Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:04 pm**

Hello Members;

I have been here for a while, mostly lurking, and think it is time to introduce myself and see if this is a place where I can continue my studies. For the last year I have been looking into philosophy forums for answers and information; been banned from two of them, once by my own request--actually it was a demand--and although I have learned a lot, I have yet to find a place where I am comfortable. I am studying consciousness; and apparently, I have some rather odd ideas about it which puts me at odds with other people.

First, I must say that Monism v Dualism, and most of the other isms that have grown out of that idea, is a monstrous waste of time, as this concept is more about power than it is about consciousness. It is a game of, "Who's the Boss?", man or God, science or religion, and should be argued in politics or religion, as it is not a study of consciousness.

Second, in my personal opinion, philosophical debate and rationalization have little value with regard to the study of consciousness. Many people disagree. My understanding is that in philosophical debate, one is supposed to define his/her position and argue against the opponent's position to prove where the opponent is wrong. After 2000 years of this kind of debate, we have discovered that everybody is wrong, so I suggest that a change of tactics may be in order. I prefer Socratic discussion. As to rationalization, it is my understanding that when we rationalize something, we place reasonable logical steps in a cogent order to show the comprehensive relationship of one thing to another. Science employs this type of thinking regularly, and it is a good way to establish the connection and facts of the matter, but when the "one" thing or the "another" is not known, problems arise. How does one place reasonable logical steps to an unknown? It is my thought that we end up connecting these steps in a rational manner to whatever we imagine, and that the imagined ending is more in line with our motivations than with any reality. Rational thinking invites "cherry picking" of facts when dealing with an unknown, so I prefer the more exploratory critical thinking in matters that are unknown or subjective.

Third, I believe that "random chance" is nonsense and science is not going to find any answers as long as they keep putting their faith in neurology. Although neurology can tell us a great deal about the brain and some things about the mind, it has no comprehension of the origin, scope, or workings of consciousness. Some day consciousness will be proven, but I suspect that the proof will come by way of chemistry, hormones, and study of the endocrine system--probably long after I am dead. For now, the soft sciences have more information about the mind--animal behavior, psychology, and psychiatry. The study that knows the most about consciousness is, of course, religion--as they have been studying it for thousands of years, probably tens of thousands. Unfortunately, they have decided to name it God and interpret it as good and evil, which brings me to the most awkward part of my thinking. Not being religious, I see no real difference between religion and psychic phenomenon as regards the study of consciousness, so I have included both in my studies. This seems to disturb people.

So, is there anyone whose thinking about consciousness is close to mine? Is there anyone who has been published, that compares to my way of thinking? If I mention ghosts or premonitions or auras, are the members going to suddenly become incoherent with denial--probably because they are trying to type while foaming at the mouth and holding crossed sticks in front of themselves? Should I just keep my ideas to myself and continue to mostly lurk?

Gee

Posted: **Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:42 pm**

Gee wrote:Hello Members;

I have been here for a while, mostly lurking, and think it is time to introduce myself and see if this is a place where I can continue my studies. For the last year I have been looking into philosophy forums for answers and information; been banned from two of them, once by my own request--actually it was a demand--and although I have learned a lot, I have yet to find a place where I am comfortable. I am studying consciousness; and apparently, I have some rather odd ideas about it which puts me at odds with other people.

First, I must say that Monism v Dualism, and most of the other isms that have grown out of that idea, is a monstrous waste of time, as this concept is more about power than it is about consciousness. It is a game of, "Who's the Boss?", man or God, science or religion, and should be argued in politics or religion, as it is not a study of consciousness.

Second, in my personal opinion, philosophical debate and rationalization have little value with regard to the study of consciousness. Many people disagree. My understanding is that in philosophical debate, one is supposed to define his/her position and argue against the opponent's position to prove where the opponent is wrong. After 2000 years of this kind of debate, we have discovered that everybody is wrong, so I suggest that a change of tactics may be in order. I prefer Socratic discussion. As to rationalization, it is my understanding that when we rationalize something, we place reasonable logical steps in a cogent order to show the comprehensive relationship of one thing to another. Science employs this type of thinking regularly, and it is a good way to establish the connection and facts of the matter, but when the "one" thing or the "another" is not known, problems arise. How does one place reasonable logical steps to an unknown? It is my thought that we end up connecting these steps in a rational manner to whatever we imagine, and that the imagined ending is more in line with our motivations than with any reality. Rational thinking invites "cherry picking" of facts when dealing with an unknown, so I prefer the more exploratory critical thinking in matters that are unknown or subjective.

