0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
First of all , thanks a lot for telling me about philosopher Thomas Nagel : he seems to be my kindda guy ,so to speak :
Quote from: cheryl j on 21/09/2013 00:46:19Anyway, if sentience is defined as being able to sense something in the outside world and react to it in a way that increases survival, that was there from the get go.True, although sentience is often defined as conscious awareness.
Anyway, if sentience is defined as being able to sense something in the outside world and react to it in a way that increases survival, that was there from the get go.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 21/09/2013 01:35:46First of all , thanks a lot for telling me about philosopher Thomas Nagel : he seems to be my kindda guy ,so to speak :I was afraid you'd say that.
I don't agree. I just read him to torture myself.But if you are going to read Nagel, someone you already agree with, maybe you should also sample something like Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain by Antonio Damasio. Or maybe Patricia Churchland.Before you say "There is absolutely no way you can derive A from B, you should at least be quite sure you know what B is and what it can do. I just feel you dismiss the brain as a bunch of cells and and chemical reactions in a way too nonchalant and incurious way without bothering to find out. Start with the cingulate gyrus.
Quote from: DonQuichotte I was also afraid you would say this .What do you think about his views and analyses by the way ?[/quoteI don't agree. I just read him to torture myself.But if you are going to read Nagel, someone you already agree with, maybe you should also sample something like Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain by Antonio Damasio. Or maybe Patricia Churchland.Before you say "There is absolutely no way you can derive A from B, you should at least be quite sure you know what B is and what it can do. I just feel you dismiss the brain as a bunch of cells and and chemical reactions in a way too nonchalant and incurious way without bothering to find out. Start with the cingulate gyrus.
Non-sentient life could populate the planet passively, from its puddle, by variations on the theme of splashing (caused by external agencies).
p.s. It seems unlikely that life evolved in a puddle
So why did sentient life evolve at all?
Whether selfreplicating molecules first appeared in a dirty rain puddle or a vent at the bottom of the ocean is only a matter of size - it's still a puddle!
@ dlorde : your reductionist magical neo-Darwinian views spring to the face of common sense as obviously false:
I do not understand in fact how can such a relatively intelligent guy such as yourself believe in that materialistic reductionist obvious non-sense :
See this introduction to this interesting book of philosopher Thomas Nagel i have been reading
This is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. Perhaps that literature presents the situation with a simplicity and confidence that does not reflect the most sophisticated scientific thought in these areas....I would like to defend the untutored reaction of incredulity to the reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life.3 It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 21/09/2013 01:18:50@ dlorde : your reductionist magical neo-Darwinian views spring to the face of common sense as obviously false:Well there's your problem. Common sense can be a very poor guide to how the world works - as has been demonstrated repeatedly, and is one of the reasons critical thinking and the scientific method were developed with such success.
QuoteI do not understand in fact how can such a relatively intelligent guy such as yourself believe in that materialistic reductionist obvious non-sense .I certainly don't expect you to agree with my position, but given that I've explained the reasons that I take the position I do, in some detail, several times on this forum, your failure to understand is telling - particularly when your counter arguments appear to be the argument from incredulity and the 'spiritual' argument of indescribable private subjective experience.
I do not understand in fact how can such a relatively intelligent guy such as yourself believe in that materialistic reductionist obvious non-sense .
QuoteSee this introduction to this interesting book of philosopher Thomas Nagel i have been readingSurprisingly, he explicitly admits his view is based on a degree of ignorance and incredulity
This is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. Perhaps that literature presents the situation with a simplicity and confidence that does not reflect the most sophisticated scientific thought in these areas....I would like to defend the untutored reaction of incredulity to the reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life.3 It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents tofrom labs where single-celled organisms like yeasts and bacteria are gaining novel traits and even speciating in vitro, studied the number and types of speciations that have been observed in the wild, and taken some time to appreciate the significance of deep time and climate & ecosystem variation in evolution, he'd have less untutored incredulity and less difficulty with probability.
It is commendable that a philosopher admits those limitations at the outset, but less commendable that he fails to address them before expounding his opinion. gether with the mechanism of natural selection.
I suspect that if he'd experimented with evolutionary simulators such as Tierra and it's ilk, and seen for himself the complexity and variation that can arise in simple replicators within a few hundred thousand generations; if he'd looked at the results
It's perfectly valid and acceptable to point to areas of uncertainty in our current knowledge, if you're familiar with those areas - he admits he isn't; and it's fine to provide plausible alternatives to mainstream hypotheses and theories - he doesn't.
If he wants to cast doubt on the current mainstream view of the origins and development of life, all he needs is to find a single item of contrary evidence, or plausible contradictory argument. When all's said and done, "I find that hard to believe" is not, of itself, an argument.
I suspect he's just found himself a philosophical doubter's niche he can use to advantage; critical of the mainstream, sympathetic to, yet unsupportive of, theist & irrational alternatives. Sitting high on this intellectual fence, perhaps he feels he can attract more attention - because he must know there is no significant or substantive content to his exposition.
