Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.


Ymir wrote:
In article <1158086562.082515.232690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Ymir wrote:
In article <1158077001.748371.160160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Anders Halling wrote:
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
ii) Physics and chemistry do not refer to consciousness, and in
experimentation it has not been shown to matter.

Disputed. Cite.


Experimental results are explainable in terms of physics and chemistry,
without reference to whether what is being observed experiences
consciousness or not.

You seem to be confusing the claim that "physics and chemistry do not
refer to consciousness and in experimentation it has *not been shown to
matter*" with the claim that "physics and chemistry do not refer to
consciousness and in experimentation it has *been shown to not matter*".

The former claim is true of many experiments insofar as they have not
tried to address the question either way. I know of no experiments,
though, which purport to address the latter claim, and that is the claim
that your argument rests on.

When Anders and I have asked for experimental cites, we are looking for
examples of experiments which specifically address the latter, stronger
of these two claims, and you have failed to provide them. I suspect you
will continue to fail to provide them for the simple reason that they do
not exist.


I can see your point, I think, you are claiming, well no one claims the
subject matter of the experiment is conscious, therefore just because
it physics and chemistry don't refer to it, doesn't mean that if it
was, that they wouldn't have to.

Is that what you are saying?

I am saying that there has never been, to the best of my knowledge, an
experiment which was set up with the goal of answering the question
'does consciousness make a difference?'. Nor has there ever been any
experiment devised which attempted to show that consciousness does not
affect human behaviour.

I can easily devise an experiment designed to test Boyle's law which
does not make reference to humidity. This doesn't entail that humidity
doesn't affect the behaviour of a gas. It only suggests that the
relationship between the pressure and volume of a gas is independent of
humidity.

Can you point to a *specific* experiment which somehow demonstrates the
claim which you are making, not merely an experiment which doesn't refer
to consciousness. No one disputes the existence of the latter. You need
to show the existence of the former.


So André, did you understand that the original post was about our
current scientific understanding. Our current scientific understanding
is that:

1) Intracell activity (activity within the cells) can be explained in
terms of our current understanding of physics and chemistry.

2) Emergent cell behaviours, such as the kidney or liver, can be
explained in terms of the intracell activity of the cells that make
them up, and intercell activity (activity between the cells). Both
intracell and intercell activity can be explained in terms of our
current understanding of physics and chemistry.

3) Emergent cell behaviours, such as the brain, can be explained in
terms of the intracell activity, and intercell activity (activity
between the cells), of the cells that makes it up. Both intracell and
intercell activity can be explained in terms of our current
understanding of physics and chemistry.

You seem to disagree with one of them but which one that is I am not
sure.

Though the original post is a proof given our current scientific
understanding, If the brain behaviour can be explained in terms of
intra and inter cell activity, your conscious experience is irrelevant
to the behaviour of the organism you experience being, and therefore
there is no evolutionary advantage to being conscious, it would have to
be a coincidental deception, as I said in the original post. Hopefully
you can understand now.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... None of *these* chemical reactions violate the First Law. ... thermodynamically different about the consciousness ... I said, "cells use stored ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... experimentation it has not been shown to matter. ... Experimental results are explainable in terms of physics and chemistry, ... refer to consciousness and in experimentation it has *not been shown to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... experimentation it has not been shown to matter. ... Experimental results are explainable in terms of physics and chemistry, ... refer to consciousness and in experimentation it has *not been shown to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... You seem to be confusing the claim that "physics and chemistry do not ... refer to consciousness and in experimentation it has *not been shown to ... explained in terms of the intracell activity of the cells that make ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... to consciousness would differ from your proposed necessary ... and violate physics to boot. ... Disassemble it down to individual cells. ... experience would involve nothing more than ordinary biochemistry in ordinary ...
    (talk.origins)