On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:53 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> > wrote: > > > Darwin and consciousness are only related if you assume at that start >> that consciousness emerges from complexity. >> > > No, the only assumption you need is that Darwinian Evolution produced the > one and only thing that you know with rock solid certainty is conscious, > Telmo Menezes. > Yes, I am a product of evolution and I am conscious. This does not imply that evolution produces consciousness. You can propose a theory on how consciousness emerges from, for example, brain activity. I know of no such theory that doesn't contain a huge explanatory gap. I will read your theory or any one you can point to that you think can convince me otherwise. > > > I'm not sure Darwin ever said such a thing. >> > > He didn't I did, and so would anybody else who thinks about it for longer > than 20 seconds. > But then you think about it for 20 years... > > > >> but there is no evidence that Darwin was wrong and there is a avalanche >>> of evidence supporting Darwin's idea, >>> >> >> >Agreed, >> > > Then if you are are logical man you must also agree that it is almost > certain that intelligence and consciousness are inextricably linked. > Linked in what sense? I have no doubt that intelligence produces the content of experiences that make me human, and I have little doubt that intelligence is a product of evolution, but I stop at that point. > > > Suppose, for example, that everything is conscious. >> > > But that can't be because I know for a fact that even I am not always > conscious; I'm not conscious when I'm in a deep dreamless sleep or when > certain chemicals (or even simple elements like the noble gas Xenon) enter > my brain. > No you don't know that for sure. You just assume it from a lack of memories. > And I also know for a fact that those very same chemicals degrade my > ability to behave intelligently, and that's exactly what you'd expect if > Darwin was right. > Again, all I believe that can be said about this is that these chemicals change the contents of your experience. > > >> > Darwinism explains neatly how mater organised into complex things like >> human beings. >> > > Yes. > > > Nothing is lost on the darwinist side of things by saying that >> consciousness and smartness are unrelated >> > > Everything would be lost! If that were true then Darwin's theory would > predict there are no conscious entities on this planet or anywhere else for > that matter, but I know without one particle of doubt that there is at > least one. > Darwinism is a theory on the origins of biological complexity. Atoms are not part of biological complexity, and they are not predict to not exist by darwinism, nor does their existence falsify darwinism. If conscious is a product of biological complexity then you are right. To make a case, you have to propose a theory that addresses the hard problem. Again, I am not claiming you are wrong. What I am claiming is that we are all ignorant on this issue. > So I must conclude that if consciousness and smartness are unrelated then > Darwin was wrong, but that's like saying if donkeys could whistle then pigs > could fly. > > > We have no way to measure or detect consciousness, >> > > That certainly isn't true in my case, there is one particular > consciousness that I'm very very good at detecting, and although I can't > prove it I have a hunch there is one consciousness you can detect too. > Right, but you can't propose an experiment that tests the claim that you are conscious or that I am conscious to a third party. And then, we are outside the scope of science. > > > Even neural correlates are bullshit, because they are just based on an >> assumption >> > > It's based on the solid fact (not assumption) that when the neurons in > John Clark's brain changes John Clark's consciousness changes too, and when > John Clark's consciousness changes the neurons in John Clark's brain also > change. Perhaps the same thing is true for Telmo Menezes or perhaps not, > but it doesn't matter because either way I know enough to realize that > neurons must have something to do with at least one consciousness. > Neurons clearly have something to do with the formation of memories, but maybe there are states of consciousness for which memories are not formed. We just don't know. Telmo. > > John K Clark > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
