Different in degree or kind: Sapiens begin brain use (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, October 20, 2016, 14:55 (2956 days ago) @ dhw

David: Consciousness is an non-material instrument I use[/i]

dhw: What do you think your ”I” consists of? If you believe it will survive the death of your body, you can’t separate it from your consciousness, unless you think you are going to be “you” without knowing who “you” are. Every immaterial attribute of your identity – your thoughts, emotions, memories, experiences, free will, personal characteristics – must be bound up with your consciousness.

I agree, my 'I' and my consciousness are inseparable.

dhw:This is the point at which you disagree with yourself, because according to your dualistic beliefs, the self – or the consciousness in which your self develops – continues after death. And yet you conclude: “This is what consciousness does for us, a mighty tool managed by the brain.” How can consciousness be managed by the brain if the consciousness that contains your “self” survives the death of the brain?

Why not? Our brain is an instrument under our control which receives and manages the consciousness, shapes its knowledge and experiences and sense of self, and when the brain dies, the consciousness returns to the universal consciousness.

dhw: You have only given us two possible methods: preprogramming and dabbling. Each of these precludes autonomy. The only guidelines you have come up with are limitations, but these do not explain what an organism CAN do; they only tell us what an organism can’t do. You have previously mentioned God giving organisms a multichoice list, with the organism free to choose, and bad luck if it got the answer wrong. That would mean that God not only provided the first cells with programmes for every innovation and natural wonder in life’s history, but also got them to pass on multiple wrong programmes as well.

You have forgotten that 'bad luck' (per Raup) was truly just that. The organisms that went extinct were the results of catastrophic events not poor design.

dhw: I hope that idea has gone into the bin now. What other guidelines can you think of that might enable us to call the inventive mechanism inventive as opposed to automatic?

That is your hope, not mine.