Third, I believe that "random chance" is nonsense and science is not going to find any answers as long as they keep putting their faith in neurology. Although neurology can tell us a great deal about the brain and some things about the mind, it has no comprehension of the origin, scope, or workings of consciousness. Some day consciousness will be proven, but I suspect that the proof will come by way of chemistry, hormones, and study of the endocrine system--probably long after I am dead. For now, the soft sciences have more information about the mind--animal behavior, psychology, and psychiatry. The study that knows the most about consciousness is, of course, religion--as they have been studying it for thousands of years, probably tens of thousands. Unfortunately, they have decided to name it God and interpret it as good and evil, which brings me to the most awkward part of my thinking. Not being religious, I see no real difference between religion and psychic phenomenon as regards the study of consciousness, so I have included both in my studies. This seems to disturb people.

So, is there anyone whose thinking about consciousness is close to mine? Is there anyone who has been published, that compares to my way of thinking? If I mention ghosts or premonitions or auras, are the members going to suddenly become incoherent with denial--probably because they are trying to type while foaming at the mouth and holding crossed sticks in front of themselves? Should I just keep my ideas to myself and continue to mostly lurk?

Gee

I'm a bit puzzled by what you mean by this sentence; "Third, I believe that "random chance" is nonsense and science is not going to find any answers as long as they keep putting their faith in neurology."
Are you asserting that these two things are connected? I don't think science has faith in Neurology. Good science realises that what science does is describe the universe. Neurology is a good description of what is the physical conditions of the brain. I'm not sure what your objection is here, or who you think is indulging in faith.

The other puzzling thing is the idea that consciousness is to be proven. I've no idea where you are going with this.
Consciousness is primary, we undersand every thing through it and everything else is proven within its purview. There is nothing more understandable than consciousness, via our experience of it - direct immediate. Everything else is secondary and little more than a collection of self-confirming metaphors.

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:10 am**

I took it to mean stages of consciousness culminating into enlightenment. An esoteric interest.

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:19 am**

chaz wyman wrote:I'm a bit puzzled by what you mean by this sentence; "Third, I believe that "random chance" is nonsense and science is not going to find any answers as long as they keep putting their faith in neurology."
Are you asserting that these two things are connected? I don't think science has faith in Neurology. Good science realises that what science does is describe the universe. Neurology is a good description of what is the physical conditions of the brain. I'm not sure what your objection is here, or who you think is indulging in faith.

Yes, I see them as connected; but then I see a lot of things as connected. It is my understanding that science accepts "random chance" as an explanation for evolution; religion accepts God as that explanation; I see consciousness as that explanation. I think that consciousness causes species to evolve and there is nothing random about it.

Neurology is looking for consciousness in the brain. Even if I did not see all of the articles, and posts, related to this idea, I know of a neurologist, who is very involved in the process of trying to cause consciousness in AI, so I know this work is ongoing. Consciousness is the connection that I see.

You are correct; "faith" was a poor choice of words. My apologies.

chaz wyman wrote:The other puzzling thing is the idea that consciousness is to be proven. I've no idea where you are going with this.

My thought is that philosophy comes up with theories and ideas, which they hand over to science, then science either proves or disproves them. Bottom line--science is the answer man.

chaz wyman wrote:Consciousness is primary, we understand every thing through it and everything else is proven within its purview. There is nothing more understandable than consciousness, via our experience of it - direct immediate. Everything else is secondary and little more than a collection of self-confirming metaphors.

I'm not sure where to start, as I can't agree with most of this. Although nothing that you state above is actually untrue, it is also not very clear and seems to be a very subjective view. So for clarity, is the "consciousness" that you are speaking of awareness, thought, or mind? Or some combination of those? And it is "primary" to us? to life? or to the universe? Is it subjective? Is it in other species? Are you thinking that a tree can understand it via "experience of it - direct immediate"?

If it is so understandable, then why are there so many theories on it?

