Panpsychism Makes a Comeback in a different form (General)

by David Turell , Saturday, January 26, 2019, 15:25 (2126 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I didn't say God was topsy-turvy.

dhw: Of course you didn’t. You said I regarded a first cause God as topsy-turvy. I don’t. I wrote: Topsy-turvy refers to your argument that life must appear first for consciousness to appear, but consciousness created life.

DAVID: You understand my position full well as your further discussion shows. God (consciousness) first. Life next. Then a brain to receive consciousness. In my discussions of human consciousness that is the self-aware, conceptual consciousness of most importance. Other organisms have conscious awareness but not that deeper layer that makes the 'hard problem" for human consciousness to be fully understood as to its origin. In our discussions why do you constantly try to skirt around it? Humans are different in kind! And that concept bothers you!

dhw: Yes, I understand your position. A counter position is life and brain or brain equivalent first, with the latter engendering consciousness. I have no trouble accepting that HUMAN consciousness is the self-aware conceptual consciousness, and that is why I wrote: NB: The meaning of "consciousness" should not be confined to the degree of self-awareness attained by humans.) That is hardly “skirting round” anything. As you already know, I accept that we are different species (“in kind”) from the rest, but I believe that although human consciousness has reached a vastly higher level than that of our fellow animals, it has still evolved from consciousnesses of lesser degree. I don't know why you have switched the subject away from the reasonableness/unreasonableness of the alternative first causes to a subject we have already discussed ad nauseam.

I do not accept your contention our consciousness "has still evolved from consciousnesses of lesser degree." What preceded our 'consciousness' were 'conscious' beings without introspection. That is what difference in kind means although you say you accept the different in kind concept. The two words present the reality of the vast gulf of function between them. I view this 'gap' as equivalent to the Cambrian explosion gap.