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

by dhw, Thursday, July 02, 2015, 16:54 (3220 days ago) @ David Turell

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?-DAVID: 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.-If two theories are “just as probable”, it requires a closed mind to dismiss either of them.-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.
-DAVID: Not at all. My dualism assumes, stated many times before, one needs a brain as a receiver of consciousness.-Some experts believe that bacteria have the equivalent of a brain, and if humans use the brain only as a receiver, maybe bacteria do too. And I still don't know where you draw the borderline between mentation and “true” mentation.
 
dhw: 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.-DAVID: Please remember I follow Adler, 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.-The expression is used mainly in courts of law, where a jury can listen to the accounts of living witnesses and of the accused and of the defendant (if still alive), and judge their reliability, and can also hear forensic evidence from scientists (fingerprints, blood samples, DNA) and judge their relevance. I acknowledge with much admiration the strength of the case you put for design, and I cannot possibly close my mind to it, but in the complete absence of any such direct evidence (reliable witnesses; visible, testable manifestations of existence), can you really regard doubt as being unreasonable? And do you really not see this absence as a flaw in your theory, thereby necessitating your leap of faith?