When I use the word consciousness, I am referring to all consciousness from the universal panpsychism view through mind and awareness and all of life. What are you talking about?

Gee

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:24 am**

Gee wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:I'm a bit puzzled by what you mean by this sentence; "Third, I believe that "random chance" is nonsense and science is not going to find any answers as long as they keep putting their faith in neurology."
Are you asserting that these two things are connected? I don't think science has faith in Neurology. Good science realises that what science does is describe the universe. Neurology is a good description of what is the physical conditions of the brain. I'm not sure what your objection is here, or who you think is indulging in faith.
Yes, I see them as connected; but then I see a lot of things as connected. It is my understanding that science accepts "random chance" as an explanation for evolution; religion accepts God as that explanation; I see consciousness as that explanation. I think that consciousness causes species to evolve and there is nothing random about it.

NO way. All science is based on determinism; that for everything there is a cause.
Evolution is not random selection - and I challenge you to find ANY scientist that says this.
Evolution is the result of the most fittest individuals in a species having greater reproductive success than others. Traits that have assisted in their survival are those mostly selected. As long as viable progeny are the result of the living process, evolution will continue to favour those.
How is that random?

As for consciousness - it does not matter a damn how conscious of my situation I am. There is no amount of thinking I can do that will change my genome, nor make me able to have viable progeny. I can't think my way to evolve, I have to act.

Neurology is looking for consciousness in the brain. Even if I did not see all of the articles, and posts, related to this idea, I know of a neurologist, who is very involved in the process of trying to cause consciousness in AI, so I know this work is ongoing. Consciousness is the connection that I see.

You are correct; "faith" was a poor choice of words. My apologies.
chaz wyman wrote:The other puzzling thing is the idea that consciousness is to be proven. I've no idea where you are going with this.
My thought is that philosophy comes up with theories and ideas, which they hand over to science, then science either proves or disproves them. Bottom line--science is the answer man.
chaz wyman wrote:Consciousness is primary, we understand every thing through it and everything else is proven within its purview. There is nothing more understandable than consciousness, via our experience of it - direct immediate. Everything else is secondary and little more than a collection of self-confirming metaphors.
I'm not sure where to start, as I can't agree with most of this.
Yet you are conscious of my answer and of your disagrement.
Although nothing that you state above is actually untrue, it is also not very clear and seems to be a very subjective view.
Every view you or I have is 100% subjective. It is only when we agree that we can begin to call it objective. That is the point. Consciousness is your given, there is nothing more we can understand better.
So for clarity, is the "consciousness" that you are speaking of awareness, thought, or mind? Or some combination of those?
You know what consciousness is. Adding those words is just adding a list of poorly understood metaphors. You know what it is like to be conscious and we all know what it means.
And it is "primary" to us? to life? or to the universe? Is it subjective? Is it in other species? Are you thinking that a tree can understand it via "experience of it - direct immediate"?

Everything you understand; think; are aware of; have knowledge of including "life, "us", "other species" is via the fact that you are conscious of them. Living things that demonstrate similar life-ways are likely to have consciousness. I THINK you might be conscious. I think a monkey is. In fact you can see a monkey being aware of his own reflection. Higher animals also exhibit similar action and reaction to similar stimuli and it is likely that they too are conscious. We also know that humans loose consciousness with brain damage drugs etc.. Tree do not. It is safe to conclude that a tree might in some sense 'be aware' of water in the ground and respond to absorb it, but they do not have the nervous matter as we do.

If it is so understandable, then why are there so many theories on it?

Because people make the mistake of taking an objective outlook, when all the time it is all they really have. The only thing they can possibly understand, and that understanding is the experience of it.

When I use the word consciousness, I am referring to all consciousness from the universal panpsychism view through mind and awareness and all of life. What are you talking about?

You have no evidence of Panpsychism; you do have evidence of your won consciousness. You are aware of a theory of it, but you only have your personal consciousness - for which your experience gives you more understanding than any other phenomenon in the universe - all the rest is just guess work and perception. I do not think Panpsyschism is in any way useful, and can be thought of as basically ridiculous when it comes the the level is a conscious rock. I mean what does a rock think about - what does it use to think with? How does it get the information with which to think.

