As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality — Michael Sol

I can grant that writer and others included in that first person plural cannot imagine it. But others have existed who can so imagine.

simply a silly recourse to Magic. — Michael Sol

And if we call their imaginings 'silly' then the job is, for practical purposes, done.

All very well. A position has been stated. Names have been called. But nothing has been established.

Created Consciousnesses do not count for the purposes of this Inquiry, because of the infinite regression of Creators' Creators Absurdity... — Michael Sol

I think this means - 'If it was God, then some prior Creator must have created God'. I think that is how to understand the statement. It leads to an infinite regress, as stated. But I'm not sure why we would think it is true - or false. No argument either way is given for the statement itself.

Infinite Regression is Absurd, because there is no such thing in our conception or experience that is an iinfitiude.

Um, Magic, some sort of means of accomplishing stuff that does not involve matter or causality is Absurd, and so silly.

And, again, you say others can imagine a means of creating a consciousness by natural process that is not Evolution? Ok, then, what is it they have imagined? Asserting they have without showing us the complete, a priori theory as is Evolution, is meaningless.

The General Relativity Theory and the Theory of Evolution are both complete, a priori. We have a fossil record; and if the Consciousness cannot conceive of any other means of having come to be, I guess what we have is Evolution in an Objectively Extant Universe; and which answer to the basic (no longer existing anymore) problem of the Veracity of the Senses is, in fact, exactly in keeping with Ockham.

Once again, can some one offer me an alternative to this statement: An Evolved Mind is Proof of the Objectively Extant Material World that bore and bred it.

As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality, — Michael Sol

I can. Many people can.

Also, to suggest an all-powerful being created us by some mysterious process that does not involve causality is simply a silly recourse to Magic — Michael Sol

Many philosophers reject the need for causation. See B Russell, 1912.

As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality,
— Michael Sol

"I can. Many people can."

You replied that you can imagine the creating of a consciousness by some natural process other than evolution? Could you share us the description of that process? Or, of any you have heard or read of? And, again, saying some mysterious Creator could have done so is nonsense. Who created the creator? And if he does not employ material means, what means are they? And what proof do you have for their existence?

Also, to suggest an all-powerful being created us by some mysterious process that does not involve causality is simply a silly recourse to Magic
— Michael Sol

Many philosophers reject the need for causation. See B Russell, 1912.

Yeah, Hume, Russell and all of those others are wrong, and none of them ever gave us any other mechanism whereby material reality might operate. I would really like to see a conceptual model that accounts for Object change without causation.... Causation is, as Kant pointed out, an indispensable basis of all existence.

So again, I have a fossil record, complete a priori theories in evolution and general relativity, and the contention that you can't make a consciousness outside of evolving one in a Material World. Everyone keeps saying they can imagine the alternative, but nobody presents the imagined alternative to matter operating dynamically and causally to create our Universe.

I have a priori axioms and theories, and physical proof of all of it, why would I continue to question the existence of the Objectively Extant Material Universe?

As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality, then isn't the Consciousness itself Proof of the Objective Material Universe? — Michael Sol

Beyond any doubt. The same question would be like asking if fish developed gills to breath under water,isn't that proof of an aquatic domain of existence? Furthermore, even questioning the existence of the objective existence from within that domain of existence is itself verification of its objective existence. The real question, whose answer is going to really bake your noodle, is what is it that consciousness was designed by nature to do in function? That's the juicy part of everything.

Created Consciousnesses do not count for the purposes of this Inquiry, because of the infinite regression of Creators' Creators Absurdity.... Also, to suggest an all-powerful being created us by some mysterious process that does not involve causality is simply a silly recourse to Magic. — Michael Sol

So far, there exists no evidence to suggest that consciousness can arise as the result of any known creativ agency. Further more, that it is actually the product of a 3.5 billion year crucible of adaptive chemicial interactions, the magnitude and scope of which is beyond any reckoning capacity that the Human Being currently possesses. We are, because of consciousness, evolution's Pinnacle Predator of all the known universe, a predator 3 billion years in the making in accordance with the laws of physics and regression toward the mean. It's utterly fucking amazing.

You replied that you can imagine the creating of a consciousness by some natural process other than evolution? Could you share us the description of that process? — Michael Sol

First off, let me be clear. I believe that consciousness is a neurological, perceptual, psychological process the mechanisms for which have evolved in accordance with Darwinian principles as they are currently understood. There are many non-religious people who do not accept that explanation, who think that consciousness has a non-biological component. I think they're wrong. but I can imagine there is some other process.

