Meh, at some future point, I might be able to flesh in all the missing links between man and ape, or primordial consciousness and yours and mine, but..You are postulating the existence of the 'primary' consciousnesses without evidence.You claim that the fact that they do not react with a complex nervous system indicates that their reactions are non-conscious- rather than simply indicating that primary conscious reactions exist prior to the existence of a nervous system.
First, you describe consciousnesses as an 'additional ability', and then you contradict yourself, by describing it as non-conscious reactions changing into conscious reactions. Consciousness is a phenomenon produced by large numbers of non-conscious objects acting in concert, but those constituent elements remain non-conscious; they don't change into conscious objects.Meh, at some future point, I might be able to flesh in all the missing links between man and ape, or primordial consciousness and yours and mine, but..You are postulating the existence of the 'primary' consciousnesses without evidence.
We can trace evolution of reactions all the way back to the Big Bang.
Here are some scenarios:
1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.
In other words, we either have non-conscious reactions magically changing to conscious reactions at some point in time, or conscious reactions evolving over time.
Your continued insistence that it would be more parsimonious to describe everything as conscious is in ignorance of the fact that such a theory cannot be reconciled with the evidence. I have presented reasons why it is irreconcilable and you have failed to provide an asnwer without resorting to fallacious arguments.Either 2 types of reactions, or a single type of reaction.
I presented a very simple dichotomy, tracing reactions back to the BB. Non-conscious objects are things that a consciousness manipulates following rules, such as when one (not 1 ) follows the axioms of arithmetic.Meh, at some future point, I might be able to flesh in all the missing links between man and ape, or primordial consciousness and yours and mine, but..
We can trace evolution of reactions all the way back to the Big Bang.
Here are some scenarios:
1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.
In other words, we either have non-conscious reactions magically changing to conscious reactions at some point in time, or conscious reactions evolving over time.
...Consciousness is a phenomenon produced by large numbers of non-conscious objects acting in concert, but those constituent elements remain non-conscious; they don't change into conscious objects.
I was implying that people who believe that reactions changed from non-conscious to conscious are engaged in magical thinking, and deny that consciousness and consciousnesses have been evolving since the BB.Perhaps that is why you think of it as 'magical' - you think that each individual quanta of energy in the human CNS is conscious.
I presented a very simple dichotomy, tracing reactions back to the BB. Non-conscious objects are things that a consciousness manipulates following rules, such as when one (not 1 ) follows the axioms of arithmetic....Consciousness is a phenomenon produced by large numbers of non-conscious objects acting in concert, but those constituent elements remain non-conscious; they don't change into conscious objects.
1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.
If you accept the truth of 1, you simply have conscious reactions evolving.
If you claim 2 is true, you have non-conscious reactions turning into conscious reactions.
I was implying that people who believe that reactions changed from non-conscious to conscious are engaged in magical thinking, and deny that consciousness and consciousnesses have been evolving since the BB.Perhaps that is why you think of it as 'magical' - you think that each individual quanta of energy in the human CNS is conscious.
Do you really think that evolution transformed matter/energy into something completely different than what always existed, rather than just created new forms of the exact same stuff that always existed? Do you think that physicists and cosmologists are all incorrect, and that human consciousness is some new exotic form of matter/energy that has some magically new reactions to other reactions, instead of simply being another form of what is always reacting to itself and what it creates?
I have not claimed that non-conscious reactions turn into conscious reactions. I am saying that the 'stuff' that makes up forms such as a human brain -- regardless of whether that refers to quanta of energy, atoms, molecules, or cells -- is non-conscious, and non-consciously produces a conscious mind.I presented a very simple dichotomy, tracing reactions back to the BB. Non-conscious objects are things that a consciousness manipulates following rules, such as when one (not 1 ) follows the axioms of arithmetic....Consciousness is a phenomenon produced by large numbers of non-conscious objects acting in concert, but those constituent elements remain non-conscious; they don't change into conscious objects.
1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.
If you accept the truth of 1, you simply have conscious reactions evolving.
If you claim 2 is true, you have non-conscious reactions turning into conscious reactions.
I was implying that people who believe that reactions changed from non-conscious to conscious are engaged in magical thinking, and deny that consciousness and consciousnesses have been evolving since the BB.Perhaps that is why you think of it as 'magical' - you think that each individual quanta of energy in the human CNS is conscious.
Do you really think that evolution transformed matter/energy into something completely different than what always existed, rather than just created new forms of the exact same stuff that always existed? Do you think that physicists and cosmologists are all incorrect, and that human consciousness is some new exotic form of matter/energy that has some magically new reactions to other reactions, instead of simply being another form of what is always reacting to itself and what it creates?
