Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.


Ross Langerak wrote:
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157538874.398094.41460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ross Langerak wrote:
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157467972.765893.301620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[snip]

1) Our current scientific understanding is that there is nothing in
organisms that doesn't follow the laws of physics and chemistry.

2) Given physics and chemistry don't reference 'consciousness', the
organism's behaviour must be explainable without reference to its
'consciousness', if our current scientific understanding is correct.

3) Therefore 'consciousness' does not effect behaviour, as it is not
required to explain any behaviour.

I've already posted this in another part of this thread, but I'll post I
here as well:

Let's start with an analogy. Suppose you finish a message on your
computer
and you decide to run a spell check. You click the spelling tool and a
moment later, assuming you made no spelling errors, the computer tells
you
that it is done. Now, to you, all you did was click the spelling tool,
but
to the computer, a lot of steps had to be performed to complete the
task.
Whether you break the process down into all of its machine code or you
just
call it a spell check, the result is the same.

Likewise, we could break consciousness down into each of its individual
molecular interactions, and all of those interactions that contribute to
producing consciousness obey the laws of physics. Consciousness is just
a
label that we apply to those chemical processes.

Restating Statement 3:
Therefore, the chemical processes that we call 'consciousness' do not
effect
behavior, as they are not required to explain any behavior.

Statement 3 is clearly false, as those chemical processes do affect
behavior, and they are required to explain any behavior. Without those
chemical processes that we label "consciousness", we would not function.

Your argument breaks down at Statement 3, because you failed to
recognize
that the term "consciousness" is just a label representing a set of
chemical
interactions, and those interactions do follow the laws of physics and
they
do produce an evolutionary advantage.

As a further illustration of the failure of this argument, try applying
it
to running instead of consciousness.



You are saying that as spell check can be broken down and explained in
machine code (it is just a label representing machine code that checks
spelling), and you are saying that it is the same with consciousness,
in that it is just a label representing a set of chemical interactions.


Can you see the problem with the way you are looking at consciousness,
it doesn't require it to be experienced. The experience of the colour
green, is not just a label, it is experienced.

What happens when we experience the color green? A photon of a particular
wavelength hits the retina of our eye, it is absorbed by a color receptor,
and a signal is sent to the brain. The brain interprets the signal as the
color green. The brain can distinguish the difference between a green
signal and a red signal. This ability allows us to tell the difference
between a ripe fruit and a not so ripe fruit. The entire process follows
the laws of physics and was advantageous during our evolution. Your phrase,
"experience of the colour green", is just a label for this biochemical
process.

Consciousness is a label for a set of biochemical reactions that occur in
the brain. Those reactions, which we call consciousness, are a direct
consequence of the laws of physics, and they respond to the physical world.
The result is the same whether we call it "consciousness" or "experience of
consciousness" or detail each biochemical reaction in detail.

What I am talking about in (3) is the actual conscious experience
(which while I can't prove you experience it, I'm sure you do).

The actual conscious experience is a biochemical process that occurs in the
brain. Whatever label you apply to this process, it follows the laws of
physics, and is influenced by the physical world. That biochemical process
doesn't go away simply because you slapped a label on it.

Anyway, you answered 4 posts, is it ok, since I am the only one
answering, that we just keep our converstation to one line of
conversation, because we have been talking for a while, and yet you
still don't seem to have understood that it is the experience that I am
talking about. Thanks.

I do understand that it is the experience that you are talking about. The
problem isn't with my understanding, but with your argument. The experience
of consciousness and the experience of color are just labels for physical
processes that occur in the brain and are influenced by the physical world.
Your reasoning falls apart when we realize that there is a physical process
behind the label.


Well given that I am disputing that the physical is the source of your
experience, I like your debating technique, "your wrong".

Your claim is:
"The experience of consciousness and the experience of color are just
labels for physical
processes that occur in the brain and are influenced by the physical
world."

You also say:
"Your phrase, "experience of the colour green", is just a label for
this biochemical process."

So you claim the experience of green is a biochemical process, so
presumably to you, it would make no sense to ask you how the
biochemical process causes the experience green, as you are simply
saying the experience of green is just a label.

Could you distinguish between biochemical processes that produce
consciousness and those that don't, or doesn't that make sense either,
in that consciousness is just a label for biochemical processes?

4) If it doesn't effect the organism's behaviour within the world,
then
it can't be an evolutionary advantage for the organism.

5) There can be no evolutionary advantage for us to have evolved
experiencing anything, or if we did experience, for it to make any
sense, or represent the physical world outside of the organism in
anyway.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Given physics and chemistry don't reference ... Therefore 'consciousness' does not effect behaviour, ... The actual conscious experience is a biochemical process that occurs ... processes that occur in the brain and are influenced by the physical ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... The organism will follow the laws of physics by analysing the situation ... that is presented in his/her consciousness and taking ... I assume you mean the brain is structured in such a way ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... physics, need not be composed of particles to be considered material. ... The activity in the brain is composed of balanced reactions, ... Our consciousness is the pattern of brain activity developed by ... they have faith in philosophical materialism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Identity Theory of Mind
    ... The granularity (biochemical, electrical, ... So is classical physics. ... >>underyling sublime from which dualism and other ... >>mathematics, paradox, religion, consciousness itself). ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... given that the laws of physics make no direct reference to ... consciousness, then consciousness must ultimately follow from those ... things which physics does make direct reference to. ...
    (talk.origins)