From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 02:56:28 BST
Andy,
> I should just wait until I walk the dog before sending a reply, but I can
be
> impatient. However, now that I have finished walking the dog beware.
But,
> please, before addressing this post--say something about
self-consciousness and
> computers as perfectly spatio-temporal mechanisms.
I'll address it in my reply to your other post.
> Andy: All right, I have not read ANY Dennett. I am going to make a geuss
and
> say Dennett is not talking about consciousness like the distinction I made
> between Self-consciousness and consciousness. In other words, he is not
trying
> to explain how consciousness emerges out of the inorganic level. He is
talking
> about self-consciousness and how this emerges out of language and brain
> activity. It is just a geuss, but, lets be fair Scott. Let us say you
are
> right and Dennett does try to use Darwinian theory to explain consciouness
(how
> it emerges out of the inorganic). More power to him. I wish him luck. I
hope
> he succeeds. But, if he fails, this is no reason to get rid of Darwinian
theory
> altogether, is it?
Dennett wrote a book called "Consciousness Explained", in which he tries to
convince other materialists (like Nagel and Searle) that consciousness is
just a name for a lot of neural behavior. (This characterization is a bit
unfair, but I can't recap the whole book). Anyway, Dennett has also said
such things that if you replace each neuron with a fucntionally equivalent
silicon chip, you would have a conscious being. He has also said that there
is no semantic level under the syntax of things: it is syntax all the way
down. In a way, I kind of agree with that last claim, except I think there
is Quality behind it all, and that at a certain point, the syntax moves into
the non-spatio-temporal realm (as it has in quantum physics).
If one accepts that consciousness does not emerge in space and time, it then
has to be seen, in some inexplicable way, to be prior to space and time. If
there is such a major fact of our lives (consciousness) that is not
spatio-temporal, then why assume that the non-spatio-temporal is irrelevant
to the emergence of new species?
>
> Me previously: "This is your pet project."
>
> You: "No, my pet project is to show that consciousness is unexplainable in
terms
> of atoms moving in the void (or any other way)."
>
> Andy: Ok, sorry. I was going by your little autobiographical sketch.
But, your
> position has obviously evolved.
Well, it changed abruptly when I had my little insight into the
non-spatio-temporal nature of consciousness. I thought that was clear.
>
> Me previously: Now if you are going to use explaining consciousness as
your
> criteria for "right" theories, than you are going to have to throw a lot
more
> out than Darwin. Newtonian physics, SHeldrake, Einstien's relativity,
Quantum
> physics, and all of science as we know it.
>
> You: Nonsense. Nothing I've said touches science, which is finding and
> theorizing about regularities in the products of perception. All I'm
saying is
> that sience cannot study consciousness, other than finding brain patterns
that
> correlate with certain mental events. No scientific experiment can
distinguish
> between an epiphenomonal view of consciousness versus a "tuning in"
theory.
>
> Andy: tsk, tsk. Remember you are the one who responded to my question,
"WHat
> are we left with if we can not use to products of our experience to
analyze
> experience?" with "Nothing."
Apparently I misunderstood you when you say "to analyze experience", but if
I did, I would have thought the context implied what I thought you meant by
this. That is, I've been saying that it is senseless to try to explain
awareness in terms of the products of awareness. So I assumed in this
question you were using "experience" like I had been using "awareness". That
is, how can we explain "how we experience". And my answer is: we can't. But
science and common sense does just fine in explaining products of experience
in terms of other products of experience.
> Me previously: "Darwinian theory explains many things and cosciousness is
not
> one of them. It explains the vast diversity of life and quite well also.
> However, it does a litttle "bootstrapping" of its own by starting with
simple
> single cell organisms, our common anscestors. Darwin theory has nothing to
say
> about how consciousness develops out of the inorganic. It doesn't even
try. So
> your attempt at throwing out "the whole Darwinist world view" just doesn't
make
> any sense. At least for the reasons you give."