Gee

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:15 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:
Gee wrote: Yes, I see them as connected; but then I see a lot of things as connected. It is my understanding that science accepts "random chance" as an explanation for evolution; religion accepts God as that explanation; I see consciousness as that explanation. I think that consciousness causes species to evolve and there is nothing random about it.

NO way. All science is based on determinism; that for everything there is a cause.
Evolution is not random selection - and I challenge you to find ANY scientist that says this.
Evolution is the result of the most fittest individuals in a species having greater reproductive success than others. Traits that have assisted in their survival are those mostly selected. As long as viable progeny are the result of the living process, evolution will continue to favour those.
How is that random?

Chaz is correct here, but to clarify, the "Scientists" who claim evolution is 'random' would be those who are trying to discredit evolution as a scientific theory, and many of these are creationists masquerading as scientists. Evolution is not random, it is directed by selection, natural in the wild and selective breading in domestic animals and plants. Consciousness does not cause evolution but it is how we are aware of it, evolution is caused by the environment, just as Chaz has explained. The only way consciousness can be brought into evolution is to asscribe it to God as the conscious being directing it, but this is not part of science or anything we can observe and find evidence for.

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:27 pm**

Consciousness is something every person, and we assume many living things, experiences and probably has some intuitive understanding of. But the difficulty is in trying to qualify and quantify a descriptiion of it. Possibly the most basic thing we can say about it is that consciousness is our awareness of ourselves, our thoughts, and our surroundings and build on that.

Posted: **Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:32 pm**

thedoc wrote:Consciousness is something every person, and we assume many living things, experiences and probably has some intuitive understanding of. But the difficulty is in trying to qualify and quantify a descriptiion of it. Possibly the most basic thing we can say about it is that consciousness is our awareness of ourselves, our thoughts, and our surroundings and build on that.

It seems to me that consciousness is the only thing whose understanding can be improved by further description. It is the thing experienced, and nothing can be more close to our understanding.
First we are conscious, then we are conscious of the rest of the world. But that which we think we know about the rest of the world has to be filtered through the conscious mind. In some sense the whole world is little more that our conscious apprehension of it; being secondary to consciousness of it.
So in this way there is nothing more to be said about it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:23 am**

Chaz Wyman wrote:NO way. All science is based on determinism; that for everything there is a cause.

Granted. But that cause is not always physical matter.

Chaz Wyman wrote:Evolution is not random selection - and I challenge you to find ANY scientist that says this.

I can't even find a scientist that will state that other species have consciousness or minds. But if I follow a scientist home, and find him picking up the garbage that his dog left all over the house, then I bet that I can find a scientist who will say; "Why can't that damned dog learn? He needs to keep out of the garbage. I am going to have to pay for obedience school."
Why would the scientist do that? Dogs are not conscious and don't have minds. Scientists are funny.

Chaz Wyman wrote:Evolution is the result of the most fittest individuals in a species having greater reproductive success than others. Traits that have assisted in their survival are those mostly selected. As long as viable progeny are the result of the living process, evolution will continue to favour those.
How is that random?

What was the first selection? What caused the diversity that is in an ecosystem? What causes an ecosystem to stay in balance, or return to balance after being destroyed, and survive for thousands of years? The problem with evolution and determinism, is that they work very well on an existing system; so if God made the earth, then the plants and animals, then man--evolution and determinism take over and work. If on the other hand, God did not do all of this, then there are problems with determinism and evolution. Quite ironic really, as determinism and evolution are supposed to be concepts that don't involve a God.

Chaz Wyman wrote:"no amount of thinking I can do that will change my genome"
"I can't think my way to evolve"
"Consciousness is primary, we understand every thing through it"
"nothing more understandable than consciousness"
"Yet you are conscious of my answer"

Considering the above comments that I found in your post, and comments below, I think that your interpretation of consciousness is the rational thinking mind. Yes?

Chaz Wyman wrote:
Gee wrote:So for clarity, is the "consciousness" that you are speaking of awareness, thought, or mind? Or some combination of those?
You know what consciousness is. Adding those words is just adding a list of poorly understood metaphors. You know what it is like to be conscious and we all know what it means.

Awareness, thought, and mind are concepts--not metaphors.

Chaz Wyman wrote:Living things that demonstrate similar life-ways are likely to have consciousness. I THINK you might be conscious. I think a monkey is.

