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

by David Turell , Sunday, July 05, 2015, 00:01 (3429 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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.-We know we can think. Do we really know if bacteria think in any provable sort of way? No, we make competing theories from observations.-> dhw: In those other than ourselves, we judge by behaviour, and researchers have observed the behaviour of bacteria and concluded that they can “think”.-A conclusion is not a proof, only a supposition.-> dhw: You are applying double standards, since you attribute mentation to your dog solely by observing its behaviour. -Yesterday our show horse came in from grazing in a pasture. His hooves were sore from being trimmed the day before. He headed for a door over a large patch of gravel drive, spotted a side door off the grass and immediately changed course for the easier path. Thinking horse?
> 
> dhw: 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”?-He communicates with us by bringing toys to play, starring at me when he needs to go out, changing direction when we are playing keep away, all requiring some thought and planning.-> dhw: 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.-When I measure the odds I think they are much stronger for God than chance or the theories you mention.-> 
> DAVID: I do not view my faith as unreasonable.... 
> 
> dhw: 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.).-Once again, you want absolute proof before you can believe in anything. You see the sky as blue, but it is a physical trick playing with our eyes. Space is black.