| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"someone2" |
| Date: |
25 Sep 2006 07:31:56 AM |
| Object: |
Education Policy |
Given the question
"Here's an argument to try out on those of your adaptationist friends
who think that there is an evolutionary story to be told about the
'survival value' of consciousness: Tell me whatever you think the
adaptive advantage of doing something consciously is, including the
internal, causal mechanism that generates the capacity to do it, and
then explain to me how that advantage
would be lost in doing exactly the same thing unconsciously, with
exactly the same causal mechanism. "
(extracted from
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad98.turing.evol.html)
I was wondering what the education policy towards this question is. Is
it
going to be:
1) The government are going to give an evolutionary advantage of
consciousness in accordance with the first question.
2) The government is going to claim that evolution having to stumble
blind across what caused consciousness (only guided by what is an
evolutionary advantage), and scoring 100% on the differentiated
experience (while being blind to what influences the conscious
experience) such that it seemed as though we are consciously
influencing the way the organism that we experience being behaves,
doesn't make an evolutionary explanation for our conscious experience,
implausible, and that their reasoning behind this will be taught.
3) The government will allow it to be pointed out, but any discussion
as to its relevance should be covered in a religious studies class?
4) The government will get feedback from the parents on how they wish
their
children to be taught?
5) The government will ignore it, and refuse to give the Teacher's
Union
advice on the matter.
.
|
|
| User: "pinchy" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
25 Sep 2006 02:03:45 PM |
|
|
3) The government will allow it to be pointed out, but any discussion
as to its relevance should be covered in a religious studies class?
Chances are, because of past issues... anything to do with religion
cant be taught in the classroom by law (even in Utah) that it could be
looked at this way. The government could express this through religion,
but each religion will have its own way of 'stretching' the truth in
this matter, so therefore no one would have the 'full' truth... just
like when it comes to God.
5) The government will ignore it, and refuse to give the Teacher's
Union advice on the matter.
Doesn't the government do enough of that already? Think about all the
things society could know about the USA, the president and the obvious
(war)... but don't, because the government decides to keep us all in
the dark. Then they give us false excuses for why things are the way
they are... because they dont want to admit they did something wrong. I
work for the Fed. Gov. I know how it works...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
25 Sep 2006 02:35:52 PM |
|
|
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1159187516.734239.142220@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Given the question
"Here's an argument to try out on those of your adaptationist friends
who think that there is an evolutionary story to be told about the
'survival value' of consciousness: Tell me whatever you think the
adaptive advantage of doing something consciously is, including the
internal, causal mechanism that generates the capacity to do it, and
then explain to me how that advantage
would be lost in doing exactly the same thing unconsciously, with
exactly the same causal mechanism. "
(extracted from
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad98.turing.evol.html)
I was wondering what the education policy towards this question is. Is
it
going to be:
1) The government are <snip>
Regardless of what the government are going to do, i.e, (*****):
Consciousness has a survival value to humankind. Yes, there are a lot of
things the unconscious mind can do better than the conscious mind can do,
like think.
What the conscious mind does is to enable us to verbalize our characters and
form connections with oter humans. The whole purpose of consciousness is
interspecies communication.
If you weren't a pathetic semi-literate troll you would know that
"government" isn't a plural word, ignoramus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Denny" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
25 Sep 2006 02:59:53 PM |
|
|
ike milligan wrote:
The whole purpose of consciousness is
interspecies communication.
Or is it intraspecies communication?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ghod" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
25 Sep 2006 03:54:40 PM |
|
|
"Ken Denny" <ken@kendenny.com> wrote in message
news:1159214393.678214.117450@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
: ike milligan wrote:
: >
: > The whole purpose of consciousness is
: > interspecies communication.
:
: Or is it intraspecies communication?
Heh....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
26 Sep 2006 11:12:49 AM |
|
|
"Ken Denny" <ken@kendenny.com> wrote in message
news:1159214393.678214.117450@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
ike milligan wrote:
The whole purpose of consciousness is
interspecies communication.
Or is it intraspecies communication?
Damn right laddie! Or Lassie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
25 Sep 2006 11:51:42 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, someone2 poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
"Here's an argument to try out on those of your adaptationist friends
who think that there is an evolutionary story to be told about the
'survival value' of consciousness:
[ snip an Argument from Ignorance ]
(extracted from
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad98.turing.evol.html)
I was wondering what the education policy towards this question is.
....
Uh huh. So, in order to find out, you ask in Usenet. More likely
though, you are simply grinding an axe.