This is a problem. People have decide that since consciousness is subjective, we can not know for sure if anyone else is conscious, which leads to some very strange ideas. In another forum I was told about a philosopher who wrote a book that carefully explained that we can not know if anyone is conscious except ourselves. I thought to myself, who does he think is going to buy and read his book? The non-conscious other people? How absurd.

Chaz Wyman wrote:It is safe to conclude that a tree might in some sense 'be aware' of water in the ground and respond to absorb it, but they do not have the nervous matter as we do.

With your explanation of "nervous matter", it appears that you do see consciousness as a brain function. I think that all life is conscious to some degree. Remember that to be conscious of something is to be aware of something, and trees are aware of the need to grow their roots toward water, to turn their leaves to the sun, even to communicate with other trees of the same kind when bacterial or insect infestations cause them harm--this is a new understanding. Plants are also the only species that can actually contort the growth of their bodies to survive.

Chaz Wyman wrote:
Gee wrote:If it is so understandable, then why are there so many theories on it?
Because people make the mistake of taking an objective outlook, when all the time it is all they really have. The only thing they can possibly understand, and that understanding is the experience of it.

This is nonsense. Don't tell science that the only thing we can understand is what we experience. This is why we have books, so that we can understand things that we have not experienced. Do you mean that it must be subjective to understand it?

Chaz Wyman wrote:You have no evidence of Panpsychism; you do have evidence of your own consciousness. I do not think Panpsyschism is in any way useful, and can be thought of as basically ridiculous when it comes the the level is a conscious rock. I mean what does a rock think about - what does it use to think with? How does it get the information with which to think.

I never said that I had evidence of it, I was talking about a universal concept. I think that Panpsychism is interesting because it resolves the problem of the mental arising from the physical, in the explanation that everything has a mental aspect. But it is also problematic in that it blurs the line between life and what is not alive.

Thinking is not consciousness. If it were, then AI would be conscious. Thinking is just processing information and it requires a brain/processor. Consider that many species have brains that can process thought--MRI's prove this. But we refuse to admit that they are conscious, or that they have minds. Why? Well it can not be known because consciousness is subjective and they can not tell us that they are conscious. But we accept that people are conscious even when they can not communicate that consciousness, as in babies and the handicapped. Why the difference? What is the rule that we use to make this division?

Well, science enthusiasts, there is only one rule that can consistently cause these delineations, and that rule came from religion. Humans are made in God's image, have a soul/mind, and are conscious; other species are not. The idea that humans are conscious and other species are not did not come from science, it came from religion.

Gee

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:44 am**

thedoc wrote:Chaz is correct here, but to clarify, the "Scientists" who claim evolution is 'random' would be those who are trying to discredit evolution as a scientific theory, and many of these are creationists masquerading as scientists.

This seems to be a very biased explanation. I am not a creationist, but I find that there are flaws in the idea that evolution is the solitary answer. It works well after life has gotten started, but has no explanation as to how life started. It is at most a partial explanation. I think that a better understanding of consciousness can actually improve the validity of evolution.

thedoc wrote:Evolution is not random, it is directed by selection, natural in the wild and selective breading in domestic animals and plants.

But what directs the selection in the natural world? That is the question.

thedoc wrote:Consciousness does not cause evolution but it is how we are aware of it, evolution is caused by the environment, just as Chaz has explained.

I think that it is a little premature to say that consciousness does or does not cause anything, since we don't really know what consciousness actually is. The only thing that we know about it is how it feels and works within us--and that is excluding the subconscious mind that we know almost nothing about.

thedoc wrote:The only way consciousness can be brought into evolution is to ascribe it to God as the conscious being directing it, but this is not part of science or anything we can observe and find evidence for.

Bullshit. Just because religions have decided to say that consciousness is God, that does not mean that consciousness is God. Let's get a little bit more real here--religions work off of faith, they do not work with anything close to a scientific method.

THEY COULD BE WRONG.

Gee

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:14 am**

thedoc wrote:Evolution is not random, it is directed by selection, natural in the wild and selective breading in domestic animals and plants.

Gee wrote:But what directs the selection in the natural world? That is the question.

