On 19 Sep 2014, at 17:44, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 18 Sep 2014, at 17:33, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:30 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> There might be non relationship between consciousness and
smartness.
If there is not a relationship between consciousness and smartness
then Darwin was wrong,
Darwin and consciousness are only related if you assume at that
start that consciousness emerges from complexity. I'm not sure
Darwin ever said such a thing.
but there is no evidence that Darwin was wrong and there is a
avalanche of evidence supporting Darwin's idea,
Agreed, but this is a straw man for the above reason.
Suppose, for example, that everything is conscious. Darwinism
explains neatly how mater organised into complex things like human
beings. Nothing is lost on the darwinist side of things by saying
that consciousness and smartness are unrelated in this scenario.
Insisting that the emergence of consciousness from complexity is
the only scientific explanation is just dogma. We have no way to
measure or detect consciousness, so it just lays outside the scope
of science (for the moment, of course). Even neural correlates are
bullshit, because they are just based on an assumption, like you do
in the beginning.
Saying that something is outside the scope of science is becoming a
taboo.
Nice to hear that! All my life I was told (by half the local
scientists) that mind, consciousness, god, or even "understanding
the quantum weirdness" was all out of the scope of science.
Given that I almost define science by modesty (even the Löbian one)
I believe indeed that nothing is out of the scope of science, and
that those who pretend that, are those who want keep their pseudo-
religious certainties, and want to avoid questions and questioning.
Ok, but here I think we mean different things. I am not saying that
some things are fundamentally outside the scope of science. This is
in fact a favourite argument of naive religious people. What I mean
is that serious science needs theory. We cannot say things like
"consciousness emerges from brain activity" and claim that science
will eventually fill the gaps. This is not theory, just faith,
similar to how the fundamentalists operate.
I guess you know how much I agree with you.
I think we can say that if we assume the computationalist hypothesis
in the cognitive science, then consciousness does NOT emerge from
brain activity. It is more like brain (physical activity) is a way
consciousness differentiate along histories. That follows from both
plato's original definitions + current theoretical computer science.
Bruno
Telmo.
This is a very unscientific attitude. The correct scientific stance
is to admit our ignorance when appropriate.
I agree. I would even say that it is appropriate in almost all
circumstances. Science is only beliefs. For knowledge you need first
person experiences, and none are justifiable as such.
If theology is done with the scientific attitude, it does not entail
any ontological commitments, just axiomatic definitions, theories,
and comparison with facts, corrections, etc.
Bruno
Telmo.
an idea that has been called the best single thought any human
being has ever had. In science there is always a possibility that
you're mistaken, and there have certainly been refinements in the
150 years since Darwin's book was published, but I think you'd need
scientific notation to express the probability that any of the
important fundamental concepts in that old book (like natural
selection and random mutation) were wrong.
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-
l...@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-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
