Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[Willamena]

Can anyone propose any logically sensible mechanism that would allow qualia to exist at all, either naturally or supernaturally? How can it be generated? What sustains it? Why aren't we just philosophical zombies? It seems so bizarre. I can't imagine any way that it could exist, yet it somehow does. Looks like reality beat my ability to imagine in that department.

You need a better imagination.

 

[idav]

You need a better imagination.

It is difficult to imagine you cant imagine.

 

[Parsimony]

You need a better imagination.

It's more of a matter that I can't imagine why consciousness exists or how it can be brought into being. At some point along the process of explaining its origin (either naturally or supernaturally), you're going to end up at a point of saying "we don't know" or "it just is". Neither of those really solve the mystery.

 

[outhouse]

Neither of those really solve the mystery.

There is no mystery here.

Duality has no leg to stand on less mythology. That leg holds up nothing.

We factually evolved as a species with limited intellect and consciousness, and it advanced.

Animals have consciousness, and intellect, at a much more reduced scale then we do. Some not as reduced as given credit.

Being self aware, is a survival instinct we evolved with. And to date consciousness is dependant on the brain.

They can now see questions being answered in the brain before the subject even knows the answer he will give.

 

[MD]

There is no mystery here.

Duality has no leg to stand on less mythology. That leg holds up nothing.

We factually evolved as a species with limited intellect and consciousness, and it advanced.

Animals have consciousness, and intellect, at a much more reduced scale then we do. Some not as reduced as given credit.

Being self aware, is a survival instinct we evolved with. And to date consciousness is dependant on the brain.

They can now see questions being answered in the brain before the subject even knows the answer he will give.

Wow for someone who thinks he's such a scientific genius, the biggest mystery and problem in neuroscience just goes over your head faster than evolution goes over a young earth creationist's head.

You really should stop.

 

[Parsimony]

There is no mystery here.

Duality has no leg to stand on less mythology. That leg holds up nothing.

We factually evolved as a species with limited intellect and consciousness, and it advanced.

Animals have consciousness, and intellect, at a much more reduced scale then we do. Some not as reduced as given credit.

Being self aware, is a survival instinct we evolved with. And to date consciousness is dependant on the brain.

They can now see questions being answered in the brain before the subject even knows the answer he will give.

I'm aware of all of that, and I do also believe that the mind is generated by the brain. My question is along the lines of why the brain generates a mind with qualia instead of simply being a complicated, unconscious, input-output machine.

 

[Riverwolf]

First off, I am speaking about life from non-life, and consciousness from unconsciousness...and mentioning the fact that organisms "self-replicate and are autonomous" doesn't in any way begin to answer these kinds of questions.

So you mentioning that is quite meaningless.

Hardly, because it's not supposed to answer your questions. It's supposed to illustrate that your comparisons are invalid.

I watch Forsenci Files every day...dang good show. For there to be no such thing as a "scientific explanation", they do an awful lot of explaining.

And that's all it is: explaining. But watching shows is just a starting point; how much hard research have you done on the subject?

There is no scientific evidence for evolution, or metapmorphosis. Certainly no observational evidence.

You mean you don't believe that caterpillars become butterflies, or that dog breeding exists? 'Cause the former is observed metamorphosis, and the latter is observed evolution.

Semantic babble?

Nope. Important distinctions. If you think they're unimportant, explain.

We are talking about the origins of nature, not what happened after nature originiated.

Actually, that's exactly what we're talking about. You ask about how consciousness originated: the scientific consensus is that it developed after nature.

Wait a minute, so if I lived 3,000 years ago and I was walking through a field and I saw a space shuttle, since I've never seen the space shuttle before I would think this object was a bird, or a dragon?

Perhaps. Or some other folk monster. There is not yet a concept of "space" as we understand it(at least among common folk), and it certainly does not look like any transportation form you've ever seen, and so no word for cart, or horse, or whatever transportation methods you'd be aware of would come into your mind. But the vague shape of a bird, if far too big and incorrectly shaped, would cause that to pop into your mind, and fear and confusion would make that stick.

This is a well-known psychological phenomenon.

Well, look at the bright side, you've managed to convince one person of that psychological theory...yourself.

It would appear that you're making the incorrect assumption that I formulated this theory. In fact, I did not. I was convinced of this theory by other people more experienced in psychology than I, as their explanations fit my own experiences.

Bad analogy, my friend. I can't convince myself that the basketball is a "triangular" object if it isn't.

Sure, you could, if you believed 100% without any exposure to basketballs of any kind that they're triangular.

I have a flurry of other arguments that I can use to support this one, despite the fact that this argument is enough to make a case for theism...