Many philosophers reject the need for causation. See B Russell, 1912.

Yeah, Hume, Russell and all of those others are wrong, and none of them ever gave us any other mechanism whereby material reality might operate. I would really like to see a conceptual model that accounts for Object change without causation.... Causation is, as Kant pointed out, an indispensable basis of all existence. — Michael Sol

So, Hume and Russell are wrong and Kant is right. Sez Michael Sol. That's not an argument. We can have a discussion about the metaphysics of causation I guess, but that will take us off in another direction. It's been discussed many times here on the forum.

Yes, I agree with all of the above, Mr. Clark; but I don't just agree with Mr. Kant, I appreciate the axiomatic nature of matter, which is it doesn't change without cause. Again, can someone explain what it is that changes without cause?

As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality, then isn't the Consciousness itself Proof of the Objective Material Universe? — Michael Sol

Isn't this just a classic fallacy from incredulity? We can't imagine any other way.... therefore X...

The absence of an alternative explanation doesn't mean the only one you are aware of is right, surely?

What do you say to those who argue that quantum mechanics demonstrates that matter only comes into existence when observed? Are you saying you are an old school materialist?

Infinite Regression is Absurd, because there is no such thing in our conception or experience that is an infinitude. — Michael Sol

Isn't this also a wonky inference? Another fallacy from incredulity, perhaps?

Created Consciousnesses do not count for the purposes of this Inquiry, because of the infinite regression of Creators' Creators Absurdity.... — Michael Sol

What's more reasonable? "Sea creature to larger sea creature to... to ape then to man"?

Evolutionary biology is not itself a philosophy or a metaphysics. It’s a theory of the evolution of species. Due to the historical circumstances of its discovery it has become something of a de facto religion for secular culture, a role to which it is unsuited.

It’s also not a philosophy of mind. As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, the only factors it takes into account are those which can be understood in terms of what leads to successful reproduction and continued existence. Evolutionary psychology and the study of the evolution of human culture are fascinating disciplines in their own right, but they draw on rather a broader range of sources that biology alone, including anthropology, linguistics, and so on. And I don’t know if any of them propose themselves as explanations of what consciousness is, as that question is the subject of the well-known ‘hard problem of consciousness’ argument.

The idea of there being in some sense a primordial or pre-existent consciousness or mind is of course an ancient one and is found in practically all cultures. It is generally based on an intuition of the relationship or even continuity between mind and world - that both the mind and the world embody an order which is in some sense complementary and suffuses both, in the mind as reason and in the world as causation. In Greek philosophy the aspect of the mind which was able to grasp this order was the faculty of reason, nous. There are parallel conceptions in Indian culture. However there’s really not much of the kind in Darwinian thinking, although there are many metaphorical links that could be and are explored, by disciplines such as ‘Big History’, which seek to portray the evolution of human consciousness as a way in which the universe becomes self-aware. Whilst that has resonances with some forms of traditional philosophy, it’s alien to the neo-Darwinist mainstream.

I appreciate the axiomatic nature of matter, — Michael Sol

"The axiomatic nature of matter" is a metaphysical presupposition as described by R.G. Collingwood in his "Essay on Metaphysics." It is not true or false, it is more or less useful in a particular situation. I'm sure you won't find that a satisfactory answer and I don't really want to get into another argument about metaphysics right now, so I'll just say I don't appreciate the axiomatic nature of matter.

explain what it is that changes without cause? — Michael Sol

Cause is a useful concept for simple systems, e.g. the cliche pool table. When you get much more complex than that, when an event has many causes or you can't practically identify the chain of causation, it becomes meaningless. Another argument, Russell's, is that modern scientific models of physical reality do not involve causation. An example commonly used relates to theories of gravitation. Newton's theory involves a force, which is an agent of causation. Einstein's theory involves the geometry of spacetime, which is not.

And no, I am not qualified to discuss the intricacies of general relativity.

Evolutionary biology is not itself a philosophy or a metaphysics. It’s a theory of the evolution of species....It’s also not a philosophy of mind. As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, the only factors it takes into account are those which can be understood in terms of what leads to successful reproduction and continued existence. — Wayfarer

Evolutionary biology is not a philosophy of any sort. That doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to tell us about the development of mental phenomena, e.g. mind, consciousness. I find it perfectly plausible that the physical, biological mechanisms which lead to the experiences we call "mind" evolved in accordance with principles discovered by Darwin and others. For those of us who think that physical and biological mechanisms of mind are all there is, that's enough.