Regards,
Josef
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature,
and it remains premature today.
-- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ghod" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
25 Sep 2006 12:28:01 PM |
|
|
"Josef Balluch" <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f81d32991de746a989726@news.cg.yu...
:
: In a message sent 'round the world, someone2 poured fuel on the fire
: with the following:
:
:
:
: > "Here's an argument to try out on those of your adaptationist
friends
: > who think that there is an evolutionary story to be told about the
: > 'survival value' of consciousness:
:
: [ snip an Argument from Ignorance ]
I don't think he's got another form of argument.....
: > (extracted from
: >
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad98.turing.evol.html)
: >
: > I was wondering what the education policy towards this question
is.
:
:
: ...
:
:
: Uh huh. So, in order to find out, you ask in Usenet. More likely
: though, you are simply grinding an axe.
Mebbe that's why he "axed" the question?
: To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature,
: and it remains premature today.
:
: -- Isaac Asimov
One of my heros! Started rereading the Foundation trilogy last
night....been over twenty years. *sigh*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
01 Oct 2006 10:00:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:51:42 -0400, Josef Balluch
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in alt.atheism
In a message sent 'round the world, someone2 poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
"Here's an argument to try out on those of your adaptationist friends
who think that there is an evolutionary story to be told about the
'survival value' of consciousness:
[ snip an Argument from Ignorance ]
(extracted from
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad98.turing.evol.html)
I was wondering what the education policy towards this question is.
...
Uh huh. So, in order to find out, you ask in Usenet. More likely
though, you are simply grinding an axe.
Glenn? Always. He loves sharpening his axe of ignorance, dishonesty,
cowardice, and bigotry.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
25 Sep 2006 07:33:37 PM |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2006 05:31:56 -0700, "someone2"
<glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1159187516.734239.142220@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Given the question
"Here's an argument to try out on those of your adaptationist friends
who think that there is an evolutionary story to be told about the
'survival value' of consciousness: Tell me whatever you think the
adaptive advantage of doing something consciously is, including the
internal, causal mechanism that generates the capacity to do it, and
then explain to me how that advantage
would be lost in doing exactly the same thing unconsciously, with
exactly the same causal mechanism. "
(extracted from
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad98.turing.evol.html)
I was wondering what the education policy towards this question is. Is
it
going to be:
1) The government are going to give an evolutionary advantage of
consciousness in accordance with the first question.
2) The government is going to claim that evolution having to stumble
blind across what caused consciousness (only guided by what is an
evolutionary advantage), and scoring 100% on the differentiated
experience (while being blind to what influences the conscious
experience) such that it seemed as though we are consciously
influencing the way the organism that we experience being behaves,
doesn't make an evolutionary explanation for our conscious experience,
implausible, and that their reasoning behind this will be taught.
3) The government will allow it to be pointed out, but any discussion
as to its relevance should be covered in a religious studies class?
4) The government will get feedback from the parents on how they wish
their
children to be taught?
5) The government will ignore it, and refuse to give the Teacher's
Union
advice on the matter.
Why are you obsessed with your ignorance as it relates to
consciousness and evolution?
Were you bullied at school, or are you from a broken family?
I bet you were subjected to Christian indoctrination, and mutilation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone2" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
26 Sep 2006 01:36:06 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 25 Sep 2006 05:31:56 -0700, "someone2"
<glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1159187516.734239.142220@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Given the question
"Here's an argument to try out on those of your adaptationist friends
who think that there is an evolutionary story to be told about the
'survival value' of consciousness: Tell me whatever you think the
adaptive advantage of doing something consciously is, including the
internal, causal mechanism that generates the capacity to do it, and
then explain to me how that advantage
would be lost in doing exactly the same thing unconsciously, with
exactly the same causal mechanism. "
(extracted from
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad98.turing.evol.html)
I was wondering what the education policy towards this question is. Is
it
going to be:
1) The government are going to give an evolutionary advantage of
consciousness in accordance with the first question.
2) The government is going to claim that evolution having to stumble
blind across what caused consciousness (only guided by what is an
evolutionary advantage), and scoring 100% on the differentiated
experience (while being blind to what influences the conscious
experience) such that it seemed as though we are consciously
influencing the way the organism that we experience being behaves,
doesn't make an evolutionary explanation for our conscious experience,
implausible, and that their reasoning behind this will be taught.
3) The government will allow it to be pointed out, but any discussion
as to its relevance should be covered in a religious studies class?
