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

by dhw, Saturday, July 04, 2015, 21:58 (3429 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw:If you think one theory is absolutely wrong, why do you say it is just as probable? 
DAVID: On the surface, both interpretations are equally probable, but when single cells are continued to be investigated for mechanisms, those mechanisms continue to be found and they are always automatic biochemical reactions.-When the human brain is examined for mechanisms, “those mechanisms continue to be found and they are always automatic biochemical reactions.” Nobody knows how consciousness/mentation works in ANY organism. In those other than ourselves, we judge by behaviour, and researchers have observed the behaviour of bacteria and concluded that they can “think”. You are applying double standards, since you attribute mentation to your dog solely by observing its behaviour. “Large organisms chauvinism”. -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.
dhw: What creative ideas does your dog have?
DAVID: He doesn't, but humans do which makes us "different in kind". In my view truly creative thought exists only in humans. How many apes draw up house plans?-You claimed (see above) that your dog was capable of mentation. What sort of ideas does your dog “create”, thereby proving mentation, that bacteria don't “create”?-DAVID: [...] the evidence I see piled up for design is ‘without a reasonable doubt' in my mind.
dhw: You go far beyond belief in design: you insist that the design has been carried out by a single mind, ......What direct evidence (first-hand witnesses, scientific proof, tests) do you have for this hypothesis? .... 
DAVID: Your insistence upon direct evidence of a greater power is a symptom of your agnosticism. Direct evidence is essentially impossible as you know, so the next step for me is 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt' Which I fully accept, indirect as it is.-I do not insist, because I know it's impossible. I am merely saying that absence of direct evidence seems to me to be a flaw in your theory, as you yourself are always quick to point out when you disapprove of an argument: e.g. chance origins, string theory, the multiverse etc. Double standards again?-DAVID: I do not view my faith as unreasonable.... -Nor do I, if we use “unreasonable” in the sense of unacceptable or out of order. But faith, you must admit, is irrational, and that is the sense in which I challenge your claim that you have proved your God's existence “beyond a reasonable doubt”. To put it another way, I would argue that without direct evidence it is perfectly reasonable to have doubts (as with chance, string theory, the multiverse etc.).