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

by David Turell , Wednesday, July 01, 2015, 19:29 (3220 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: 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?-Because my proposal, since we cannot get into the bacteria, but observe from the outside, looks the same as sentience and is just as probable.-> 
> dhw: 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.-Not at all. My dualism assumes, stated many times before, one needs a brain as a receiver of consciousness.
> 
> dhw: Eternity does not have a beginning. And if your universal consciousness is not eternal, how did it begin?-Good correction. Agreed
> 
> dhw: 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.-Please remember I follow Adler, 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.