4) The government will get feedback from the parents on how they wish
their
children to be taught?
5) The government will ignore it, and refuse to give the Teacher's
Union
advice on the matter.
Why are you obsessed with your ignorance as it relates to
consciousness and evolution?
Were you bullied at school, or are you from a broken family?
I bet you were subjected to Christian indoctrination, and mutilation.
Is there something you want to get off your chest? What is this
mutilation you are talking about, whose been mutilated?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
26 Sep 2006 07:37:29 PM |
|
|
On 26 Sep 2006 11:36:06 -0700, "someone2"
<glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1159295762.780892.240040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 25 Sep 2006 05:31:56 -0700, "someone2"
<glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1159187516.734239.142220@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Given the question
"Here's an argument to try out on those of your adaptationist friends
who think that there is an evolutionary story to be told about the
'survival value' of consciousness: Tell me whatever you think the
adaptive advantage of doing something consciously is, including the
internal, causal mechanism that generates the capacity to do it, and
then explain to me how that advantage
would be lost in doing exactly the same thing unconsciously, with
exactly the same causal mechanism. "
(extracted from
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad98.turing.evol.html)
I was wondering what the education policy towards this question is. Is
it
going to be:
1) The government are going to give an evolutionary advantage of
consciousness in accordance with the first question.
2) The government is going to claim that evolution having to stumble
blind across what caused consciousness (only guided by what is an
evolutionary advantage), and scoring 100% on the differentiated
experience (while being blind to what influences the conscious
experience) such that it seemed as though we are consciously
influencing the way the organism that we experience being behaves,
doesn't make an evolutionary explanation for our conscious experience,
implausible, and that their reasoning behind this will be taught.
3) The government will allow it to be pointed out, but any discussion
as to its relevance should be covered in a religious studies class?
4) The government will get feedback from the parents on how they wish
their
children to be taught?
5) The government will ignore it, and refuse to give the Teacher's
Union
advice on the matter.
Why are you obsessed with your ignorance as it relates to
consciousness and evolution?
Were you bullied at school, or are you from a broken family?
I bet you were subjected to Christian indoctrination, and mutilation.
Is there something you want to get off your chest? What is this
mutilation you are talking about, whose been mutilated?
Infant circumcision is religious mutilation.
I should have thought that was obvious to one who professes to be as
smart as you do.
Christian indoctrination is mental abuse.
I am asking if your thought processing inadequacies have been caused
or influenced by the residual effects of either form of criminal
abuse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone2" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
01 Oct 2006 09:47:00 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 26 Sep 2006 11:36:06 -0700, "someone2"
<glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1159295762.780892.240040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 25 Sep 2006 05:31:56 -0700, "someone2"
<glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1159187516.734239.142220@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Given the question
"Here's an argument to try out on those of your adaptationist friends
who think that there is an evolutionary story to be told about the
'survival value' of consciousness: Tell me whatever you think the
adaptive advantage of doing something consciously is, including the
internal, causal mechanism that generates the capacity to do it, and
then explain to me how that advantage
would be lost in doing exactly the same thing unconsciously, with
exactly the same causal mechanism. "
(extracted from
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad98.turing.evol.html)
I was wondering what the education policy towards this question is. Is
it
going to be:
1) The government are going to give an evolutionary advantage of
consciousness in accordance with the first question.
2) The government is going to claim that evolution having to stumble
blind across what caused consciousness (only guided by what is an
evolutionary advantage), and scoring 100% on the differentiated
experience (while being blind to what influences the conscious
experience) such that it seemed as though we are consciously
influencing the way the organism that we experience being behaves,
doesn't make an evolutionary explanation for our conscious experience,
implausible, and that their reasoning behind this will be taught.
3) The government will allow it to be pointed out, but any discussion
as to its relevance should be covered in a religious studies class?
4) The government will get feedback from the parents on how they wish
their
children to be taught?
5) The government will ignore it, and refuse to give the Teacher's
Union
advice on the matter.
Why are you obsessed with your ignorance as it relates to
consciousness and evolution?
Were you bullied at school, or are you from a broken family?
I bet you were subjected to Christian indoctrination, and mutilation.
Is there something you want to get off your chest? What is this
mutilation you are talking about, whose been mutilated?
Infant circumcision is religious mutilation.
I should have thought that was obvious to one who professes to be as
smart as you do.
Christian indoctrination is mental abuse.
I am asking if your thought processing inadequacies have been caused
or influenced by the residual effects of either form of criminal
abuse.
