Consciousness; a radically new theory. Romansh? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, July 03, 2015, 19:56 (3214 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I can still choose to pick my conclusion on an equal stance with them. I think they are absolutely wrong.
> 
> dhw:If you think one theory is absolutely wrong, why do you say it is just as probable? -You don't see my reasoning: On the surface, both interpretations are equally probable, but when single cells are continued to be investigated for mechanisms, those mechanisms continue to be found and they are always automatic biochemical reactions. It is my anticipation this trend will continue, and is also based on my knowledge of how my bodies' cells respond independently and with automaticity that tells me automaticity is reasonable. My cells came originally through evolution from single cells and their functionality. It is all of the same pattern. Evolution follows patterns.
> 
> Dhw: I still don't know where you draw the borderline between mentation and “true” mentation. 
> DAVID: Mentation to me means creating ideas and observations. My dog does, E. Coli don't.
> 
> dhw: All organisms need some kind of observation to cope with their environment. Most forms of observation are indeed automatic ... “Creating ideas” requires further explanation. A dog might “create” the idea that it can get at a juicy steak by opening the fridge door, but then Pfeffer's bacteria got to the chicken soup by racing through the disinfectant. What creative ideas does your dog have?-He doesn't, but humans do which makes us "different in kind". In my view truly creative thought exists only in humans. How many apes draw up house plans?
> 
> DAVID: [...] the evidence I see piled up for design is ‘without a reasonable doubt' in my mind.
> 
> dhw: You go far beyond belief in design: you insist that the design has been carried out by a single mind, ......What direct evidence (first-hand witnesses, scientific proof, tests) do you have for this hypothesis? .... I am merely surprised that you do not regard the absence of direct evidence as a flaw in the theory.-Your insistence upon direct evidence of a greater power is a symptom of your agnosticism. Direct evidence is essentially impossible as you know, so the next step for me is 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt' Which I fully accept, indirect as it is.-> dhw: By such standards, the absence of direct evidence that chance can create life, or that materials might evolve their own intelligence, should not be regarded as a flaw in those hypotheses either, so what we are left with is irrational (unreasonable) faith, and that surely leaves room for rational (reasonable) doubt in all cases.-I do not view my faith as unreasonable, but you have every right to do so, even though you have admitted you cannot accept chance and create other inventive processes to try to solve your problem.