Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
First you said "facts"
Then you say "do you believe"
What a mess .......
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Werner, lots of people do not believe in the facts of the world. You are a prime example.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
All of your "so called" facts are mental speculations.
None of them are actual facts that you believe are facts ......
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Okay, treat them as questions. They all have question marks at the end of them, after all. What are your answers (sorry for not including you, specifically, in the first place).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Do you really think I'm some kinda monkey ..... :-)
Hoooleee sh!t!!!!
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
No to monkeys Werner, but you do share 98% of your DNA with chimpanzees.
And yes to all five of your questions eeyonkee, but kindly explain why you object to me saying that consciousness resembling a computer is probably not the last historical analogy to be made.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
DNA is not the living entity .......
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
FYI, y'all might haveta rethink this mind thang. New research is indicating
that bugs might possess consciousness. I know Werner already knows this
but now the stoopid scientists might be getting it. If yer interested it
is in this month's Smithsonian.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Thank you Jan (been doing yard work)! All I want is a starting point for those who have been opposing (more or less) the science-minded view of consciousness. I apologize for not just proposing the questions without any hints.
The thing about the first three questions, they really are true to the extent that a plethora (or is it flora?) of evidence in overlapping disciplines is entirely consistent with a "yes" answer to each of them. Not to make you afraid to express your beliefs, but saying "No" to any of the first three questions would certainly put you in the, um, fringe, I guess.
I'm not surprised by the "yes" answer of yours to the next two questions. I would agree. Actually seeing it as a response from you now allows me to frame my main thrust (to you at least) into this argument, that evolution is the key.
My main issue with the McGill link (as I have already expressed) is that it left out evolution as a category. That's such a big omission -- knowing what you can learn from studying evolution allows you to discount certain positions based on empirical knowledge.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Sorry, Jan. Just remembered that I didn't answer you.
This is what I disagreed with in that post (I liked your last sentence, however).
Defining consciousness seems a bit like the quest to define God ( as a watchmaker, as a mathematician, as a stern avenging judge, as a cloud of unknowing etc.) Both reflect the culture and technology of the time. Therefore I doubt the current computer based analogy will be the final one .
The computer based analogy is not like believing in Apollo.
|
|
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
Do you believe that animals - say, specifically, apes and/or dolphins have consciousness -- even if in a limited way compared to humans? This would set consciousness as a continuum phenomenon.
Might have to be an all or nothing proposition? One either has the idea that "I am" or not. Conflating subjectivity with consciousness, yea or nay?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
I'm going to state my beliefs on consciousness loud and clear. It seems obvious to me that this should be the default hypothesis.
Consciousness is the result of an evolving computer-like mind that probably started pretty early in evolution. As soon as predator-prey tensions got underway, solutions to anticipating the other's moves were evolutionary gold. In times of scarcity, a good solution -- say your solution gave you a chance of two percent above the average of actually capturing and eating your prey, allowed those genes (code) behind the solution to proliferate in the genome and become a much higher percentage over time compared to pre-scarcity times.
Turns out, having an internal map of your adversary's (prey or predator) likely moves was a big advance in the evolution of our particular branch within the tree of life.
One of the last steps in our particular evolutionary branch, was to objectivize our own responses to the world, as suggested by Michael Graziano. Consciousness explained.
Surely others have thought this all of the way though. I'd love to hear your positions,
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Consciousness doesn't need to think.
It is always whole, complete and always acts perfectly.
Only the incomplete need to think ......
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Consciousness is the result of an evolving computer-like mind that probably started pretty early in evolution.
Belief it is, as is any other deeply held religious belief: faith, as you couldn't possibly know such a thing.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
You are missing the point, entirely, Paul. You get on an airplane. Your safe ride is the result of a long history of aviation science sitting on top of physics. This belief (your belief that you will get there safely) is not the same kind of belief as religious belief.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
You are missing the point, entirely, Paul. You get on an airplane. Your safe ride is the result of a long history of aviation science sitting on top of physics. This belief (your belief that you will get there safely) is not the same kind of belief as religious belief.
We believe the plane will arrive because it is a tested mechanical device. You're equating, once again, the mind with some sort of mechanical device and extrapolated from that is the notion that mind is achieved through the complexity of a mechanical device. It is one thing to say a plane will arrive safely it is quite another, and an act of faith, to say that plane can think. I think you're missing the point by an aeronautical mile.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Sigh, for the nth time, it's all behavior and the continuum of behavioral complexity over evolutionary time and up through the tree of extant species is an incontrovertible fact.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
So, nobody except for Jan will bite on my 5 questions? Doesn't surprise me.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
It's technical, eeyonkee - some number of years in science and engineering subjects are prerequisite for the fullest understanding - and also beyond the pay grade of most posting here - but Harris just uploaded to youtube his latest exchange with Dennett regarding free will. YOu might find it useful and it looks like they have smoothed over their past dust-up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFa7vFkVy4g
Imo, they are sometimes "talking past one another" only because they are conversing from different frames and povs. Both are correct, imo; both have their valid points. Much boils down, one again, it seems to me, to language problems and different definitions and frames of reference.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!