Consciousness; a radically new theory. Romansh? (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 01, 2015, 17:08 (3432 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: When one expert after expert another claims that bacteria are sentient, cognitive beings, as a layman I am in no position to reject their findings out of hand as you do. I would expect at least a degree of open-mindedness.
DAVID: When I have an obvious alternative, which I fully understand, that the automaticity makes it look sentient, is just as open-minded and as plain as day.-If a number of experts say bacteria are sentient and cognitive, and you reject their findings, you have closed your mind. You are in fact using the same approach as the atheist who says that the complexity of natural structures makes them look designed but they are not. How does he know? And how do you know?-DAVID: True mentation begins somewhere after neurons appear. I think that is a requirement.-That depends on what you mean by “true” mentation. I have no idea where the borderlines lie between “true” thought and non-thought. Your insistence that mentation depends on the presence of neurons puts carts before horses (Shapiro's “large organisms chauvinism”), besides flying in the face of your dualism.
 
DAVID: I think your theory lacks a beginning phase and therefore rings hollow to me.
dhw: All theories ring hollow (see below). Your own has no beginning either: supreme consciousness has apparently always been there.
DAVID: That is a beginning.-Eternity does not have a beginning. And if your universal consciousness is not eternal, how did it begin?-DAVID: I fully understand your brand of agnosticism. It admits to all sorts of possible theories with a shut mind against all.
dhw: I have come up with just three possible theories, as above, which I neither accept nor reject. That means I am aware of their flaws, but have an open mind towards them.....And yet you admit that your theory is so flawed that it requires a leap of faith for you to believe it.
DAVID: It is your view that there are flaws. Because I don't see flaws, I take my leap of faith that I am correct.-If there were no flaws in the argument, God's existence would be a fact and you would not need to have faith. You are as aware as I am that there is no direct evidence whatsoever that a universal consciousness exists, is unobservable because it is hiding itself, or offers a more reliable explanation for the universe and life than any other of the many theories on offer (including those of other religions). I am truly surprised that you do not see lack of direct evidence as a flaw in your theory. Such an approach opens the door to every theory that you reject.