially: let's say all is a consequence of mechanistic phenomena then why do we have consciousness? It's superfluous ->no darwinian explanation The way I see it is that consciousness IS the mechanic processes in our brain, it's nothing extra that we experience. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
I have no patience for statements of this type. The brain is just a complex organ; the mind contains the totality of subjective experiences, thoughts, perceptions and emotions that make up who we are. Anybody who says that brain = mind is playing little semantic games and denying the obvious. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
however, the increasingly dismissive and narrowminded arguments both sides are making have started to make their posters seem foolish. quite frankly nobody here is at a reasonable level of education to speak knowledgeably about this topic - hell, even people who are qualified still cannot give much beyond theories. while it's respectable to formulate your own theories on new territories because of evidence supporting it, trying to debate it without proper background and inane arguments is a bit embarrassing. how you guys stubbornly let a 'scientific' argument degenerate like a religion thread is quite remarkable :[ | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
There is a big difference between something we have yet to explain, and something that actually violates or contradicts our theory. Furthermore, IMO you are in no position to be dictating whether brain = mind, unless you are secretly researching congnitive science. It is not 100% clear whether the brain is or is not the mind, but most cognitive science researchers believe the two are the same thing. So according to you, the majority of these researchers are "playing little semantic games", "denying the obvious", and believe something that "seems so ludicrous as to border on the perverse"? Back on the topic of consciousness, I don't think you can blame us for not understanding it very well yet, seeing as how the entire field of cognitive science is currently less than 50 years old. There's not much evolutionary scientists can do about that: they don't have anything better to work with than speculations about what would and would not be beneficial for an animal. So it's only natural that the theory of evolution does not have any explanation for it yet. Lastly, personally, I think it's obvious how consciousness would be advantageous. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/courses/phil256.2007.html Week 10 (next week) we will be learning about Consciousness, and I am looking forward to it  . IIRC, he will be adding his powerpoint slides for Consciousness on Monday (Nov 12th).Edit: furthermore, in the notes for week 10 that are currently available, he gives us links to 4 websites for consciousness: University of Arizona Center for Consciousness Studies David Chalmers on consciousness Representational theories of consciousness Francis Crick on consciousness | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 10 2007 07:32 Bill307 wrote: HnR)hT, how can you claim that consciousness presents a flaw in the theory of evolution? It is not a flaw at all, just something our current best theory doesn't (according to you) explain yet. There is a big difference between something we have yet to explain, and something that actually violates or contradicts our theory. I already addressed this point here: Why is all this, then, a major problem for the evolution program? Take an analogy from astrophysics. Suppose that some time in the future, maybe in 50 years, our leading theory on the evolution of the universe is so detailed that we have a clear working picture of when and how every particle appeared and how galaxies and planets and galactic superclusters came into being, and that everything fits together extremely neatly to give a highly plausible model for nearly everything in astrophysics. But then suppose that suddenly someone discovers a completely new kind astrophysical phenomenon or object that, while it doesn't violate the known laws of physics in an obvious way, is completely out of place in the current model of the universe. Obviously scientists would then have to modify the model to account for the new type of phenomenon. But now suppose that, 150 years after this major discovery, the leading model of the universe is still in a nearly-unchanged state such that it is equally compatible with both the existence and the non-existence of the new phenomenon. If scientists were to abandon trying to change the leading theory on the grounds of its compatibility with the new phenomenon even though they don't have a good picture of how it came about and how it relates to everything else, then they would no longer deserve to be called scientists. If minor tweaks in the leading theory are insufficient to provide a satisfactory account of the new phenomenon, the courageous and right thing to do would be to seek a radical shift in some fundamental and till-then unquestioned assumption of the theory. The ubiquitous criticism of String Theory, for example, is that, while it may be consistent with what we know, it is not PREDICTIVE. In other words it's not enough for a scientific theory to be consistent with everything we know; the theory also has to predict phenomena that are eminently relevant to what the theory is trying to describe and that are actually observed. It's not just that in its current state biological science can't explain or predict consciousness, but that it seems highly likely that on its current track it will never happen. On November 10 2007 07:32 Bill307 wrote: Furthermore, IMO you are in no position to be dictating whether brain = mind, unless you are secretly researching congnitive science. It is not 100% clear whether the brain is or is not the mind, but most cognitive science researchers believe the two are the same thing. Unless I've missed some huge discovery that must've been all over the news, it is still the case that cognitive science has NOTHING TO SAY on this matter - which, incidentally, renders the opinions of cognitive scientists highly irrelevant. Like I already acknowledged in a previous post, Anybody who says that brain = mind is playing little semantic games and denying the obvious. And unfortunately, a lot of philosophers and the vast majority of life scientists are in this category. So you aren't exactly englightening me by bringing this fact up now. Add to that the scientists' notorious inability to reason with philosophic rigor and that plenty of philosophers disagree with them, and you can see what their authority on the question amounts to. Again, the mind = brain equation strikes me as absurd, like saying a giraffe and a monkey are really the same thing. It would take extraordinary evidence to demolish such a basic and obvious-seeming intuition. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
If anything, evolution currently supports the rise of consciousness(at least more than any other theory, because I have heard of none). | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On November 10 2007 07:32 Bill307 wrote: Lastly, personally, I think it's obvious how consciousness would be advantageous. I am curious. So please explain ! | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
Since consciousness exists, it is evidently a result of evolution. It's existence proves that it is a result of evolution. .. this is the circular thought process you're stacked against; my suggestion is to not bother with that, and focus on fundamental assumptions. | ||
| ||