It is generally based on an intuition of the relationship or even continuity between mind and world - that both the mind and the world embody an order which is in some sense complementary and suffuses both, in the mind as reason and in the world as causation. — Wayfarer

Although I probably don't have the same understanding of how it might work, I don't think what you've written is necessarily at odds with what I've written above. I won't go far into this, but Lao Tzu is the one who opened my eyes to the relationship between humanity and reality.

As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality, then isn't the Consciousness itself Proof of the Objective Material Universe? — Michael Sol

No, because as I said to you in the other thread, the other logical possibility is that consciousness is uncreated.

What does that mean, uncreated?

Yes, it's not only more reasonable, it is proven by the fossil record.

Uh, I believe the problem with infinite regression is obvious.

And, uh, I have a completed, a priori theory that shows how consciousness was produced through evolution, a successful Thought Experiment, and the Fossil Record. If you can't even suggest another possibility, than the answer that was most obvious all the time, that we are formed by the reality we truly see, is surely the correct one.

And General Relativity is just another a priori imagining of the Universe - got an alternative for that one, too?

And, uh, I have a completed, a priori theory that shows how consciousness was produced through evolution, a successful Thought Experiment, and the Fossil Record — Michael Sol

I guess a Nobel Prize awaits you.

And General Relativity is just another a priori imagining of the Universe - got an alternative for that one, too? — Michael Sol

It's not about alternatives. As I said that approach seems to be a fallacy from incredulity. "We don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer. :wink:

It's pretty clear that the precise nature consciousness has not yet been resolved (tentative answers, sure - Metzinger on the left/Kastrup on the right) and it is doubtful that the true answer will be revealed on a forum for dilettantes.

For those of us who think that physical and biological mechanisms of mind are all there is, that's enough. — T Clark

You know what reductionism means? Do you see why this might be described as reductionist?

Here's an anecdote. There was a televised debate about ten years ago with Richard Dawkins and the (subsequently infamous) Bishop George Pell. Someone in the audience asked this question:

REBEKAH RAY: Okay, my question for you today is: without religion, where is the basis of our values and in time, will we perhaps revert back to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest?

TONY JONES (compere): Richard Dawkins, you can answer that and I'll bring in Cardinal Pell.

RICHARD DAWKINS: I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It's undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.

:clap:

But a couple of minutes later, there's this response in discussing this same point:

RICHARD DAWKINS: Why we exist, you're playing with the word "why" there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, "why" in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question.

To me, that is something the Bishop ought to have pounced on, but he was not philosophically astute enough to sieze the moment. The question as to whether there is a reason for existence is obviously a central question for philosophy - not just biblical creationists, but even atheist existentialists. Because without there being some reason, in the larger sense, then it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that life is a kind of biochemical fluke. And there are indeed many who will say that. Albert Camus, for instance, who says that although life is intrinsically meaningless it is up to us to live meaningful lives against that backdrop. That's something I don't agree with, but at least he can see the question - which Dawkins does not.

There are, however, all kinds of 'evolutionary' answers to that conundrum - like, for instance, Tielhard du Chardin, and Henri Bergson, from several generations back, and nowadays the 'Big History' school which sees the evolution of consciousness as intrinsic to the Cosmos. But it should be stressed that none of those ideas are really relevant to mainstream evolutionary biology as such, which I maintain has a much more limited scope that it is usually given credit for.

For an interesting discussion of those issues, a couple of the pinned essays on my profile page, It Ain't Necessarily So, by Antony Gottlieb, and Anything but Human, by Richard Polt - neither of which, I hasten to add, have any kind of religious ax to grind.

You know what reductionism means? Do you see why this might be described as reductionist? — Wayfarer

Yes, I know what "reductionism" is. Is my statement reductionist?.... I'm not sure. If it is, does that mean it's wrong, misleading, or incomplete?... I'm not sure, but I don't think so.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Why we exist, you're playing with the word "why" there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, "why" in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question.

To me, that is something the Bishop ought to have pounced on, but he was not philosophically astute enough to sieze the moment. The question as to whether there is a reason for existence is obviously a central question for philosophy - not just biblical creationists, but even atheist existentialists. Because without there being some reason, in the larger sense, then it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that life is a kind of biochemical fluke. — Wayfarer

I don't find "why?" a very interesting question when we are talking about the world we live in. Science has nothing to say about why. The best it can do is help us understand how. I don't feel any need of a reason for the way things are. Life is a biochemical phenomenon. A fluke? My intuition tells me that life might be inevitable, although I can't justify that with specific knowledge.