>
> Finnally you sum up: "In any case, as I've said before, the Darwinist
> explanation of how species evolve (that is, by random mutation and natural
> selection -- aka, spatio-temporal, purposeless mechanisms) is, though
> implausible, not impossible. But the notion that consciousness could
evolve out
> of spatio-temporal mechanisms is impossible. So there is a
non-spatio-temporal
> factor in the world. So what is the point of insisting on a Darwinist
> explanation of how species evolve?
>
> Andy: Aside from my earlier reply that you have given no good reasons to
> abandon Darwin, I will offer some more depth and provide you with a little
> autobiographical sketch of my own.
My answer to this is that there are no good reasons to adopt Darwinism. As I
said, I can imagine no way to get empirical evidence that new species come
into being solely through random genetic mutation and natural selection.
>
> I am not a biologist. The emphasis of my studies has been in economics.
I went
> into my graduate studies with guns a blazing. If ever there was an
axiomatic
> system based on faulty foundations I thought sure I could dislodge
orthodox
> economic theory. Individuals are utility maximizers who exibit wants with
> nonsatiation. We can build demand curves from indifferences curves which
assume
> perfect substitution between all goods. From there we can aggregate
individual
> demand curves and form an aggregate demand curve for all of society. I
mean
> come on. It is a house of cards. I had my choice of where to stick my
dynamite
> and cause the whole orthodox economic world view to come tumbling down.
But, I
> quickly learned how faulty my thinking was. There is nothing inherently
wrong
> with economic theory. THe fact is that we have been using it with some
success
> for almost fifty years now to manipulate economies -- local, reginal,
national
> and global. Economy slows down, then lower interest rates and run a
deficit.
> Dollar weakens, then negotiate trade agreements. WE know pretty well how
to
> manipulate economies and all of it is based on "faulty" theories, that
work for
> what we want to do. Are they prefect? Hell, no. I think our goals for
where
> we want are economies to go should be changed dramatically, but this does
not
> require new theories.
>
> What I think you are doing is asking Darwinian theory to do something it
was
> never intended to do. Nothing wrong with that, but if it fails this does
not
> mean you can discount all the areas where it has succeeded. Biologists,
medical
> specialist, geneticists, agronomists, all owe a huge debt to Darwin for
how well
> his theory has performed in areas where it was intended to be used.
Has any of this depended on the theory that species have come into being
*solely through chance and natural selection*? I very much doubt it. Natural
selection is real. Genetic mutation is real. Evolution is real. But I don't
know of anything of importance that hinges on saying that chance mutation
and natural selection are all that one needs to produce new species.
Maintaining a belief in materialism depends on it, but that's all.
I think the debt you refer to is to Crick and Watson, not Darwin. And they
certainly didn't need Darwin to find the double helix.
I am
> thinking of Wittgenstien and his idea of language games. Confusion is
often the
> result of using words in ways they were not intended to be used.
Confusion in
> your case might be the result of "model games." You are using a theory
for
> something it is not intended to be used for.
I'm not. People like Dennett and Dawkins are. I don't use Darwinist theory
for anything.
>
> Finally, I think I can appreciate your effort and what you are searching
for.
> However, I think it is an individual pursuit and irresponsible to extend
it any
> further by insisting everyone else is wrong in their use of scientific
theories
> based on materialism. Discovering the one and Zen like pursuits are fine
for
> obtaining individual enlightenment, but they cannot give us practical
solutions
> to problems out there in the material world. This is where science comes
in and
> all the tools we have created over the years. Darwin, economic theory....
No science worthy of the name is based on materialism. Materialism is a
belief *about* the things and events that science studies. Science just
builds descriptions and explanations of some things and events in terms of
other things and events. Materialism is an additional belief that leads some
scientists and non-scientists to say things that are not scientific at all,
like the mind-brain identity hypothesis. The science, if it is good science,
is the same regardless of whether the scientist is a materialist, a dualist,
an idealist, or a MOQist, or a mystic.
In my view, materialists like Dennett and Dawkins are the irresponsible
ones. So we're back at dueling dogmas.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 02:57:51 BST