Consciousness: Dennett says it is an illusion (General)

by dhw, Thursday, October 17, 2019, 12:49 (1862 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Adler and I consider the additional form of consciousness humans have as something very special. You have agreed. That is all i want.

dhw: I have never disagreed, and I accept the logic of the argument that our consciousness, like every other complexity in life’s designs, can be viewed as evidence for the existence of God. You have acknowledged that the rest of your theory requires the abandonment of human reason, and I am delighted to see that in this post you have not once tried to distinguish between being conscious and having consciousness. Thank you. That is all I want.

DAVID: The bold is a distortion of my views. All I've said is that I don't question God's choices of methods. since I simply assume God is in charge of all that happens.

That is not all you have said! I keep reminding you of your own comments when answering my critique of the incongruous sections of your theory, which you keep leaving out. Your words: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” And “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?”[/i] I don’t know why you keep ignoring your own clear statements.

DAVID: Nothing is incongruous if you accept God is in charge of evolution.

Once again you force me to repeat the incongruities. If by “in charge” you mean he specially designed every single innovation, life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, the incongruity lies in your insistence that the only thing he wanted to design was H. sapiens but for reasons you cannot fathom, he decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore “had to” design the rest in order to “cover” the time he had decided to spend before beginning to tackle the one project he wanted to tackle.

dhw: Now would you please tell us whether you agree with me (in opposition to Egnor) that once consciousness existed, it evolved from simple beginnings to current complexities.

DAVID: I don't know that at all. I believe, as you well know, that the brain evolved to reach a state when it could receive human style consciousness. Our consciousness did not evolve by itself from earlier stages.

Again you refuse to answer my question, which does not concern the evolution of the brain or your dualistic concept of the brain as receiver and not producer of consciousness. Do you or do you not accept (in opposition to Egnor) that there has been a progression from simple beginnings to current complexities? Even if you try to confine the subject to humans and their ancestors, do you not accept that we have many simple areas of consciousness in common with our ancestors (including apes), but have acquired more complex areas, while they in turn have more complex areas than, say, worms and ants?