There are, however, all kinds of 'evolutionary' answers to that conundrum - like, for instance, Tielhard du Chardin, and Henri Bergson, from several generations back, and nowadays the 'Big History' school which sees the evolution of consciousness as intrinsic to the Cosmos. — Wayfarer

These types of answers have always seemed to me to be romantic musings of people who don't really believe in God but can't get past a need to have a concrete anchor to attach their longing to.

But it should be stressed that none of those ideas are really relevant to mainstream evolutionary biology as such, which I maintain has a much more limited scope that it is usually given credit for. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Is my statement reductionist?.... I'm not sure. If it is, does that mean it's wrong, misleading, or incomplete?... I'm not sure, but I don't think so. — T Clark

Well you say first that:

Evolutionary biology is not a philosophy of any sort. — T Clark

But then you say that:

For those of us who think that physical and biological mechanisms of mind are all there is, that's enough. — T Clark

Which reads to me like: philosophy is unnecessary, and that the mind can be understood solely through 'physical and biological mechanisms'.

So how is that not reductionist?

Just to be clear on what 'reductionism' is, this is from an Internet article:

Reductionists are those who take one theory or phenomenon to be reducible to some other theory or phenomenon. For example, a reductionist regarding mathematics might take any given mathematical theory to be reducible to logic or set theory. Or, a reductionist about biological entities like cells might take such entities to be reducible to collections of physico-chemical entities like atoms and molecules. The type of reductionism that is currently of most interest in metaphysics and philosophy of mind involves the claim that all sciences are reducible to physics. This is usually taken to entail that all phenomena (including mental phenomena like consciousness) are identical to physical phenomena.

(The traditional understanding) is generally based on an intuition of the relationship or even continuity between mind and world - that both the mind and the world embody an order which is in some sense complementary and suffuses both, in the mind as reason and in the world as causation.
— Wayfarer

Although I probably don't have the same understanding of how it might work, I don't think what you've written is necessarily at odds with what I've written above. — T Clark

In the traditional understanding - and I'm not referring to any kind of creationism - the intellect - nous - has a kind of familial bond with the cosmic intellect - whether the One of Plotinus or what later became identified as God. There's nothing like that in Darwin or neo-Darwinism. One of the things Darwinist thinking does away with is any notion of intentionality or purpose in nature - that is why for example Dawkin's wrote The Blind Watchmaker. He wants to show that the whole grand panorama of nature has only 'the appearance of design'. In the Darwinian view, there is no foresight in nature, no aim to be achieved, no grand plan or design. Everything that occurs in nature, occurs as the consequence of molecular activities that collectively give rise to living organisms. These start from extremely simple origins as single-celled organisms and then through the vast aeons of cosmic evolution are formed into more and more complex creatures, leading to the evolution of h. sapiens. In a sense, it is an accidental process, one that just happens to occur because the conditions were right for it to occur.

Whereas the traditional understanding - I would include Taoism in this - is top-down, not bottom-up. The patterns or orders of nature are perceived to embody a kind of intelligence, whether that is the 'grand architect' of Western tradition, or the subtle naturalism of the Tao (which is 'the way of nature'.)

It means that it wasn't created, didn't come into existence at some time and place. I'm not saying I believe that, but it is undeniably a logical possibility.

Er, if the consciousness was never created, how is it logical it should exist?

Tom, your comment:

And, uh, I have a completed, a priori theory that shows how consciousness was produced through evolution, a successful Thought Experiment, and the Fossil Record
— Michael Sol

I guess a Nobel Prize awaits you.

And General Relativity is just another a priori imagining of the Universe - got an alternative for that one, too?
— Michael Sol

It's not about alternatives. As I said that approach seems to be a fallacy from incredulity. "We don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer. :wink:

It's pretty clear that the precise nature consciousness has not yet been resolved (tentative answers, sure - Metzinger on the left/Kastrup on the right) and it is doubtful that the true answer will be revealed on a forum for dilettantes.

In order:

First, you do know that I meant "in support of my argument" when I said I have a theory above? Uh, Mr. Darwin invented the Theory....