The basic idea of evolution is that sexual reproduction creates new combinations of genes; some of these combinations will be attractive to potential mates, hence the lucky creature gets their rocks off more than the misfits, thereby increasing the prevalance of the successful gene. There is no need for any director or even direction, if it feels good, do it pretty well sums up evolution.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:54 am**

Gee wrote:
Chaz Wyman wrote:NO way. All science is based on determinism; that for everything there is a cause.
Granted. But that cause is not always physical matter.
So what?
Chaz Wyman wrote:Evolution is not random selection - and I challenge you to find ANY scientist that says this.
I can't even find a scientist that will state that other species have consciousness or minds.
Dah - then you have not been paying any attention!
Dogs are not conscious and don't have minds. Scientists are funny.
Chaz Wyman wrote:Evolution is the result of the most fittest individuals in a species having greater reproductive success than others. Traits that have assisted in their survival are those mostly selected. As long as viable progeny are the result of the living process, evolution will continue to favour those.
How is that random?
What was the first selection? What caused the diversity that is in an ecosystem?
Mutations, Variation. Are you paying attention?
What causes an ecosystem to stay in balance, or return to balance after being destroyed, and survive for thousands of years?
It does not stay in balance. All things are in constant change. Take a walk outisde. The temperature changes from minute to minute; the tides are turned by the moon; the wind blows and the rivers flow; rocks are destroyed, settle and then re-form into sedimentary rocks; earthquakes; hurricanes.
This constant change favours living things that are best suited to particular environments, and those that are most adaptable. This change is what makes evolution happen.
The problem with evolution and determinism, is that they work very well on an existing system; so if God made the earth, then the plants and animals, then man--evolution and determinism take over and work. If on the other hand, God did not do all of this, then there are problems with determinism and evolution. Quite ironic really, as determinism and evolution are supposed to be concepts that don't involve a God.

So you believe in God, so not evolution - why did you not say so in the first place?

Chaz Wyman wrote:"no amount of thinking I can do that will change my genome"
"I can't think my way to evolve"
"Consciousness is primary, we understand every thing through it"
"nothing more understandable than consciousness"
"Yet you are conscious of my answer"
Considering the above comments that I found in your post, and comments below, I think that your interpretation of consciousness is the rational thinking mind. Yes?
Not exclusively, no
Gee wrote:So for clarity, is the "consciousness" that you are speaking of awareness, thought, or mind? Or some combination of those?
You know what consciousness is. Adding those words is just adding a list of poorly understood metaphors. You know what it is like to be conscious and we all know what it means.

Awareness, thought, and mind are concepts--not metaphors.

Chaz Wyman wrote:Living things that demonstrate similar life-ways are likely to have consciousness. I THINK you might be conscious. I think a monkey is.

This is a problem. People have decide that since consciousness is subjective, we can not know for sure if anyone else is conscious, which leads to some very strange ideas. In another forum I was told about a philosopher who wrote a book that carefully explained that we can not know if anyone is conscious except ourselves. I thought to myself, who does he think is going to buy and read his book? The non-conscious other people? How absurd.
Philosophy is good at developing thought experiments, to test assumptions. If the conclusion is absurd then so is the premise. But you don't get to say it is absurd until you have thought it through. That is the beauty of Philosophy.

Chaz Wyman wrote:It is safe to conclude that a tree might in some sense 'be aware' of water in the ground and respond to absorb it, but they do not have the nervous matter as we do.

With your explanation of "nervous matter", it appears that you do see consciousness as a brain function.
Correct. I think that all life is conscious to some degree.
How absurd of you to think that way! You have not done the think it through bit. Remember that to be conscious of something is to be aware of something, and trees are aware of the need to grow their roots toward water, to turn their leaves to the sun, even to communicate with other trees of the same kind when bacterial or insect infestations cause them harm--this is a new understanding. Plants are also the only species that can actually contort the growth of their bodies to survive.
But that does not put a tree in a position to direct its own evolution. It simply does not have enough information. Humans that seem to have as much consciousness as anything still cannot direct evolution, just by willing it to be so. They have to get their hands dirty and splice genes.

Gee wrote:If it is so understandable, then why are there so many theories on it?