1. The God hypothesis is more plausible based on the origins of the universe (The Kalam Argument)

2. The God hypothesis is more plausible based on the fine tuning of the universe (The Teleological Argument)

3. The God hypothesis is more plausible based on the origins of life and consciousness (The argument from Consciousness)

4. The God hypothesis is more plausible based the possibility of an existing Necessary Being (The Ontological Argument)

5. The God hypotehsis is more plausible based on the existence of objective moral values (The Moral Argument)

6. Christianity is more plausible than other religions based on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (The argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ)

It is the rational, soundness, and validity of all these arguments why I am convinced that the God hypothesis is the best explanation of all of these things. Naturalism doesn't even come close to explaining any of those things.

So why should I change from a position that's never been wrong to a position that's never been proven right?

I'm afraid that of those arguments that I've seen, not a single one holds up. The universe, if designed, is in fact designed quite poorly(lots of wasted space, useless material, etc.), and I've never been given a reason to believe that there are objective moral values, that an intelligent being is necessary to start the universe, or that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is, in any way, historically validated.

Besides, not a single one of those can be applied to the scientific method, since there is literally nothing to test, no samples to collect, no measurements to be made... nothing. Philosophy has been wrong many times, before.

But you don't have to change your position. One of your rights as a human being is to believe whatever you want.

I am saying that I can't conceive of life from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness...and I expect to be able to conceive of things that are logically possible.

Why?

 

[Riverwolf]

You continue to place your faith in Charles Darwin,

Charles Darwin has nothing to do with this. He's historically important, sure, but in no way infallible. In fact, he got many things wrong, I understand(though I haven't read Origin of Species, and actually have no plans to, so I don't know the details).

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, according to my bible, God said "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

And

"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Now the book of Genesis was written over 3,000 years ago. Fast foward to 2014, and what do we see? We see animals "producing other animals, according to its kind"....which is why we see dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, turtles producing turtles.

"Kind" is absolutely worthless in measuring life.

And here's why: what is a dog?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Hardly, because it's not supposed to answer your questions. It's supposed to illustrate that your comparisons are invalid.

Oh great, thanks for reminding me that after weeks of dialogue, my questions still haven’t been answered.

And that's all it is: explaining. But watching shows is just a starting point; how much hard research have you done on the subject?

On the subject of what?

You mean you don't believe that caterpillars become butterflies, or that dog breeding exists? 'Cause the former is observed metamorphosis, and the latter is observed evolution.

Caterpillars becoming butterflies is something we can OBSERVE…we can see this…unlike the concept of a dog “kind” originating from a non-dog kind.

Actually, that's exactly what we're talking about. You ask about how consciousness originated: the scientific consensus is that it developed after nature.

Consensus? What scientific data/evidence can be used to support this consensus? If we are going by consensus, then the theological consensus is that God exists. That idea is more sexy.

Perhaps. Or some other folk monster. There is not yet a concept of "space" as we understand it(at least among common folk), and it certainly does not look like any transportation form you've ever seen, and so no word for cart, or horse, or whatever transportation methods you'd be aware of would come into your mind. But the vague shape of a bird, if far too big and incorrectly shaped, would cause that to pop into your mind, and fear and confusion would make that stick.

This is a well-known psychological phenomenon.

Any old wacky theory would be better than the God hypothesis, right?

It would appear that you're making the incorrect assumption that I formulated this theory. In fact, I did not. I was convinced of this theory by other people more experienced in psychology than I, as their explanations fit my own experiences.

Lol.

Sure, you could, if you believed 100% without any exposure to basketballs of any kind that they're triangular.

Right, but I would recognize that if a basketball IS triangular…that wouldn’t be the same as a the same kind of ball as a sphere shape.

I'm afraid that of those arguments that I've seen, not a single one holds up. The universe, if designed, is in fact designed quite poorly(lots of wasted space, useless material, etc.)

Completely subjective. Astronauts, cosmologists, and even the common man have marveled over the vastness of the universe. There is a lot of explore..God could have created the vastness so that man could marvel at his creation, which is exactly what scientists do. It may be wasted to you, but it isn’t wasted to God.

, and I've never been given a reason to believe that there are objective moral values

So if a law was passed that it was ok to rape and torture children, and everyone on earth agreed to this…would it still be wrong?

, that an intelligent being is necessary to start the universe

The universe began to exist, and everything that begins to exist has a cause, and external cause. God is the only “being” or “thing” that is able to create an entire universe from nothing. All of the attributes that were needed to create the universe (timelessness, immaterial, knowledge, power), God is the only thing in the dictionary that meets these qualifications.

or that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is, in any way, historically validated.

There is historical evidence that the followers of Jesus were claiming that they had seen him post-mortem..and the Resurrection is the best explanation in light of the empty tomb, the origin of the disciples beliefs, and the origin of the belief of skeptics.

Besides, not a single one of those can be applied to the scientific method, since there is literally nothing to test, no samples to collect, no measurements to be made... nothing.