Secondly, no, I don't know is not an argument. We have a Theory and empirical evidence, to which you oppose, there are alternative theories, even if I don't know them?

Lastly, I don't have to know the exact, nuanced nature of Consciousness to know that is shows up in Animals and is a product of Evolution in a Material Environment...

I'm sorry, this just seems like carping. I've yet to receive any substantive answers suggesting alternatives to the causal dynamics of matter as an even possible basis for any kind of reality...

I would like to thank everyone for their time and honest comments. There are a lot of very penetrating, honest minds on the Forum, and I congratulate you on creating such a decent cyber-place. If anyone has any particular thing they'd like to say to me, I can be reached at MichaeldotPollensatComcastdotnet.

Be safe and well, everyone.

Er, if the consciousness was never created, how is it logical it should exist? — Michael Sol

What is the meaning of 'creature'? It means 'something created'. Created by 'the creator' - a.k.a. first cause, unmoved mover, or God.

I get that you're probably atheist and don't believe in God, and I'm not going to try and persuade you otherwise. But at least understand there used to be a clear-cut distinction between creator and created, going back to ancient days. The 'uncreated' is 'that which has always existed', 'that which is always so', whereas 'the created' is that which comes into and goes out of existence. That goes back to the idea of the search for the eternal, as distinguished from the never-ending flux of ordinary existence - what is 'always so'. The 'always so' can't be created, otherwise it wouldn't be always so.

There are even references to this in Buddhism which is by no stretch a theistic tradition, in fact they altogether deny the existence of a creator God. But the Buddha nevertheless says 'there is an unmade, unconditioned, and unborn'.

Modern thinking has generally lost sight of this distinction, and so the idea of anything other than phenomenal existence has now become unintelligible. In other words, the question of 'what is uncreated' is no longer intelligible, because modern thinking tends to focus exclusively on 'what appears'. (But then the question occurs, 'appears to whom...?')

I'm sorry, this just seems like carping. I've yet to receive any substantive answers suggesting alternatives to the causal dynamics of matter as an even possible basis for any kind of reality... — Michael Sol

I'm just responding to dogmatism. I'm not saying you are wrong just that it seems odd that you have succeeded in solving one of the great mysteries of science and philosophy. Hence the Nobel Prize quip. I say this as an atheist with no superphysical beliefs.

We have a Theory and empirical evidence, to which you oppose, there are alternative theories, even if I don't know them? — Michael Sol

We don't always have all the evidence and some distinguished thinkers posit mysterianism on the subject of consciousness precisely because an account of how it came about seems to have eluded us.

I think you know where this question leads

philosophy is unnecessary — Wayfarer

No. Evolutionary biology is science. Philosophy, in the sense we usually use it here, is not science.

...the mind can be understood solely through 'physical and biological mechanisms'.

So how is that not reductionist? — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, I think my statement is ambiguous. I was trying to thread the needle by making a fuzzy but important distinction between the mind and the mechanisms of mind. As I see it, the mechanisms of mind are neurological, biological, perceptual, and psychological. The mind itself is not.

So, no. I don't think I am being reductionist.

In the traditional understanding - and I'm not referring to any kind of creationism - the intellect - nous - has a kind of familial bond with the cosmic intellect - whether the One of Plotinus or what later became identified as God. — Wayfarer

I think what you've written is what I was referring to when I wrote:

Although I probably don't have the same understanding of how it might work, I don't think what you've written is necessarily at odds with what I've written above. — T Clark

I don't see any cosmic mind, but I think the world we normally think of as reality is inseparable from our experience of it. That's what I learned from Lao Tzu.

In the Darwinian view, there is no foresight in nature, no aim to be achieved, no grand plan or design. — Wayfarer

This is my view also.

Everything that occurs in nature, occurs as the consequence of molecular activities — Wayfarer

I think this is where my comment about mechanisms of phenomena as opposed to the phenomena themselves comes into play. Life grows out of chemistry, but is also different from, more than, chemistry. Emergence. The mind operates in accordance with different rules than the nervous system.

Whereas the traditional understanding - I would include Taoism in this - is top-down, not bottom-up. The patterns or orders of nature are perceived to embody a kind of intelligence, whether that is the 'grand architect' of Western tradition, or the subtle naturalism of the Tao (which is 'the way of nature'.) — Wayfarer

Do I agree with this? Is the Taoist view of reality top-down?.... I guess I don't think so. The Tao is the bottomest thing there can possibly be. It's so bottom a thing it's not a thing at all.