Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.

From: glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Eric Rowley wrote:
From: "someone3" <glenn.spigel3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >
<snip>

By the way, just to remind you, we are only talking about the
possibility of our experience coincidentally making sense
here, as physics doesn't refer to experience,

That's because physics isn't usually used to explain human
behavior.

Any response?

and all what we are
talking about is describable by physics,

I don't see how you can hope to describe human behavior
without getting into consciousness and experiences.

Any response?

therefore there is no
need as of yet to see why experience is even required, and
the laws of physics couldn't simply explain it,

I'm uncertain if you're saying that physics can't explain
experiences or that you dön't see why it couldn't?

Well?

but since you seem
keen to go down this road, let's explore it.

When you say image on the retina, could you take me through
what > > you are talking about, are you talking about after the
energy > > from the light wave has caused the various
photoreceptors (rods > > and cones) to fire?

By the time it gets to the optic nerve are you saying that
there > > is a natural simple mapping to what we experience? >
If I were to look at a page in a comic book, and then look at
the > > resulting neural state, could you point out the letters
in neural > > state? Would it look similar to what you
experience, or would it > > require a translation?

That translation is needed for purely functional reasons,
recognizing tigers for instance, even assuming that
consciousness isn't necessery for the translation process
why couldn't the consciousness tap into the finished
translation?

I don't get a visual of the neurons. What
about from states of particular neurons to colour for
example? How are all the relevant neurons accessed for
experience all at the same time?


What about the other questions.

Answered en masse, no point in getting bogged down in details.
Since the "translation" is needed for purely functional reasons
(even if consciousness weren't itself functional, which I think
it is) it is affected by natural selection therefore your
implication that the "translation" couldn't evolve fails.

You appear to be assumming that consciousness is somehow
compleatly separate from the rest of the mind rather than being
an integrated part of the whole, why?

Also how is the natural experience of a given set of neural
states visual, and another auditory?

Who cares?

Eric



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We Robot
    ... manufacturers couldn't tell if the robot was conscious using the same ... robot's consciousness is a program like the ringtone in my phone, ... things that follow the laws of physics are the same. ... in response to the question, you responsed not by choosing and option, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We Robot
    ... manufacturers couldn't tell if the robot was conscious using the same ... robot's consciousness is a program like the ringtone in my phone, ... things that follow the laws of physics are the same. ... in response to the question, you responsed not by choosing and option, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We Robot
    ... manufacturers couldn't tell if the robot was conscious using the same ... robot's consciousness is a program like the ringtone in my phone, ... things that follow the laws of physics are the same. ... in response to the question, you responsed not by choosing and option, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... though it followed the laws of physics. ... You're two sentence response to this scenario was formulated in your ... written in this exchange requires an immaterial consciousness. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Any response? ... not be acting in accordance with the laws of physics, ... without getting into consciousness and experiences. ... consciousness isn't necessery for the translation process ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading