Emergence (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, October 10, 2013, 12:00 (4061 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We still have no idea how this results in consciousness, let alone self-awareness (which must be distinguished from consciousness)...-DAVID: Here I disagree. Consciousness involves self-awareness at the human level. Animals are conscious but generally not self-aware and therfore do not have the type of consciousness we have.-You disagree, and then you proceed to agree. That is why there is so much confusion between us over this issue. When you talk of consciousness, you think in terms of human self-awareness (your 2nd sentence), whereas I am constantly emphasizing that there is a distinction between the two, and that there are different degrees and types of consciousness (your 3rd sentence). You cannot see the dislocation between your two statements, and this is what influences all your thinking on the subject.-dhw: ...but if each part contributes to the whole, what does it contribute? Is it only the whole that is "conscious", while all the parts are automatons? Or is it possible that the parts themselves have a degree of consciousness, and the unification of these billions of "degrees" creates a superconsciousness?-DAVID: We just don't know, but it obviously takes a brain of human magnitude to create our level of consciousness. Now, is it a creation or does it act like a radio receiver? -It's obvious that there is an association between the complexity of our brain and the level of our consciousness, but it is not obvious that your brain has CREATED that level if you think the brain may be a receiver. Meanwhile, I'm delighted at your admission that we don't know whether the parts have a degree of consciousness, bearing in mind that the parts are cells. There's hope yet for A-B and me!-dhw: ...is it the cells that develop the abilities, or is it the abilities that develop the cells? Is it biochemistry that produces intelligence, or is intelligence a form of energy that drives the biochemistry? When "I" decide to perform an action, is this "I" an identity that emerges from a mass of chemicals, or is it a separate form of energy that interacts with the chemicals (sometimes controlling them, sometimes being controlled by them)?-DAVID: Good questions. Your brain has plasticity, grows neurons and connections as you learn. It also modulates synapses so connections vary. I believe it is all automatic. Your 'self' identity is another philosophic and scientific issue. -It is the same issue. Our intelligence, consciousness, memory, emotions, will, imagination, reason constitute our identity. If you believe the brain is an automaton which produces all these things biochemically and automatically, what part of our identity do you think is not automated? -dhw: You believe in a form of intelligence that is entirely independent of biochemistry (your God), and you take with the utmost seriousness psychic experiences such as NDEs, which not only suggest a similar independent form of energy, but may even suggest an afterlife in which the entire identity of a person survives independently of his materials. And yet you believe that consciousness, intellect, intelligence emerge from biochemistry. We have discussed this before, but the two concepts of intelligence still seem to me to be contradictory.-DAVID: Not contradictory. I have no idea how consciousness emerges. I believe in a universal consciousness (GOD); I believe in species consciousness; and I believe in an afterlife in which my consciousness joins the universal consciousness. Remember the brain may be acting as a radio receiver to facilitate all of this. And biochemistry is at the base. Both consciousnes and life are emergent properties from the complexities of biochemistry.-You are reiterating your beliefs, but you can't see the contradiction. If your consciousness and your life emerge from biochemistry, how and in what form do you think your consciousness and your life can survive the death of the chemicals that produce them?