Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 17:48 (5196 days ago) @ dhw

1) That "consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of cells" is self-evident, since we know cells are involved in the process. But does the process emerge from the cells, are the cells used by an immaterial identity that controls the process, or is it a mixture of both?
> 
> 2) That "who we are is the result of highly connected cells" is also self-evident, since the body has an enormous influence on our identity, but this is not enough to describe, explain or account for consciousness or identity, unless we are to regard ourselves as automata.
> 
> 3) The statement that consciousness is immaterial but has a physical cause could just as well read "consciousness is immaterial but has a physical manifestation". We don't know whether an immaterial element sets the physical element in motion or vice versa, but I have the impression that most of the time "I" make the wheels roll. "I" am of course a collection of highly connected cells, but back we go to 2).
> 
> If one day you and your computer buddies build a machine that is conscious, sentient, imaginative, creative etc., the mystery may be solved. I'm aware that such a project is in the pipeline, but you know what a sceptic I am. I'll believe it when...if...-There's a third option, prompted my Nietzsche and seems to apply to your skepticism:-"There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties,"; for example, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer put it, "I will"; as though knowledge here got hold of its object purely and nakedly as "the thing in itself," without any falsification on the part of either the subject or the object. But that "Immediate certainty" as well as "absolute knowledge" and "the thing in itself," involve a contradictio in adjecto, I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free ourselves from the seduction of words!"-It appears here that you are arguing purely from the realm of abstract theory. I will posit here that your claim in 3 can be rightly thrown out. If I read this correctly, you're stating that if we build a conscious machine that exhibits the same level of creativity as a human, it still wouldn't verify anything about materialism because there would be no way to tell the difference between a consciousness created by the individual processing units and some immaterial force swooping down and making the computer act like a human? -Your skepticism seems to live purely in a theoretical realm; it makes no practical difference whether or not the machine was sparked to life by an outside force or not, because we have no reason to believe that explanation. To me, practicality supersedes the theoretical. We both agree that there would be no way to know if an immaterial force animated the machine (or ourselves.) I say then, this gives us the right to throw it out as a valid explanation--because though it is possible in the realm of theory it isn't testable in the real world, and thus forever beyond our reach. -I see a deeper explanation of my more "Buddhist" perspective is in need--maybe it needs its own thread. In regard to human problems and human conditions; a prime cause is meaningless. The only thing that truly matters is the here in now. In both Buddhism and Nietzsche, they would read this search a fool's game because the current nature and state of humanity is an aberration; In Buddhism the thought "I think" is delusion. If you're familiar with Freud, "I think" comes only from the ID and I think it would be right to say that Buddhism thinks of consciousness similarly to the ID and that is why they practice "here and now." In Nietzsche's terms, all of this is the result of a language based on subject and predicate: our language is necessarily deterministic, this necessarily means that we then try to think of everything as deterministic (even when its not) and according to Nietzsche, the quest for truth (as you appear to be applying it) is tripped up in a pocket of your own creation--language has lead you down a false path. Skepticism is useful, but at the point where skepticism stops being feasible in the here and now we should abandon it. Sometimes you appear to hold to skepticism beyond that which is reasonable. Why would your alternative explanation in 3 be any more reasonable? -David's idea of a creator is akin to simply pointing and saying "I see God," and that's it. To me, even theology must have practical uses; and though I also agree that to a greater or lesser degree man creates his own meanings (even if its taking someone else's) David's view leaves zero practicality. It doesn't actually inform us (because at this state he admits it is faith) nor does it give us any basis to do--anything at all. I can't DO anything with it. In practical terms, it has absolutely zero impact on anything we do. And at least in my terms, I measure the value of an idea in terms of its usefulness.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"