Consciousness: Dennett says it is an illusion (General)

by David Turell , Friday, October 25, 2019, 22:58 (1854 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We still are far apart. You totally ignore the nuance. I still accept Eignor's point that only material organisms and organs evolve. Evolution of immaterial things like words and concepts are humans learning to use their newly arrived complex brain, however it arrived.

dhw: On 21 October I wrote that immaterial things such as “language, social norms, moral codes, philosophies, religions evolve, regardless of whether the brain is the producer of consciousness or its receiver.” You replied: “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.” But on 23 October you agree with Egnor that “only material organisms and organs evolve”. Regardless of circumstances, either something evolves or it doesn’t.

DAVID: We are agreeing to the point that the brain can evolve immaterial language. Evolution is still evolution, material or immaterial.

dhw: Thank you for now agreeing that Egnor is wrong to claim that “only material organisms and organs evolve.”

QUOTE: (UNDER “CONSCIOUSNESS AND SELF-AWARENESS”) "Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.But being conscious of one’s body does not mean that an animal also has a capacity for introspection – a key part of being self-aware. While consciousness is being aware of one’s body, self-awareness takes the sensation one step further – you recognise that you are aware of your awareness. (David: my bold which entirely fits my thoughts)

dhw: It does not “entirely fit your thoughts”! Inexplicably, you attempt to distinguish between being conscious and having consciousness, and you argue that human self-awareness makes our consciousness different in kind and not in degree. “One step further” = an advanced degree of consciousness, and according to this article, there are even experts in the field who believe that some animals have taken that step, though of course their degree of consciousness still does not extend anywhere near to the extent of our own.

dhw: You have not commented on this, and so may I assume you agree?

Our special degree of consciousness does not exist in any other organism. It is neurological substrates which in humans receives their own special form of consciousness.

QUOTE: Yet comparative cognition scientists largely agree that most animals are conscious and thinking beings, capable of taking in information, making decisions based on this, and then acting on it. It’s simply that next step – the ability to think about their own thoughts – that remains elusive, something we have not yet been able to capture or measure. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: A good summary. Most scientists agree that our fellow animals are conscious, but whether they have a degree of self-awareness remains open to question. No mention here of your theory that your God preprogrammed or dabbled all the different lifestyles and natural wonders that are the products of animal consciousness.

DAVID: Why should they? It's my theory to explain God's role. They are not discussing God.

dhw; I thought perhaps you would acknowledge that the article as bolded supports my own view of autonomous intelligence and directly contradicts your theory that all the lifestyles and natural wonders you have listed over the years are preprogrammed or dabbled by your God.

I will not change from my point that most animals have automatic responses. All cells do.