Consciousness: Dennett says it is an illusion (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 10:52 (1857 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: Of course the brain has evolved, but regardless of whether the brain is the producer of consciousness (materialism) or its receiver (dualism), do you deny that consciousness has developed from comparatively simple beginnings to its current complexities? That, if you believe in common descent, = evolution.

DAVID: Of course consciousness has evolved from very simple beginnings to our extremely complex one, but it is based on a material side, the enlargement and complexity of brains from Cambrians to humans, and probably as as receiver in my theory.

You keep forgetting that the point of this discussion is Egnor’s claim that “only something physical can evolve”. Thank you for agreeing that he is wrong. Nobody could possibly question that there is a link between the evolution of consciousness and the evolution of the brain, but nobody knows what that link is! As a dualist you think your God manipulated the brain so that in some mysterious way it could “receive” a smidgen of his consciousness. Materialists believe that the brain changed itself and in some mysterious way the cells generated their own consciousness. Either way, Egnor’s statement is manifestly untrue, as is his claim that “Darwinian natural selection can only act on a physical attribute” (which you have already rejected).

dhw: 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.

DAVID: No language is improved as we learn to use our brain. The key is what the brain can allow us to create. The complexity of the brain allows us to create language. Brain first, language second, something you refuse to see or accept.

dhw: You are missing the point. Language evolves, as do social norms, moral codes, philosophies, religions, even though they are all immaterial products of our consciousness, regardless of whether the brain is the producer of consciousness or its receiver. That is why I am disputing Egnor’s claim, also bolded above.

DAVID: The nuance of our difference is that the brain must be complex enough to allow humans to learn to use it and create language, which, yes, does evolve under those circumstances.

Thank you.

DAVID: Do you accept brain first?

Evolution can only work on something that exists. The brain evolved once it existed, and language evolved once it existed. I see no reason at all to suppose that our non-sapiens ancestors had no language of their own, and of course they had brains. My proposal is that the need for an enhanced range of communication caused the cells of the brain to make the necessary changes, much as the need to swim would have caused pre-whale legs to become flippers. We know that new uses of the brain cause it to change (think of the illiterate people who learn to read, taxi-drivers, musicians etc., whose brains change through the manner in which they are used). So your question should relate not to the prior existence of the brain but to the reason why an existing brain changed. You think your God dabbled with it, and I propose that the cell communities of which it is composed made changes in response to new demands, as is demonstrably the case with cell communities that adapt to new conditions.