Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.


Jon G wrote:
I was commenting on this actually:

someone3 wrote:
If our current scientific understanding is correct, given our
understanding of evolution, it is highly improbable that the source of
our experience is the physical world itself, as if it was, it could
only be coincidental that it made any sense (assuming a way in which,
with no translation layer (no evolutionary reason to evolve one) the
experience of the visual sense for example can be mapped from brain
state to what we experience).

I say:
I understand you say that since .....
.... the others.

how did I do?

S3 You understood the first paragraph.
..............


It is an advantage for it to make sense, and for you to be aware of
SOME of the experiences around you. Not evem they are approximations of
the experiences as well, rapresentations that help you conceptualise
and predict events, especially iomaginary events, program your future
actions days in advance, ect.. The system is much more flexible than
the best super-compture ever, that isn't aware of what it knows and
just responds cleverly.


In the last paragraph (which was the only actual response to me) you
claim that there is an advantage in your experience making sense. So
presumably the advantage wouldn't be able to be described without
actually including the experience in the explanation, is that what you
are saying?

No, the experience itself is irrelevant and in fact it could be that we
all experience things differently. It is an advantage for all of us to
be aware OF our experiences though. Whatever they are, as this will
give us an overall picture of the reality around us. An arbitrary
interpretation, mind you, but a consistent one for each and everyone of
us. For example: it doesn't matter what you experience when you see
green, as long as it's the same thing every time you see green. The
advantage of being aware of your experience can be explained without
the experience itself.

Your confusing me here, firstly you retreat from the claim that
experience could be an advantage in your opening:
"No, the experience itself is irrelevant..."

Then the next sentance you claim it is an advantage:
"It is an advantage for all of us to be aware OF our experiences
though."

Will the organism simply follow the laws of physics and chemistry which
don't refer to experience, or does experience itself matter (not to be
confused with the biological mechanics of the organism, which current
scientific understanding believes can be described in terms of
chemistry and physics)?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FMA 51 - Laws and Promises
    ... Remember the fundamental nature of alchemy - to ... chemistry probably is on par with what we do, ... physics side of the house, and there's a decent probablilty that ... learning alchemy requires at least some understanding of forces and ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)
  • Re: FMA 51 - Laws and Promises
    ... Remember the fundamental nature of alchemy - to understand ... What they know about chemistry ... physics side of the house, and there's a decent probablilty that learning ... alchemy requires at least some understanding of forces and basic Newtonian ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)
  • Re: Things Ive Noticed About Intelligent Design/Creationist Proponents
    ... What does physics and chemistry have to do with the ... this includes the story of evolution. ... make both hands a fist, extend 2 fingers on your ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... wether conciousness is a physical process or not? ... chemistry, evolution wouldn't take into account what the experience was ... It is not a question of imagining it, it is a question of what physics ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Things Ive Noticed About Intelligent Design/Creationist Proponents
    ... What does physics and chemistry have to do with the ... Origin stories should be in religious studies or philosophy classes, ... this includes the story of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)