I think mutilation is over dramatic in describing male circumcision,
and I didn't realise that was a commonly practised Christian ritual.
Why are the teachings of Jesus mental abuse?
As for thought processing inadequacies, you still haven't admitted to
yourself, that if all we are is biological organisms, and therefore
biological mechanisms, that you can't say why any associated conscious
experience would interfere with the biological mechanism in any way.
If it didn't it would be irrelevant to how the biological organism
behaves.
Therefore it wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage.
Therefore you haven't got an explanation for how evolution, guided only
by what is evolutionarily advantageous , and thus blind to whatever
causes consciousness, and what conscious experience is caused, scored
100%, the whole thing being so perfect that it seemed as though we were
making conscious decisions.
You probably haven't got an explanation for the magic structure or
pattern that causes consciousness, but I guess you've admitted that one
to yourself already.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Rowley" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
02 Oct 2006 03:42:52 AM |
|
|
From: "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com>:
<snip>
As for thought processing inadequacies, you still haven't
admitted to yourself, that if all we are is biological organisms,
and therefore biological mechanisms, that you can't say why any
associated conscious experience would interfere with the
biological mechanism in any way.
You're in denial!
Scads of people have told you why an integrated (rather than
merely losely associated) consciousness would affect the mechanism
it was a part of.
Now, you don't have to accept that consciousness actually is
integrated rather than tacked on afterwards but you have given
no reason whatsoever to think it isn't (except that that is
counter to your religious beliefs)
If it didn't it would be irrelevant to how the biological
organism behaves.
But if it did it would be relevant to how the biological
organism behaves.
Therefore it wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage.
Therefore it would be an evolutionary advantage.
Therefore you haven't got an explanation for how evolution,
guided only by what is evolutionarily advantageous ,
But we do, you have given no reason to think that we _could_
act the same without experiencing consciousness.
We certainly couldn't without simulating consciousness
somehow.
and thus blind to whatever causes consciousness,
Blind to the mechanism but able to select on the basis of
function, ie behavioral effects.
and what conscious experience is caused,
Unsupported!
scored 100%, the whole thing being so
perfect that it seemed as though we were
making conscious decisions.
So the logical conclusion is that we are.
You probably haven't got an explanation for the magic structure
or pattern that causes consciousness, but I guess you've admitted
that one to yourself already.
You're the one who attributes it to "magic".
Eric
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone2" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
02 Oct 2006 07:24:09 AM |
|
|
Eric Rowley wrote:
From: "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com>:
<snip>
As for thought processing inadequacies, you still haven't
admitted to yourself, that if all we are is biological organisms,
and therefore biological mechanisms, that you can't say why any
associated conscious experience would interfere with the
biological mechanism in any way.
You're in denial!
Scads of people have told you why an integrated (rather than
merely losely associated) consciousness would affect the mechanism
it was a part of.
Now, you don't have to accept that consciousness actually is
integrated rather than tacked on afterwards but you have given
no reason whatsoever to think it isn't (except that that is
counter to your religious beliefs)
What difference does it make to the way the mechanism of the human
organism works, in other words could you give me an example of how the
mechanism is effected by the experience itself?
You might need to read that question carefully because you normally
give inappropriate examples.
If it didn't it would be irrelevant to how the biological
organism behaves.
But if it did it would be relevant to how the biological
organism behaves.
Therefore it wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage.
Therefore it would be an evolutionary advantage.
Therefore you haven't got an explanation for how evolution,
guided only by what is evolutionarily advantageous ,
But we do, you have given no reason to think that we _could_
act the same without experiencing consciousness.
We certainly couldn't without simulating consciousness
somehow.
and thus blind to whatever causes consciousness,
Blind to the mechanism but able to select on the basis of
function, ie behavioral effects.
and what conscious experience is caused,
Unsupported!
scored 100%, the whole thing being so
perfect that it seemed as though we were
making conscious decisions.
So the logical conclusion is that we are.
You probably haven't got an explanation for the magic structure
or pattern that causes consciousness, but I guess you've admitted
that one to yourself already.
You're the one who attributes it to "magic".
Eric
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ymir" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
03 Oct 2006 01:11:42 AM |
|
|
In article <1159791849.722092.6600@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote:
Eric Rowley wrote:
From: "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com>:
<snip>
As for thought processing inadequacies, you still haven't
admitted to yourself, that if all we are is biological organisms,
and therefore biological mechanisms, that you can't say why any
associated conscious experience would interfere with the
biological mechanism in any way.
