Consciousness: Dennett says it is an illusion (General)

by dhw, Sunday, October 20, 2019, 10:08 (1650 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You are presenting the history which is undeniable! But as usual you leave out your own guess about God, which is that he did all this with the sole purpose of creating humans, but delayed implementing his one and only purpose and therefore “had to” specially design millions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to “cover the time” he had decided to take before doing the only thing he wanted to do! And you have no idea why he would have adopted this procedure.

DAVID: Haven't you realized by now I have no intent to puzzle out Gods reasons for the methods He used. The works show what God did, and we are so unusual compared to all other creatures we have to be a prime purpose, as per Adler.

You have no intent to puzzle out possible reasons for your INTERPRETATION of God’s methods, because you know they require the abandonment of human reason: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. I have no problem with the argument that humans might have been A prime purpose, but you have consistently argued that H. sapiens was God’s one and only purpose, and that 3.X billion years of non-human designs were simply interim goals to keep life going until he started to fulfil that one and only purpose. And you have no idea why he did it that way.

DAVID (under “glass eels”): More evidence about the use of our magnetic field, which is created by our iron-nickel core, in our special planet for life to appear and survive. protected from the nasty cosmic rays that are out here. God protects what He creates.

dhw: Just to restore the balance, you have omitted the fact that if he exists, he also created the nasty things that are out there, not to mention the nasty things that are in here!

DAVID: Theodicy again. I think it is a challenge for our consciousness to solve by recognizing the problems created. God didn't just create us. He tested us.

You have no intent to puzzle out God’s reasons for his methods, and yet here you inform us that the reason for his creating the nasties was to test us. When challenged to provide reasons for his creating life, you have also offered his desire for a relationship with us, and to have his work admired, and to enjoy his creations as a painter enjoys his paintings. I reckon you have done your fair share of puzzling out reasons (and all very feasible at that), but unfortunately you just cannot find a reason for the incongruities I have listed above, and so you fall back on the claim that God’s logic is not human logic.

dhw: Egnor says “only something physical can evolve. Natural selection can only select attributes that have physical manifestations.” Do you believe, for instance, that language cannot evolve? And do you believe that ape consciousness, which is manifestly more complex than, say, that of earthworms or houseflies, did not evolve from earlier conscious states?

dhw: Why don’t you answer the question I have bolded above?

DAVID: I have answered it. Brains involved enough complexity to receive consciousness, of which awareness is a very small portion compared to the ideation which full human consciousness allows, present in no other organism.

A statement of your beliefs concerning human consciousness is no answer to the question whether you believe that more complex forms of consciousness, as in apes, evolved from less complex forms, as in houseflies.

dhw: Egnor says categorically that “only something physical can evolve”. I have used language as one example of something immaterial that evolves. You have forgotten the starting point of this discussion. Once more, please answer the bolded question above.

DAVID: I've answered with my theory. The idea carried by language are immaterial . I view language with its sounds and symbols as material productions of our anatomy. What sounds mean is the immaterial part. Language is a result of anatomic changes and brain complexity, all material. We were given those gifts and had to learn how to use them.

So do you think the English language is the same as it was a few hundred years ago? Of course it isn’t. Our anatomy hasn’t changed, but our language has evolved – and that is an example of something non-physical that can evolve. Egnor’s basic premise “only something physical can evolve” is manifestly untrue. And if you would kindly answer my bolded question, I’m sure you will agree.