Practical Consequences (Humans)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 14:28 (5282 days ago) @ xeno6696

dhw: Greta Christian's belief that consciousness is ENTIRELY biological is subjective, because there's no scientific evidence to support it.-Matt: I must stop you here. [...] Her observation is patently scientific: We have no evidence for a universal consciousness, therefore it isn't reasonable to say it exists.-I wonder why you stopped me there, since my next sentence reads: "The claim that there is a universal intelligence is also subjective, because there's no scientific evidence to support it." You then attack me for views which I don't hold and for arguments which I've never used, ignoring the rest of my post, which aims to show that GC's beliefs are just as subjective as those she criticizes. Please read my post, and note that the paragraph which you reproduced, repeating your own arguments, ends: "I agree". -However, I will again answer you in the hope that you'll read what I write and not manufacture what you wish I'd written. First, you claim that because there's no scientific evidence, it isn't "reasonable" to say that a universal consciousness exists. (I'll ignore the bit about non-biological objects being conscious ... where have you found any such reference in my posts?) Science has so far failed both to explain the nature, origin and workings of consciousness, and to prove that inanimate matter can spontaneously come to life. Until scientists find explanations, I'm prepared to consider other possibilities ... such as a power beyond our comprehension (which is far from saying a UI exists). Who are you, Matt, to lay down what is "reasonable" and what is not? Who are you to say that only scientific evidence counts (see below)? We have unsolved mysteries, and until they're solved, each of us must decide for himself what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable explanation. In my case, the options stay open.-You write: "all questions are true or false", and the determination of the "true/false" always results in the rejection of conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence." (Let's ignore your earlier, vehement opposition to the very concept of "truth".) It's you who talk of conclusions, not me. The evidence for abiogenesis has not been found; the nature, origin, and workings of consciousness are unknown. No objective conclusions can be drawn. But you join GC in assuming that the conclusion will be ENTIRELY materialistic. Science is objective. Until there's evidence, there's no true/false, and so any judgement can only be based on preconceived ideas. That is the whole point of my earlier post, but again see below on the subject of "evidence". -You wrote: "Since I say it's unreasonable to believe in a UI because of no evidence, you will also say that the same lack of evidence prevents me from saying a UI doesn't exist." No, I won't. We all know you can't prove such a negative (Russell's teapot), so why attribute this silly argument to me? It's the lack of evidence for the materialist solution and not the lack of evidence against a UI that makes the alternative an equally reasonable/ unreasonable/subjective solution. You ask: "If you think leprechauns don't exist, what reason do we have to also believe that a UI exists? [...] Your reasoning of "sitting on the fence" resurrects ALL of these monsters." No it doesn't. Nor do I give you reasons to believe in a UI. You keep falling into this trap of your own making, which is your refusal to accept the negativity and neutrality of agnosticism. It's based on what we don't believe, not on what we do, and in putting the case for not rejecting, I do not put a case for believing. I'll try once more to get this across. Please read on.-There are two main areas of controversy in our discussions. One is the complexity of life, and the other is the unsolved mystery of consciousness, which is related to all kinds of phenomena that appear to defy scientific explanation. Leprechauns and the resurrection of Christ are totally irrelevant (though if Paddy O'Reilly and Benedict XVI believe in them, that's their affair). Your claim that "if there is going to be a solution, it is going to come from the enterprise of science" is a creed. "We have no other valid option" is also a creed. You reject every single mystic, paranormal, extra-sensory experience, you presuppose a biological source of consciousness, and you downgrade the sheer magnitude of the mysteries connected with life and thought because you will not consider any "evidence" from outside materialism. That's your belief, and I have no quarrel with it, but it's no less subjective and no more "reasonable" than the claim that there are too many unsolved mysteries and too many instances of apparently non-biological experience for us to dismiss explanations beyond the reach of science. Not discounting alternative explanations does not mean advocating them, or saying they're acceptable just because you can't prove they're wrong! My form of agnosticism does not claim that there is a UI, does not make assumptions about what science will one day discover, and does not dismiss personal experiences on the grounds that they don't conform to the tenets of scientific materialism. It leaves the options open. Also sprach dhw.-Finally, and most importantly, any news of grad school?