First off, science isn’t the only way to knowledge. Logical, mathematical, and historical proofs are also equally valid. Second, there is scientific evidence to support a finite universe, and mathematical proofs to support a fine tuned universe based on cosmological constants and values. Third, there is no samples or measurements that were made to support natural dualism either, and you still believe that.

So you are not consistent even with your own beliefs.

Oh yeah, you left out the Ontological Argument.

Philosophy has been wrong many times, before.

The arguments that I present haven’t been refuted before.

 

[Willamena]

It's more of a matter that I can't imagine why consciousness exists or how it can be brought into being. At some point along the process of explaining its origin (either naturally or supernaturally), you're going to end up at a point of saying "we don't know" or "it just is". Neither of those really solve the mystery.

The question of "how it is brought into being" is a question of analysis, that is reducing it, as a process, into component parts and seeing how those fit together, seeing how some inform others and how some result from others. That requires "parts" to be defined, but consciousness is what defines them.

As yet, we don't know its origin. It's only a mystery because we can't analyse it. Analysis is not necessary. It is brute pride that insists that nothing is beyond analysis, that nothing should be a mystery. Consciousness just is. It's okay to not know.

 

[idav]

Oh yeah, you left out the Ontological Argument.



The arguments that I present haven’t been refuted before.

They have been refuted all over the place.

Take the fine tuned argument. It has been refuted, basically an argument on plead for ignorance based on limited perception. We see are selves here, like so, so it must be the way it ought to be or should be. That isn't tenable.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

They have been refuted all over the place.

I must of blinked.

Take the fine tuned argument. It has been refuted, basically an argument on plead for ignorance based on limited perception. We see are selves here, like so, so it must be the way it ought to be or should be. That isn't tenable.

Your DNA has information...the blueprint on how to make "you" you. Please explain to me how this information can be originated from a process that lacks intellectual capabilities.

The process itself isn't intelligent, yet, it created intelligence.

Absurdities.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The question of "how it is brought into being" is a question of analysis, that is reducing it, as a process, into component parts and seeing how those fit together, seeing how some inform others and how some result from others. That requires "parts" to be defined, but consciousness is what defines them.

As yet, we don't know its origin. It's only a mystery because we can't analyse it. Analysis is not necessary. It is brute pride that insists that nothing is beyond analysis, that nothing should be a mystery. Consciousness just is. It's okay to not know.

Those are a lot of frubals you have there, Willa.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

"Kind" is absolutely worthless in measuring life.

And here's why: what is a dog?

<LI style="LIST-STYLE-TYPE: decimal">a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. It is widely kept as a pet or for work or field sports.

Works for me. No bio-babble needed.

 

[idav]

Your DNA has information...the blueprint on how to make "you" you. Please explain to me how this information can be originated from a process that lacks intellectual capabilities.

I can't answer that cause I don't believe it and it's absurd.

The process itself isn't intelligent, yet, it created intelligence.

You have to be careful with the definition there. A baby is intelligent different from its learned adult version but the baby certainly is capable.

Absurdities.

So you recognize it is a strawman.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

<LI style="LIST-STYLE-TYPE: decimal">a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. It is widely kept as a pet or for work or field sports.

Works for me. No bio-babble needed.

By which, we presume you mean "no actual knowledge or understanding of biology needed".

Also, dogs come from wolves. So, what is a wolf and what is a dog in relation to it? What "kind" is a wolf?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I can't answer that cause I don't believe it and it's absurd.

You have to be careful with the definition there. A baby is intelligent different from its learned adult version but the baby certainly is capable.

So you recognize it is a strawman.

LOL you are a funny man, idav. A funny man.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

By which, we presume you mean "no actual knowledge or understanding of biology needed".

Here we must make the distinction between "understanding" and "accepting".

Also, dogs come from wolves. So, what is a wolf and what is a dog in relation to it? What "kind" is a wolf?

I believe the wolf is of the dog "kind". If you look at a wolf and look at a siberian husky, any 3 year old can tell you that they are the same kind of animal. No guru man with a white lab coat needed.

I believe that God created every animal with an original "kind" specimen...a specimen by which all other variations within that specimen were originated from. Maybe the wolf was the original dog "kind", or maybe not...I don't know how many original "kinds" there were...but what I do know is that there is absolutlely no reason for anyone to make any attempts to distinguish a wolf from a dog. As mentioned, a siberian husky and wolf are clearly the same "kind" of animal.

Away with the voodoo science.

 

[idav]

LOL you are a funny man, idav. A funny man.

So are you Call. What I say must swoosh right over your head.

I've been in those debates with you. You always like to say you win them all but I haven't seen that. Ignoring valid rebuttals or pretending not to understand them isn't a win.

I like to acknowledge when something is a matter of opinion instead of pretending it is an indisputable fact, which would be the case for that list of arguments you love.