Because people make the mistake of taking an objective outlook, when all the time it is all they really have. The only thing they can possibly understand, and that understanding is the experience of it.[/quote]
This is nonsense. Don't tell science that the only thing we can understand is what we experience.

You are mad. Science is exactly that. Everything is attends to is based on EVIDENCE. All evidence is based on what we are able to experience. Its what you might call Empiricism 101. Science is not fantastical speculation about things beyond experience. It is that diligent study of evidence through what can be sensed, and extended by instrumentation.

This is why we have books, so that we can understand things that we have not experienced. Do you mean that it must be subjective to understand it?

I do not mean anything of the sort. I am telling you that we experience consciousness, and that is the best understanding of it you will ever have. Science can prod and poke and scan; it can make great observations about what the brain does when a person thinks this and that, it can ever detect sound shapes thought by the brain, but when it comes right down to it, all it can offer is pretty pictures and an ocean of words. But you already know what it is to be conscious.

Chaz Wyman wrote:You have no evidence of Panpsychism; you do have evidence of your own consciousness. I do not think Panpsyschism is in any way useful, and can be thought of as basically ridiculous when it comes the the level is a conscious rock. I mean what does a rock think about - what does it use to think with? How does it get the information with which to think.

I never said that I had evidence of it, I was talking about a universal concept. I think that Panpsychism is interesting because it resolves the problem of the mental arising from the physical, in the explanation that everything has a mental aspect. But it is also problematic in that it blurs the line between life and what is not alive.
It is absurd. It hold that a grain of sand is as conscious as I am. It ignores the investigations that science has made it the correlation between consciousness and living tissue.

Thinking is not consciousness. If it were, then AI would be conscious. Thinking is just processing information and it requires a brain/processor.

You have just shot yourself in the foot.
If Panpsychism or Pan-consciousness is true, then a computer that exhibits thinking IS ALSO conscious.

Humans are made in God's image, have a soul/mind, and are conscious; other species are not.

Same old , same old...

Gee[/quote]

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:59 am**

Gee wrote: But what directs the selection in the natural world? That is the question.

Gee

This is not even a question.

All individuals vary. They vary by mutation, they vary by re-combination of DNA. The variation leads to differential survival.

All things die, some survive longer.
Things that survive longer are more able to produce viable progeny.
The surviving ones are ipso facto better suited to the environment and situation that caused the death of those that did not produce viable progeny.

This is the Law of Natural Selection, and like all laws it needs nothing to direct it.

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:02 am**

Well Chaz;

You have done it again. Your post shows that you are so clear in your reasoning, so accurate in your logic, so sharp in your insights, that I am just blown away, stunned, awed. It is clear that I will never be able to keep up with the intricate twists and turns of your mind.

So I want to thank you for your responses and thank you for answering at least one of my questions: "Should I just keep my ideas to myself and continue to mostly lurk?" Yes indeed, that is what I should do.

Do not concern yourself with the possibility of me shooting myself in the foot. I am actually an excellent shot with a pistol, and pretty good with a rifle, so I don't see that as happening. I will look for a place where I might enjoy quiet reflection of the issues that interest me with like minded people because I like to learn. The only problem that I can see is if I again run into one of those people whose big mouth is attached to an arrogant, opinionated, uneducated mind. If that happens, I may shoot myself in the head--just to stop the misery quicker.

Thank you again,

Gee

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:14 am**

Gee wrote:Well Chaz;

You have done it again. Your post shows that you are so clear in your reasoning, so accurate in your logic, so sharp in your insights, that I am just blown away, stunned, awed. It is clear that I will never be able to keep up with the intricate twists and turns of your mind.

So I want to thank you for your responses and thank you for answering at least one of my questions: "Should I just keep my ideas to myself and continue to mostly lurk?" Yes indeed, that is what I should do.

You might be tempted to test your ideas in another public forum or continue with this one. It should not matter to you if i agree with them or not. Others may find them interesting, or plausible. I hope I have shown you where its weak spots are. You ought to be able to develop from that position. With each generation of thinking, rebuttal and reconfiguration, any knowledge set will be more robust, and continue to grow. Along the way the ideas will either die, grow or change, hopefully they will not be recognisable from the first small steps.

Thank you again,

Gee

Philosophy Now Forum

Time to say Hi!

Time to say Hi!

Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!