Dagny Beynac reasons that, if there is no disembodied soul, then mind has a material basis and can be produced artificially. Certainly. Just artificially produce either a human being or some other artifact that performs the same functions.
What is a material basis? If nothing existed but mechanically interacting particles with only the quantifiable properties of mass and volume, then by definition consciousness would not exist. However, philosophically, "matter" just means whatever exists independently of consciousness. Guthrie points that it is described by quantum mechanics. Hegel pointed out that quantitative changes become qualitative. Thus, I argue, naturally selected organismic sensitivity to environmental alterations quantitatively increased until it was qualitatively transformed into conscious sensation.
19 comments:
True. Though we have no idea how it's done, really. As the saying goes, if our minds were simple enough for us to understand, we'd be too simple to understand them.
Mr Stirling,
We have no idea how it is done. But a qualitative change (two colors mixing to become a third or consciousness emerging from unconsciousness) means that, after the change, there is a quality that is not fully explicable in terms of what had existed before the change. Sensation is one kind of organismic sensitivity but what kind? A conscious kind. Any attempt to define consciousness is either reductive (because it leaves consciousness out) or tautologous (because it assumes what it is trying to define). We either throw the baby out with the bath water or leave the baby in the bath. My brain is part of me as observed by others whereas my consciousness is my observations of everything else so of course they are different.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
John Wright could debate this with you far more ably than I can! He too is a philosopher and one who does not agree with materialism. And I am simply not convinced by the materialist arguments.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Remember that materialism is not just mechanistic reductionism. It is very easy to refute materialism if you reduce it to that. If being/what is/what exists/energy/"matter" develops through successive levels, each with new, emergent, irreducible properties, then those properties can include consciousness.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except I remain unconvinced, for two reasons: self CONSCIOUSNESS as such, as consciousness, is not material. And, as a Catholic, I believe I know, from revelation, there is MORE to existence than what you argue for.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But what does "not material" mean? An inanimate object has one set of properties. A conscious being has another set of properties. These two sets of properties are not identical. So far, I agree.
You BELIEVE from revelation.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And we can't see, touch, taste, or hear "consciousness."
No, I believe I do KNOW, from revelation, things that cannot be proven from logic or the scientific method. Such as the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ.
Ad astra!
Sean,
The properties of consciousness are not visible, tangible, olfactory or audible but they are nevertheless properties of animal and human organisms. If you think that all materialists insist that every property must be sensually detectable, then you still do not understand the kind of materialism that I am talking about. Scientists refer to all sorts of entities and forces that are invisible etc.
You believe that you know.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The late Mortimer Adler, also a philosopher, could conduct this discussion far more ably than I can. If my recollection of what I read years ago in his THE DIFFERENCE OF MAN AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES is correct, he discussed the issues you raised and still came to conclusions opposing yours.
I do believe I know, from faith, certain things reason and logic alone could never have arrived at.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It goes without saying that philosophers reach different conclusions. Each of us can only state our own reasoning.
Can you believe you know from faith?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
RE philosophical reasoning: I agree.
Yes, I believe the Catholic Church teaches things it believes to be literally true but has to be accepted by faith in this life.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Propositions accepted by faith are not known.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
To be picky, propositions accepted by faith are at least known to be so accepted.
Ad astra! Sean
Known to be accepted but not known to be true.
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe the propositions summarized in the Nicene Creed are literally true. And things like the Shroud of Turin and the miracles grudgingly recorded by the Lourdes Medical Board as having no known scientific cause should make skeptics more UNCERTAIN.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
None of us should be certain. We learn.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But many who would agree with your basic POV are also rigidly dogmatic in their agnosticism or atheism and hostile to anything like the actual existence of God or that Christ is God Incarnate as well as man. I've seen some online. NOT saying that is true of you.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: human beings like certainty, and they invest heavy emotions in their worldview, because it's part of their basic identity.
A threat to it feels like a threat to their very self.
I don't think that way, but my mind is in some respects unlike other peoples'. There are quite common emotions I've never felt, for example, and I can understand them only intellectually.
Often through fiction.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree! Sometimes, too many times, people will react to the existence of others who don't agree with them with passionate intensity. An intensity which can spill over into violence.
And, in some ways, you remind me of Poul Anderson. That is, like him, you are very fair minded about people with ideas and beliefs you don't believe in. I thought, to use an example from your Draka stories, of Eric von Shrakenberg. You presented him very sympathetically, as a basically decent man, even tho brought up in an appalling society to believe in monstrous ideas. Albeit, I think that belief "faded" with time.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment