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

by dhw, Friday, July 03, 2015, 16:45 (3430 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: [...] 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: If two theories are “just as probable”, it requires a closed mind to dismiss either of them.
DAVID: I can still choose to pick my conclusion on an equal stance with them. I think they are absolutely wrong.-If you think one theory is absolutely wrong, why do you say it is just as probable? 
 
Dhw: I still don't know where you draw the borderline between mentation and “true” mentation. 
DAVID: Mentation to me means creating ideas and observations. My dog does, E. Coli don't.-All organisms need some kind of observation to cope with their environment. Most forms of observation are indeed automatic (through the senses or their equivalent), but with what mental processes organisms react to those observations is the point at issue. “Creating ideas” requires further explanation. A dog might “create” the idea that it can get at a juicy steak by opening the fridge door, but then Pfeffer's bacteria got to the chicken soup by racing through the disinfectant. What creative ideas does your dog have?-DAVID: [...] the evidence I see piled up for design is ‘without a reasonable doubt' in my mind.-You go far beyond belief in design: you insist that the design has been carried out by a single mind, which never had a beginning but has existed for ever, which planned the universe and the cell and evolution in advance so that it could produce human beings, which deliberately hides itself from us...What direct evidence (first-hand witnesses, scientific proof, tests) do you have for this hypothesis? I must reiterate that I have the greatest respect for your arguments and your belief in the existence of an eternal, sourceless, universal but unobservable intelligence. I am merely surprised that you do not regard the absence of direct evidence as a flaw in the theory. By such standards, the absence of direct evidence that chance can create life, or that materials might evolve their own intelligence, should not be regarded as a flaw in those hypotheses either, so what we are left with is irrational (unreasonable) faith, and that surely leaves room for rational (reasonable) doubt in all cases.