Can non-conscious forces create conscious beings?

[Dubio]

This is something I have a hard time understanding or believing. If there is no God or conscious force that created us, then how could self aware conscious beings like ourselves have come into existence?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

That depends on how you define consciousness. In Buddhism, the consciousness is ultimately empty of any self-nature, and will fade away, just as the body does. So, no creator god needed, or rather, conscious being needed to create consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijñāna

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is something I have a hard time understanding or believing. If there is no God or conscious force that created us, then how could self aware conscious beings like ourselves have come into existence?

Emergence.

It's a powerful process. Read a book or two about it.

 

[1AOA1]

"Emergence.

It's a powerful process. Read a book or two about it."

Is there an example?

 

[George-ananda]

Emergence.

It's a powerful process. Read a book or two about it.

There's a HARD problem of consciousness that process tries to explain away. Read the books and the OP mystery is still there.

The best understanding I've heard posits consciousness as fundamental and matter as a creation of Consciousness.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The best understanding I've heard posits consciousness as fundamental and matter as a creation of Consciousness.

I suppose we have vastly different definitions of "best."

By the way, what comprehensive books on emergence have you read, and after reading them, what were the specific problems you had which remained after learning about emergence in greater depth?

 

[sonofdad]

I don't know, are we living in a paradox?

 

[Willamena]

Can non-conscious forces create conscious beings?

This is something I have a hard time understanding or believing. If there is no God or conscious force that created us, then how could self aware conscious beings like ourselves have come into existence?

First, you would have to be able to say what consciousness is.

 

[George-ananda]

I suppose we have vastly different definitions of "best."

That's been well established between us.

By the way, what comprehensive books on emergence have you read, and after reading them, what were the specific problems you had which remained after learning about emergence in greater depth?

I'm at least complimented, my often foe. You must have been impressed by my logic on the 'Ian Stevenson Reincarnational Memory' thread (where I employed the same technique you're employing above) and you failed to reply (as I suspected). But you are quick with the unsubstantial insults.

Now, as for 'Emergence', where did I claim more than an average lay-person understanding of the subject? I do know that it takes a physical-only view of consciousness and from my significant study of the vast world of so-called paranormal things and my study of Eastern (Hindu) masters that this theory can not come anywhere close to a satisfying understanding of consciousness.

 

[Skwim]

Can non-conscious forces create conscious beings?

Yes, the forces that propel evolution. They are non-conscious.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, the forces that propel evolution. They are non-conscious.

That's debatable, Dubio. Many believe evolution is fostered by higher consciousnesses also. IMO, We'd be another dead planet if all there are are the forces the materialist-atheist believes in.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Now, as for 'Emergence', where did I claim more than an average lay-person understanding of the subject? I do know that it takes a physical-only view of consciousness and from my significant study of the vast world of so-called paranormal things and my study of Eastern (Hindu) masters that this theory can not come anywhere close to a satisfying understanding of consciousness.

So, you don't have enough of an in-depth understanding of emergent phenomena to form a substantially formed opinion on the matter, yet mystical-sounding and factually unsupported ramblings convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not an emergent process.

Blind faith is a fascinating thing to watch.

 

[sojourner]

This is something I have a hard time understanding or believing. If there is no God or conscious force that created us, then how could self aware conscious beings like ourselves have come into existence?

maybe the earth -- the universe -- has consciousness that we don't comprehend.

 

[nash8]

Yes, the forces that propel evolution. They are non-conscious.

How do we know that?

So, you don't have enough of an in-depth understanding of emergent phenomena to form a substantially formed opinion on the matter, yet mystical-sounding and factually unsupported ramblings convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not an emergent process.

Blind faith is a fascinating thing to watch.

Blind faith means that you have no evidence to support your opinion. Just because his evidence is not credible enough for your criteria does not mean he is blindly following something. Honestly, I find the evidence quantum physics gives us to be just as questionable as mystical thought concerning the formation of conciousness. They both change everyday, and often times, they provide contradictory results.

maybe the earth -- the universe -- has consciousness that we don't comprehend.

Considering that we really have no idea what gives human's conciousness other than a series of electromagnetic magnetic reactions, and the differences they create within the brain during these interactions, I would say that this is a plausible idea, consider the earth and the universe are full of the same interactions, albeit on a much larger scale.

 

[1137]

That's debatable, Dubio. Many believe evolution is fostered by higher consciousnesses also. IMO, We'd be another dead planet if all there are are the forces the materialist-atheist believes in.

You neglect to say that such people have absolutely no empirical or logical support. Many on this site are still waiting for you to finally give us something materialism cannot explain.

 

[nash8]

You neglect to say that such people have absolutely no empirical or logical support. Many on this site are still waiting for you to finally give us something materialism cannot explain.

What empirical support do we have to say that evolution happens without an outside point of conciousness? What exactly causes evolution for that matter?

 

[McBell]

You neglect to say that such people have absolutely no empirical or logical support. Many on this site are still waiting for you to finally give us something materialism cannot explain.

I gave up receiving any of George-ananda's claimed evidence long long ago.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, the forces that propel evolution. They are non-conscious.

That's debatable, Dubio. Many believe evolution is fostered by higher consciousnesses also.

And that's fine, but I'm talking about the operational forces of evolution; those that propel it. Like evolution's four fundamental forces.

1) Natural selection

2) Genetic drift

3) Gene flow

4) Random mutations
​

Not some outside agent that some feel is necessary to set it in motion.

How do we know that?

Ever hear of a force that is conscious? If not, then why assume the forces of evolution might be? If so, please enlighten us.

 

[George-ananda]

You neglect to say that such people have absolutely no empirical or logical support. Many on this site are still waiting for you to finally give us something materialism cannot explain.

To Doors and the rest of the usual skeptic crow cawing friends,

(here we go again, i'm sure this will get somewhere )

Materialism cannot explain a lot of things. The latest example was the thread just concluded on Ian Stevenson and memories suggestive of reincarnation. The skeptics ran when I seriously pressed them.

I will accept the argument that it doesn't 'PROVE' reincarnation. I do not accept the argument that materialism can explain the phenomena. You can nit-pick every possible loose thread BUT to say the entire phenomena has a materialist explanation is a desperate sounding lie from the skeptical zealots. There is no material explanation that doesn't make one go when the explanation is pressed.

If the material explanations are satisfying to you, then you can keep hiding from a universe too complex in its reality for any of us to get our heads around. I prefer to accept the facts, it is too much for our minds to grasp but I still want to know as much as I can understand. Simplifying the universe with materialism is a powerful magnet for the reductionist oriented thinker (and doing the 'ostrich' to anything that doesn't fit).

 

[nash8]

Ever hear of a force that is conscious? If not, then why assume the forces of evolution might be? If so, please enlighten us.

It would not be the force that would be conscious, but rather the particles that drive those forces. Or even better yet, the source from which those particles eminate.
Is your arm concious?