Consciousness: Dennett says it is an illusion (General)

by David Turell , Monday, November 04, 2019, 15:11 (1629 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: According to the article, quantum mechanics represents the materialist view of consciousness, and is therefore an inadequate explanation. You wrote that consciousness “may have a quantum basis”, which = the materialist view, but then wrote:”I’m thinking of quantum pure energy particles. Everything is material at the basis of the universe.” The second sentence can only mean that the basis of consciousness is material, and as regards the first, I asked if there was any such thing as “pure energy particles”. Your response to both points was “An early phase of the universe was plasma made up only of charged particles”. Since plasma is matter, no matter how “close” it is to pure energy, neither my question nor my comment has been answered! May I suggest possible answers? 1) We do not know any form of “pure energy”, but you think that is what your God and consciousness are made of. 2) You reject the idea that everything at the basis of the universe is material, because you believe in an immaterial God and immaterial consciousness. If these answers are correct, wouldn’t they mean that since quantum mechanics can only relate to the material world, it is irrelevant to a discussion of God’s existence and the nature of consciousness? (This a genuine question, because I find your statements confusing.)

DAVID: You've made an excellent analysis of my position. I would add my thought: quantum mechanics is how pure energy becomes the material world in which we live.

dhw: Then everything is not material at the basis of the universe. The basis of the universe is what you call pure energy. But you believe that this pure energy is conscious. (Again, I’m not arguing but am trying to clarify.) This ties in rather neatly with our next exchange. I am an agnostic because I find pure conscious energy as impossible to believe in as unconscious materials somehow creating life, consciousness and the ability to reproduce and evolve. You asked if there was a third option.

dhw: The third answer is some form of panpsychism in which all matter has some form of consciousness, but this is such a flexible concept that in my view it can be used to support theism or atheism.

DAVID: You've simply come back to my theory that our universe is a creation of God's consciousness.

dhw: I don’t know how you can reach that conclusion when I have explicitly stated that this third option can be used to support either theism or atheism. […]

DAVID: I view panpsychism as a distorted view of God's consciousness.

dhw: I see your panentheism as a form of panpsychism. You believe – correct me if I am wrong – that your God is both within and without the material world (= immanent and transcendent). His immanence can be the equivalent of the panpsychist view that there is some form of consciousness within all matter. Many panpsychists are also theists. On the other hand, panpsychism also lends itself to the idea that materials have rudimentary consciousness which in time has led to all the complexities of life as we know it, i.e. there is no need for a God.

It is your 'rudimentary' consciousness that bothers me. Only an organized consciousness which can really design ( therefore a thinking mind) can make the designs of new species. Key: new specie always have attribute that fit their new circumstances and appear after gaps that show large changes in form and function. Even transitional forms require major changes.