On meditation you won't find a much better book than "The Which Guide to Meditation". It's about 20 years old now but gives a great explanation of the "relaxation response". It is amazing. For many years I slept 4 hours per night, was never tired, and meditated - simple counting breaths until I hit the RR - for 30 minutes each morning and evening. I don't hit the relaxation response very often these days but, when I do, there is still a euphoric feeling when I return from the "poised awareness" state of the relaxation response to normal awareness. I do not know why there is a feeling of euphoria but I think the chances of it being a naturally evolved "reward" to a useful survival trait are good - it is, in some ways, like an orgasm. Mankinds tendency to assign spiritual significance to euphoria provides alternative causes. DonQuihotte, you asked:"Can you prove any of these romantic Cinderella stories of yours ?What , on earth , are you talking about ?..........."OK. To the first, no I can't - it's pure speculation, a possible explanation. The elements of this speculation - self esteem, conscience, intelligence - are observable as is Evolution. I just put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4, or near enough that I don't "need" any other explanation. Not to say that there isn't one and I'm all ears.To the second, didn't I just ask you that? There is a reason why we say "the conscious mind". There are things going on in the mind that we are not "conscious" of. The question posed by this conversation asks what is consciousness? I just want to clarify what you mean by consciousnessBut you're absolutely right, I am a newbie and, yes, I skimmed over a lot of entries; I'll go back and take a look. In response to cheryl j, I would not define sentience like this; sensing the outside world and reacting to it is either instinct or consciousness. I would describe sentience as the ability to react, or choose to react, to stimuli in a way not conducive to survival - we don't need to know why stars explode yet we expend resources trying to find out. Such a behaviour change requires a lot more memory and reasoning ability simply because it offers such an expanded scope for choice - a bug can eat, sleep or reproduce, I can do all that or listen to some Led Zeppelin or do the washing up - no contest. Why would we want to do this and what sort of control mechanisms would be required for such a dangerous development in mental ability might be a good subject for another thread but I've referred to my own views regarding drives and reward mechanisms in a previous post. Sorry, but I think "conscious awareness" is just a symptom of sentience.Thank you dlorde, that makes things clear, I think; The universe appears to function like a conveyor belt because it must, over time, function like a conveyor belt.Had a glance at Nagel; I agree with some of what he has to say. However, I have a problem with people who won't see what they don't want to. His denigration of "speculative Darwinian explanation" is almost fanatical. I don't believe that science has all the answers either, but I accept the possibility that it may only be a matter of time. I also accept the possibility that science will never have all the answers because there is a supernatural element involved. It's a case of I'll go back 2 million years and show you that my ancestor was an ape just as soon as you show me God.
I can understand that you would disagree with him, but why "torture yourself " by reading him, or was that just sarcasm ...
We do really need a revolutionary shift of meta-paradigm in science
... reductionism in science interprets scientific results or empirical evidence and scientific experiments , scientific approaches its own reductionist way that has nothing to do with science ,obviously, but it has more to do with reductionistic naturalism as an ideology.Why didn't you try to address that core point of Nagel, instead of circling around it , you're just addressing the other more or less minor issues of Nagel's analysis = very predictable indeed
you just resort to denigrating or at least questioning your opponents' intellect
you pretend to possess a higher intellect than your opponents via all that fancy talk
while you do believe in the most stupid world view ever ,in the history of mankind : reductionist magical materialistic naturalist neo-Darwinian world view ,the latter as just a reductionist ideological interpretation of the empirical evidence ...
QuoteQuoteSee this introduction to this interesting book of philosopher Thomas Nagel i have been readingSurprisingly, he explicitly admits his view is based on a degree of ignorance and incredulityAre you using his integrity and honesty as arguments against him ?
It is commendable that a philosopher admits those limitations at the outset...
Who can say that anyone for that matter knows everything concerning all sciences ,let alone that one can know all that ? You're no exception to that rule.
Despite your fancy talk, you are no better than he is , in the sense that you are just reflecting the opinions or interpretations of the empirical evidence by the mainstream reductionists : he's in fact in a better position than you could ever be , simply because he dares to utter his own radical bold anti-mainstream opinions,while you are just repeating those of mainstream reductionism in science : see the difference ?
Incredulity regarding the incredible unbelievable unrealistic obvious ideological reductionist naturalist non-sense in science regarding the very nature of the universe , life , evolution, man ....can be a valid argument...
So, why should one try to reduce everything to just matter and material processes,as reductionist naturalists do indeed...You tell me ..
Besides, he said also that reductionism in science has really no viable concurrents today ,in the sense that there is no non-materialist world view out there that can pretend to be scientific as that phony reductionist naturalistic ideology in science pretends to be at least ,and that should be no reason to assume that reductionism is true ,is there ?.
Hopeless discussion .
When are you gonna realise the fact , if ever , that reductionist naturalism has already reached a dead-end street it cannot find any way to avoid ,dude ?
Try to organize your post , please , so, we can address it .Thanks .
... Utility does not prove validity, but mysticism certainly has a dismal track record. You can’t wire a house or build computers or launch rockets with mysticism, you can’t understand photosynthesis or how the kidney works with mysticism, you can’t figure out the age of fossils with mysticism. ( I honestly don’t know what else to call the immaterial forces or processes you believe are responsible for consciousness, since you won’t identify them either. I’m sorry if mysticism is the wrong word, but it’s the definition that seems to apply. “Mysticism: Mysticism is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism:the belief that direct knowledge of ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience such as intuition or insight ”) This is what I think: In the end, even if it turns out there is some mystical component of consciousness that I cannot test, identify, or understand, I suspect that I will still know a lot more interesting and useful things about the mind/ brain, and people through materialistic science than you will through mysticism. What's more, these facts or theories can be shared, and are easily verifiable to other people, and their understanding does not depend on any special, subjective state of mystical insight in myself or them.
Unfortunately, DonQuichotte, I have limited time at the weekend and, since several interesting points had been made, I judged the intellect of the members on this forum as sufficient to let me address several points in a single post. Obviously this assumption was an error.
Still, the few comments you did make would indicate that you gave my post a reasonable glance over, thank you. And your answer to dlorde was interesting too, just as Nagel is. Mind you, I would still appreciate an answer to what you mean by "consciousness".
As for reductionist naturalism, indeed my faith in Darwin is as unshakeable as my faith in God, I just look in different places for indications of the latter.