Consciousness; further review of current thought (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, July 08, 2016, 13:13 (3059 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Same answer. You are hoping that individual committees of cells can produce the biologic complexities I have exhibited to you, and I am firm in my commitment that only a planning mind can create the saltations you admit occur. You hope is certainly simple, but not supported by the biochemistry which is found in the reductive materialism of the research, the only way to find how cells work.

dhw: I am not hoping, I am speculating. I offer a hypothesis, not a firm belief, but I share your view that some sort of mind is required to produce the biological complexities you have exhibited to me (not to mention the biological complexities that Darwin exhibited to me, which helped to turn me from atheism to agnosticism). The fact that some scientists believe in cellular intelligence lends scientific support to my hypothesis that all living organisms have “minds” (not to be equated with the human mind). The “reductive materialism of the research” is precisely what you object to when neurologists attempt to reduce human consciousness to the workings of neurons, but that is actually beside the point. For all we know, the brain may not be the only possible material source of intelligence/consciousness. We simply do not know the source, and we should therefore keep an open mind. But of course I acknowledge your right to abide by your firm commitment, not simply to design (which I can readily accept) but also to your 3.8-bilion-year-old computer programme/ad-hoc-dabbling hypothesis and to your scepticism concerning bacterial intelligence.-DAVID: That is a step forward for you to admit 'some sort of mind' is required. -The sort of mind I am referring to in the context of the biological complexities of evolutionary innovation is that of the organisms themselves. I have offered three hypotheses concerning the origin of such a mind, and find all of them equally unconvincing. -DAVID: Reductive materialism is necessary in research to uncover the mechanisms of how cells work. That is all it is. I never try to reduce consciousness to neurons because you know full well, no one knows how that works and I object to your trying to compare the discussion of cell material activity to whatever it is that creates consciousness. How the brain runs muscles, for example, is what is equivalent to cell biological responses. Consciousness is a different breed of cats.-Of course it is. But you have missed the point of what I wrote, which is why I have quoted it again. You object when neuroscientists try to reduce consciousness to chemical and electrical activity. But when scientists suggest that brainless organisms may also be conscious, you point to chemical and electrical activity as if that explained all their seemingly conscious behaviour. Double standards.