You're in denial!
Scads of people have told you why an integrated (rather than
merely losely associated) consciousness would affect the mechanism
it was a part of.
Now, you don't have to accept that consciousness actually is
integrated rather than tacked on afterwards but you have given
no reason whatsoever to think it isn't (except that that is
counter to your religious beliefs)
What difference does it make to the way the mechanism of the human
organism works, in other words could you give me an example of how the
mechanism is effected by the experience itself?
You might need to read that question carefully because you normally
give inappropriate examples.
You still have not provided an answer to my earlier question (in another
thread -- IIRC "evolutionary question about god") regarding the criteria
which you use to establish consciousness in an organism (or robot or
whatever) -- what is it that allows you to determine, for example, that
another human being is conscious?
Without providing an answer to this question, it is not clear to me how
you expect anyone to seriously debate this issue with you. After all,
the argument which I and others have offered is that it would not be
possible to exhibit the same range of behaviours/environmental responses
in absence of conscious experience since conscious experience plays a
causal role in our decision making. If you want to maintain that this is
not the case, you would need to establish how one would actually go
about establishing the non-conscious status of an entity.
If you continue to ask questions but refuse to answer those questions
posed to you, it is difficult for anyone to believe that you are
seriously interested in debating this issue or arriving at informed
conclusions.
André
--
use rot thirteen to email
ntvfnnx (at) tznvy.pbz
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone2" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
03 Oct 2006 05:48:06 AM |
|
|
Ymir wrote:
In article <1159791849.722092.6600@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote:
Eric Rowley wrote:
From: "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com>:
<snip>
As for thought processing inadequacies, you still haven't
admitted to yourself, that if all we are is biological organisms,
and therefore biological mechanisms, that you can't say why any
associated conscious experience would interfere with the
biological mechanism in any way.
You're in denial!
Scads of people have told you why an integrated (rather than
merely losely associated) consciousness would affect the mechanism
it was a part of.
Now, you don't have to accept that consciousness actually is
integrated rather than tacked on afterwards but you have given
no reason whatsoever to think it isn't (except that that is
counter to your religious beliefs)
What difference does it make to the way the mechanism of the human
organism works, in other words could you give me an example of how the
mechanism is effected by the experience itself?
You might need to read that question carefully because you normally
give inappropriate examples.
You still have not provided an answer to my earlier question (in another
thread -- IIRC "evolutionary question about god") regarding the criteria
which you use to establish consciousness in an organism (or robot or
whatever) -- what is it that allows you to determine, for example, that
another human being is conscious?
Without providing an answer to this question, it is not clear to me how
you expect anyone to seriously debate this issue with you. After all,
the argument which I and others have offered is that it would not be
possible to exhibit the same range of behaviours/environmental responses
in absence of conscious experience since conscious experience plays a
causal role in our decision making. If you want to maintain that this is
not the case, you would need to establish how one would actually go
about establishing the non-conscious status of an entity.
If you continue to ask questions but refuse to answer those questions
posed to you, it is difficult for anyone to believe that you are
seriously interested in debating this issue or arriving at informed
conclusions.
You have no serious intentions of debating. If you did you would see
that in the original post the argument is outlined, and some possible
responses given, and you would have responded there. Though I remember
saying that I wasn't going to respond to your posts anymore due to your
disingenuous replies. I've made an exception here, because again you
can see how you have just introduced distractions which have nothing to
do with the line of reasoning presented, but which you seem unable to
face, and because there may be a vague possibility that this was an
attempt by you to try to understand it.
You'll notice it doesn't require any tests about how you could tell if
a person is conscious (there are no such tests, which is why some
people are solipsists).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ymir" |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
03 Oct 2006 07:13:42 PM |
|
|
In article <1159872485.968621.254500@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ymir wrote:
In article <1159791849.722092.6600@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote:
Eric Rowley wrote:
From: "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com>:
<snip>
As for thought processing inadequacies, you still haven't
admitted to yourself, that if all we are is biological organisms,
and therefore biological mechanisms, that you can't say why any
associated conscious experience would interfere with the
biological mechanism in any way.
You're in denial!
Scads of people have told you why an integrated (rather than
merely losely associated) consciousness would affect the mechanism
it was a part of.
Now, you don't have to accept that consciousness actually is
integrated rather than tacked on afterwards but you have given
no reason whatsoever to think it isn't (except that that is
counter to your religious beliefs)
What difference does it make to the way the mechanism of the human
organism works, in other words could you give me an example of how the
mechanism is effected by the experience itself?
