David Bailey
Member
Sciborg_S_Patel,
I think some of your quotes are getting to the heart of this problem - if consciousness is just some sort of complexity, then wouldn't we expect all sorts of systems to 'wake up'. For example:
Global financial networks.
Advanced maths software.
All kinds of biological processes.
Immune systems.
Plants.
Gut flora.
etc.
Bart would, I think, argue that only certain kinds of complex systems - those evolved to stay alive and reproduce (or copies inside a computer) - would be conscious, but that would certainly suggest that individual cells (which seem to become more complex by the day as research is done), might be conscious, and that evolution itself would be supremely conscious!
Given that, why would a materialist baulk at the concept of ID - evolution becoming conscious to perform its task more efficiently!
The problem is that as you follow that line of thinking, consciousness becomes just a name for particular types of system - rather like the word 'complex'. We can argue as to whether Pluto is a planet or a minor planet, or an asteroid, but the discussion is really just semantic. Trying to define/explain consciousness in such a semantic way, only makes real sense to people who think it 'doesn't exist' or 'isn't a big deal' or 'is a user illusion'.
To be fair to materialists, I think they find themselves in a bind here. They start off defending what seems like plain old common sense, and end up almost denying that we have any inner life at all, or attributing potential consciousness to all sorts of objects - like oak trees - that seems far removed from the common sense ideals that they started out with!
David
I think some of your quotes are getting to the heart of this problem - if consciousness is just some sort of complexity, then wouldn't we expect all sorts of systems to 'wake up'. For example:
Global financial networks.
Advanced maths software.
All kinds of biological processes.
Immune systems.
Plants.
Gut flora.
etc.
Bart would, I think, argue that only certain kinds of complex systems - those evolved to stay alive and reproduce (or copies inside a computer) - would be conscious, but that would certainly suggest that individual cells (which seem to become more complex by the day as research is done), might be conscious, and that evolution itself would be supremely conscious!
Given that, why would a materialist baulk at the concept of ID - evolution becoming conscious to perform its task more efficiently!
The problem is that as you follow that line of thinking, consciousness becomes just a name for particular types of system - rather like the word 'complex'. We can argue as to whether Pluto is a planet or a minor planet, or an asteroid, but the discussion is really just semantic. Trying to define/explain consciousness in such a semantic way, only makes real sense to people who think it 'doesn't exist' or 'isn't a big deal' or 'is a user illusion'.
To be fair to materialists, I think they find themselves in a bind here. They start off defending what seems like plain old common sense, and end up almost denying that we have any inner life at all, or attributing potential consciousness to all sorts of objects - like oak trees - that seems far removed from the common sense ideals that they started out with!
David
Last edited: