Still Stuck on Stupid

I see what you mean, and that's certainly possible. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood.

It's the way that certain arguments are framed, I guess. Like your idea that materialists think "Consciousness spills out of the brain like urine". Reading things like this is frustrating.
I don't know about anyone else, but I feel pretty darn good after a spilling of urine.
 
Mine is something like this.
Indoctrination in conventional religion =>
Discovery of an internal spiritual impulse =>
Rejection of conventional religion =>
Adoption of atheism (technically)=>

I was with you up to your third step. Then I couldn't understand how and why you got to the fourth (and final? Or did you miss something after that?) step, and what you mean by "technical" atheism, unless you mean that you rejected God as indoctrinated into you by your religion. In that sense, I too am an atheist. Also, does this mean you rejected your earlier internal spiritual impulse?
 
Last edited:
I googled for the brain secreting consciousness, and to be fair, I couldn't find a direct quote by any prominent materialist who has said it in so many words. I could only find their views being paraphrased in that way by non-materialists. I think they'd probably say that consciousness emerges from physico-chemical processes in the brain in some as-yet unknown way. Maybe it's an emergent property of an exceedingly complex system, or something like that.

If so, then maybe one would expect it to have emerged gradually during evolution, unless it was a question of a certain threshold of complexity having to be passed before any consciousness emerges. The irritating fact is, though, that there seems no way to determine whether, say, an amoeba or a fruit fly or an elephant possesses consciousness. There's only one organism we can be sure has it, and that's us.

I guess that the clincher is the use of what is recognisably language. That said, what about exhibiting apparently intelligent problem-solving behaviour? Some birds, like parrots and crows, exhibit this to a remarkable degree:


Call me gullible or stupid, but I believe the crow in the video has a degree of consciousness. I watched the whole program on British TV fairly recently, and young children are not able to solve problems as complex as this.

Edit: Also see this TED talk:

 
In fact, the progression quite often (not always, of course) goes like this:

Indoctrination in conventional religion =>
Rejection of conventional religion =>
Adoption of materialism/atheism =>
Discovery of an internal spiritual impulse =>
Rejection of materialism/atheism

Precisely as I remember it.
 
A variety of animals use or can learn language meaningfully (ie. not just mimicry). Dolphins, gorillas, African Grey parrots and whales, that I can think of off-hand. Sheep and pigs are more intelligent than dogs and I think most of us who've had experience with pets over the years would have little hesitation in affirming that our dogs and cats are conscious. Some interesting studies have been done with chickens. And so on. I tend to think the primary reason that many deny animal consciousness is that it raises the ethical attitude that we should have towards them, and that resistance is driven by the bottom line that has become more and more prevalent with the growth of Big Ag and intensive factory farming.

If animals aren't conscious it's easier to justify male chick maceration, denying bobby calves milk from their mothers, abusing animals at the slaughter house, battery cage farming and on and on. Much easier to abuse them if they are just biological automatons.
 
Call me gullible or stupid, but I believe the crow in the video has a degree of consciousness. I watched the whole program on British TV fairly recently, and young children are not able to solve problems as complex as this.

On the same theme:


My 2 year old cat is certainly conscious. I've only had her for two weeks (adopted her) but I swear she can read my mind too. I'll be watching TV and wonder where she is - immediately she pops her head up as if to say "you looking for me?" :)
 
What gives proponents/theists intellectual and emotional satisfaction? It's like you're suggesting the only way anyone could ever be actually content is with the singular knowledge that consciousness came from some source. Is that the ONLY reason proponents/theists EVER experience any kind of intellectual satisfaction? There's nothing else in their lives, save for that one piece of information, that they could ever be happy about.



Yes, in the same way that it's "very important" for proponents/theists to convince materialists that fear, credulousness, and stupidity isn't the source of their beliefs.

This takes us back to Nagel's point that ultimate meaning is an incoherent idea and can't be had on any world view. Some people are so pleased with themselves having shown that ultimate meaning is impossible on atheism or materialism that they forget they need to show that ultimate meaning is possible on their world view.
 
Saying that consciousness is biological, and then listing other biological functions is absolutely not the same thing as saying "consciousness drizzles from the brain like urine from a kidney" or some such thing. Surely you see the difference.
Well that quote is less crisp, and I have seen crisper variants of it, but I would argue that it has essentially the same meaning. It invites the reader to see an analogy between various biological processes, including the secretion of bile, and the (supposed) generation of consciousness by the brain. How exactly is that quote more reasonable than my misquote?

David
 
A variety of animals use or can learn language meaningfully (ie. not just mimicry). Dolphins, gorillas, African Grey parrots and whales, that I can think of off-hand. Sheep and pigs are more intelligent than dogs and I think most of us who've had experience with pets over the years would have little hesitation in affirming that our dogs and cats are conscious. Some interesting studies have been done with chickens. And so on. I tend to think the primary reason that many deny animal consciousness is that it raises the ethical attitude that we should have towards them, and that resistance is driven by the bottom line that has become more and more prevalent with the growth of Big Ag and intensive factory farming.

If animals aren't conscious it's easier to justify male chick maceration, denying bobby calves milk from their mothers, abusing animals at the slaughter house, battery cage farming and on and on. Much easier to abuse them if they are just biological automatons.
To the bold. Certainly true. Humans think they are special. That idea is clearly evident in the Bible:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [URL='http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-27.htm']27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.[/URL]
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-27/
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-29/
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-30/
Though the idea goes much further back into pre-history I would think. It is also implicit when people think collapsing the wave function requires human consciousness or human consciousness is fundamental to the Universe. Not once have I heard anyone argue non human consciousness is fundamental. Every word uttered on this forum about consciousness is human centered. This forum is a small but accurate example of the human centric world view.
 
It is also implicit when people think collapsing the wave function requires human consciousness or human consciousness is fundamental to the Universe. Not once have I heard anyone argue non human consciousness is fundamental. Every word uttered on this forum about consciousness is human centered.

If people are referring to human consciousness it is probably because that is what we are familiar with. But I'd be surprised if your sentiment is correct. When I refer to consciousness, I include all forms of it. Personally, I think all living things are conscious along a spectrum. I doubt my perspective is widely shared though. But I'd take a punt that a lot of this forum's participants would include a range of animals.
 
A variety of animals use or can learn language meaningfully (ie. not just mimicry). Dolphins, gorillas, African Grey parrots and whales, that I can think of off-hand. Sheep and pigs are more intelligent than dogs and I think most of us who've had experience with pets over the years would have little hesitation in affirming that our dogs and cats are conscious. Some interesting studies have been done with chickens. And so on. I tend to think the primary reason that many deny animal consciousness is that it raises the ethical attitude that we should have towards them, and that resistance is driven by the bottom line that has become more and more prevalent with the growth of Big Ag and intensive factory farming.

If animals aren't conscious it's easier to justify male chick maceration, denying bobby calves milk from their mothers, abusing animals at the slaughter house, battery cage farming and on and on. Much easier to abuse them if they are just biological automatons.
Should chimpanzees have legal rights?
The ‘animal personhood’ movement believes dolphins, great apes, and elephants deserve to be able to sue — and now it has a plaintiff.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/20...egal-rights/Mv8iDDGYUFGNmWNLOWPRFM/story.html
I think they should. We accord human rights to persons born with severe mental defects why not chimps etc that display a level of intelligence and pass the mirror challenged human rights?
 
If people are referring to human consciousness it is probably because that is what we are familiar with. But I'd be surprised if your sentiment is correct. When I refer to consciousness, I include all forms of it. Personally, I think all living things are conscious along a spectrum. I doubt my perspective is widely shared though. But I'd take a punt that a lot of this forum's participants would include a range of animals.
We'll see, if people reply.
 
To the bold. Certainly true. Humans think they are special. That idea is clearly evident in the Bible: Though the idea goes much further back into pre-history I would think. It is also implicit when people think collapsing the wave function requires human consciousness or human consciousness is fundamental to the Universe. Not once have I heard anyone argue non human consciousness is fundamental. Every word uttered on this forum about consciousness is human centered. This forum is a small but accurate example of the human centric world view.
First, I agree that western society and the bible generally present a human-centric view of things, and that most of modern western society is based on a view of "Humans vs. the world", where we must conquer and subdue nature to pursue our own purposes. Alan Watts speaks about this topic quite a bit:
The hostile attitude of conquering nature ignores the basic interdependence of all things and events---that the world beyond the skin is actually an extension of our own bodies---and will end in destroying the very environment from which we emerge and upon which our whole life depends.
However, eastern traditions are very different in this regard. The Taoist, Buddhist, and Hindu traditions all present some concept of respecting nature, including animal life. I am particularly a fan of the Taoist philosophy as described by Laozi and Zhaungzi, which is focused on 'flowing with the Tao', or essentially acting with nature rather than against it. The Taoists believed that we can learn a lot by watching animals, along with trees and rivers.

Here are some examples of how some of these traditions view our place in nature:
The Environment and the Dao
The Daoist view of nature has as a corollary a view of human beings as relatively unimportant, as simply a part of nature. We should therefore aspire to being simple and unadorned, with no illusions about our own significance in the cosmos. Chinese paintings often echo this view of nature by showing mountains and rivers with tiny human figures dwarfed by the grandeur of the scenery around them.

Animals in Buddhist Doctrine
Animals have always been regarded in Buddhist thought as sentient beings. Furthermore, animals possess Buddha nature (according to the Mahāyāna school) and therefore potential for enlightenment. Moreover, the doctrine of rebirth held that any human could be reborn an animal, and any animal could be reborn as a human. An animal might be a reborn dead relative, and anybody who looked far enough back through their series of lives might come to believe every animal to be a distant relative. The Buddha expounded that sentient beings currently living in the animal realm have been our mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, children, friends in past rebirths. One could not, therefore, make a hard distinction between moral rules applicable to animals and those applicable to humans; ultimately humans and animals were part of a single family. They are all interconnected.

A Hindu view of nature
God, soul and the world are aspects of One Reality, but not in a limited way. Each shares the entirety of the underlying Reality. Each is sacred and holds the same deeper nature of Being, Consciousness and Bliss (Sat-chit-ananda). The Hindu Yogi can discern the same supreme Reality in the human being, a snake, a particle of dust or a distant star, as well as beyond all time and space!

I am sure there are others that I left out, and I am sure there are some western equivalents that valued animals and nature just as much (I'm mainly thinking of Pagans and Druids).

Anyway, I am the first to admit I don't understand consciousness, but I tend to believe that whatever it is, it is the same thing whether human or animal (or plant or even rock, who knows?). If consciousness collapses the wave function or is fundamental to the universe, then I would assume it will not matter what form that consciousness takes. I lean toward the view that consciousness is a single "thing", which we and all other living creatures temporarily hold our own piece of, but at their core the pieces are all connected.
 
Anyway, I am the first to admit I don't understand consciousness, but I tend to believe that whatever it is, it is the same thing whether human or animal (or plant or even rock, who knows?). If consciousness collapses the wave function or is fundamental to the universe, then I would assume it will not matter what form that consciousness takes. I lean toward the view that consciousness is a single "thing", which we and all other living creatures temporarily hold our own piece of, but at their core the pieces are all connected.

I don't know about reincarnation into animal bodies, MG, but it does give me pause for thought when I see an animal as intelligent as a crow. One has to be able to explain that within one's metaphysical framework. Actually, your post has sparked a few new thoughts for me on this issue. Maybe you'd like to start a new Mod+ thread in the Extended Consciousness & Spirituality forum where any proponents interested in the topic could explore it further? Your opening post could be a duplicate of this post. Just a thought...
 
I don't know about reincarnation into animal bodies, MG, but it does give me pause for thought when I see an animal as intelligent as a crow. One has to be able to explain that within one's metaphysical framework. Actually, your post has sparked a few new thoughts for me on this issue. Maybe you'd like to start a new Mod+ thread in the Extended Consciousness & Spirituality forum where any proponents interested in the topic could explore it further? Your opening post could be a duplicate of this post. Just a thought...
Sure, I reposted it as a new thread here.
 
Dominic seems to be arguing against a caricature of my position, so here's a breakdwon:

1) Regarding "Stuck on Stupid" - disagree with this meme as I don't think there's anything overly obvious about whether there's life after death, free will, mind > brain. All of these are open questions. As a Creative Agnostic I see materialism as one more paradigm among many, though a (large?) subset of materialist evangelicals seem to think they are not promoting a religious faith with its own miracles.

That said, I think there's a limited extent to which you can choose what you belief in so those who simply don't think there's more to reality than the material can only try and keep an open mind. Something that would apply to immaterialists as well, though there is IMO a distinction:

2) Now, regarding livable truth, I think Chomsky points out a glaring hole in the materialist paradigm when he insists mind = brain yet we mysteriously have free will. The one western philosopher I've seen really trying to live as if free will is an illusion is Harris, and even he falls short rather often. Most people don't react as if others are not the origins of their beliefs & actions.

Even this thread, started due to Dominic taking offense toward Alex's statements, contradicts the idea that Alex was - barring some quantum fluctuation - meant to exist as is from the Big Bang.

3) Perhaps not every materialist claims to be an eliminativist, though it seems to me any attempt to make a distinction - barring some variation on quantum consciousness - fails to really elucidate why their mechanistic assumptions about reality don't collapse down to eliminativism. Perhaps we're using different definitions of eliminativism?

In any case, I'd agree it would be a mistake to assume that every materialist is amoral agent obsessed with maximizing personal pleasure at the expense of those around him/her. But I think one needs to consider the long term social trend of a society where the majority of citizens doesn't believe themselves to be the origin of belief/action:

4) This is where my position lies - that over time societies where the majority holds to the materialist, mechanist paradigm will ultimately degrade. Part of this is due to the presumed lack of moral responsibility noted by Conscious Entities entry on Searle:

The AI fraternity has a habit of redefining difficult words in order to make things easier. Terms for things which, properly understood, imply understanding, and which computers can’t, therefore, handle – are redefined as simpler things which computers can cope with. At the time Searle wrote his paper, it looked as if “understanding” might quickly go the same way, with claims that computers running certain script-based programs could properly be said to exhibit at least a limited understanding of the things and events described in their pre-programmed scenarios. If this creeping debasement of the language had been allowed to proceed unchallenged, it would not have been long before ‘conscious’, ‘person’ and all of the related moral vocabulary were similarly subverted, with dreadful consequences.

After all, if machines can be people, people can be regarded as merely machines, with all that implies for our attitude to using them and switching them on or off

and part of it is the feeling of entrapment of the downtrodden as noted - among others - by writer Damien Walter discussing his experience growing up poor in the UK:

The materialist society of 1980s Britain had a hierarchy, and we were the bottom-rung.

From the perspective of the underclass, material reality is bleak. You’re a survivor of blind evolution, stranded on a muddy rock under the harsh glare of a nuclear sun. Beyond that is an infinite universe of inert matter, dust and devastating radiation that is neither for nor against you, but simply unaware of your existence. There is no God. There is no heaven, or eternal reward. There is only another shift in the factory, or the call centre, or McDonald’s — if you're lucky. At its determinist extreme, materialist philosophy enforces a strikingly rigid and oppressive social hierarchy.
 
To the bold. Certainly true. Humans think they are special. That idea is clearly evident in the Bible: Though the idea goes much further back into pre-history I would think. It is also implicit when people think collapsing the wave function requires human consciousness or human consciousness is fundamental to the Universe. Not once have I heard anyone argue non human consciousness is fundamental. Every word uttered on this forum about consciousness is human centered. This forum is a small but accurate example of the human centric world view.
Wait, in fact I don't think I've seen anyone on this forum ever say consciousness is the sole property of humans. Care to back up your claim with actual evidence of ' everyone on this forum ' stating this?
 
Back
Top