You might need to read that question carefully because you normally
give inappropriate examples.
You still have not provided an answer to my earlier question (in another
thread -- IIRC "evolutionary question about god") regarding the criteria
which you use to establish consciousness in an organism (or robot or
whatever) -- what is it that allows you to determine, for example, that
another human being is conscious?
Without providing an answer to this question, it is not clear to me how
you expect anyone to seriously debate this issue with you. After all,
the argument which I and others have offered is that it would not be
possible to exhibit the same range of behaviours/environmental responses
in absence of conscious experience since conscious experience plays a
causal role in our decision making. If you want to maintain that this is
not the case, you would need to establish how one would actually go
about establishing the non-conscious status of an entity.
If you continue to ask questions but refuse to answer those questions
posed to you, it is difficult for anyone to believe that you are
seriously interested in debating this issue or arriving at informed
conclusions.
You have no serious intentions of debating. If you did you would see
that in the original post the argument is outlined, and some possible
responses given, and you would have responded there.
An attempt at an argument was outlined, however the serious flaws in
that argument were pointed out. In particular, you showed some rather
gross misunderstandings regarding the relationship between various
different levels of explanation and of the difference between
ontological and methodological reductionism.
Though I remember
saying that I wasn't going to respond to your posts anymore due to your
disingenuous replies.
You said this (rather unjustly IMHO) to a number of people, but I was
not among them.
I've made an exception here, because again you
can see how you have just introduced distractions which have nothing to
do with the line of reasoning presented, but which you seem unable to
face, and because there may be a vague possibility that this was an
attempt by you to try to understand it.
You'll notice it doesn't require any tests about how you could tell if
a person is conscious (there are no such tests, which is why some
people are solipsists).
This is not a distraction -- this is rather central.
While it is possible that some people are solipsists I doubt many of
them frequent usenet given that there would be rather little point in
debating figments of your own imagination. Therefore, I will assume that
you are not a solipsist.
Given that, presumably you assume that other people are conscious. You
also presumably assume that there are some entities in the universe
which are not conscious. While there may be no ironclad test for
consciousness in other entities you must at least have some reason for
holding such a belief.
In the case of most people, the assumption that others are conscious
stems from the fact that other people *act* conscious. Other organisms,
such as cats, dogs, etc. also act in a way which suggests a level of
self-awareness, whereas some organisms (bacteria, for example) do not
exhibit such behaviours and thus are assumed by most to lack such
awareness (there's also a large grey area in the middle for which you'll
find a lot of differences of opinions -- I suspect that the notion of
'consciousness' is a gradient one so establishing a clear line is
probably not a possible goal).
If you follow such an approach (and I believe most people do), then you
are assuming that consciousness does, in fact, influence behaviour, so
to claim that it would be possible to act in exactly the same way
without possessing consciousness becomes rather problematic. You're
argument, therefore, isn't going to go anywhere unless you address the
question of how to establish consciousness independent of behaviour.
You also seem to show a misunderstanding of how evolution works -- if it
were the case that a 'zombie' were possible (and I am dubious of this),
that does not provide evidence that consciousness could not have been
selected for. Evolution does not seek the optimal solution to a given
problem, nor does it seek the minimal solution to a problem. It seeks a
workable solution.
If evolution stumbled across a particular type of neural organisation
which lead to self-awareness, and if this awareness influenced behaviour
in a way which imparted a survival value, then self-awareness would be
selected for. If a different organisation existed which allowed for the
same behavioural advantates without imparting consciousness, that does
not entail that evolution would seek out such a solution simply because
it carried less 'baggage' -- evolution would favour whichever of these
strategies arose first and managed to establish itself.
André
--
use rot thirteen to email
ntvfnnx (at) tznvy.pbz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Education Policy |
25 Sep 2006 08:15:05 AM |
|
|
someone2 skrev:
Given the question
"Here's an argument to try out on those of your adaptationist friends
who think that there is an evolutionary story to be told about the
'survival value' of consciousness: Tell me whatever you think the
adaptive advantage of doing something consciously is, including the
internal, causal mechanism that generates the capacity to do it, and
then explain to me how that advantage
would be lost in doing exactly the same thing unconsciously, with
exactly the same causal mechanism. "
Why gosh, you really point out something important! There actually is
more than one way for survival to be accomplished. Oh, wait a minute.
We all knew that already. Thank you anyway. Bye.
snip
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