Particles bonded together create different structure fields because of the properties they have. The fields can be seen as unitary phenomena, if one looks at the combined action of the many different individual fields as a single phenomena. The individuals within the field respond to the field as if it were one field, while participating in the generation of the field at the same time.It seems more consistent with observation that consciousness is an emergent property of specific arrangements of stuff; in the same way that metabolism or photosynthesis are emergent properties of specific arrangements of stuff. Plants photosynthesise; living things metabolise; complex brains are conscious.
That misses out on the interactions always being between the individual fields participated in by many individuals and the individuals.a brain's consciousness is an emergent behaviour specific to the formation of billions of atoms that is a brain, just as photosynthesis is an emergent behaviour of chloroplasts.
None of which addresses the question of non-brain consciousness at all.Particles bonded together create different structure fields because of the properties they have. The fields can be seen as unitary phenomena, if one looks at the combined action of the many different individual fields as a single phenomena. The individuals within the field respond to the field as if it were one field, while participating in the generation of the field at the same time.
The interaction between individuals and fields has been going on since the BB. Since fields interact with fields and individuals, and individuals interact with fields and individuals, there is nothing different about a human consciousness reciprocally interacting with individuals within it, nor their interaction with it.
Depending upon their structure, individuals are more, or less responsive to certain fields. Depending upon their structure, individuals are more, or less, supportive of certain fields. Individuals generate their own field, and feel fields, whether they are human scale, smaller, or larger.
That misses out on the interactions always being between the individual fields participated in by many individuals and the individuals.a brain's consciousness is an emergent behaviour specific to the formation of billions of atoms that is a brain, just as photosynthesis is an emergent behaviour of chloroplasts.
Individuals and fields that individuals project have interacted with one another since the BB, at a minimum. The interaction of individuals to fields and other individuals has evolved over time, so now many individuals create a united field in a human brain that interacts with them as an individual field that is connected to a big field.
We still have the dichotomy:
1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.
That's not true. We have the same exact 2 options on the table:Everything is fields; nothing, apart from brains, is conscious
That's not true. We have the same exact 2 options on the table:Everything is fields; nothing, apart from brains, is conscious
Either:
Everything that reacts is conscious, which is how it reacts (it is aware of stuff and reacts to it).
- Numbers do not react, they are a product of consciousness following axioms and are not conscious themselves and require a consciousness to sustain their existence.
Or:
All reactions of everything were non-conscious from the big bang untilmagicallyreplicators arose, that could be acted upon by natural selection, evolving more and more complex structures to compete for resources, until something reacted and formed a bit of spine (a CNS), it wasmagicallyconscious, rather than non-conscious; in the exact same way that other complex structures came to be photosynthesisers rather than non-photosynthesisers. The other emergent behaviors that exist in various groups of what exists were all non-conscious by definition, butspecial magical forms of energy magically were consciously reactingneurons could become part of a conscious entity when they were grouped into a CNS, unlike everything else in the universe which was reacting and composed of the same exact material, but wasmagicallynot arranged in such a pattern, and so continued non consciously reacting; and in exactly the same way that everything in the universe that was not organised into a chloroplast continued not to photosynthesise.
-these consciousness thatmagicallyby definition react to things consciously instead of the way everything else in the universe reactswere so unique and special that they realizedas one of their many emergent abilities, could observe that all other reactions in the universe, except for theirs, were non-conscious.
- theymade up true, totally non fictional stories, I mean facts, aboutobserved how non-conscious reactionsmagically turnedadded up to the emergent property of being conscious when they were in the brains ofthese super uniquethose entities that had evolved out of the reactions of non-consciously reacting material thatmagicallyreacted consciously whenthey were the material that was actingpart of a sufficiently complex structure, becausethey are so special.consciousness is observed to be an attribute only of highly complex systems.
And especially common when the woo-fans are trying to insult their critics.although it seems very common for humans to attribute the things they do not comprehend to magic. .
It's like I'm talking to creationists who are so set on holding onto their incorrect beliefs, that they will make up anything to justify them. I have to admit that I used to say the same incorrect bullshit that you're saying now when I was thirteen, when I based all my ideas about reality from the idea of non-conscious natural law determining things up until a certain threshold of complexity. I argued emergence, and all the other incorrect positions you are regurgitating.There is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance; it gains you a lot more respect than invoking magic.
Attempted ad-HomIt's like I'm talking to creationistsThere is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance; it gains you a lot more respect than invoking magic.
Unsupported assertion - you have yet to demonstrate that what I am saying is incorrect, or indeed, that it is a mere 'belief'.who are so set on holding onto their incorrect beliefs,
Actual ad-Hom. I am not 'making up' anything.that they will make up anything to justify them.
well poisoningI have to admit that
unsupported assertionI used to say the same incorrect bullshit
Attempted ad-Homthat you're saying now when I was thirteen,
If you think that I am suggesting for a moment that natural law does not apply at ALL levels of complexity, then you are very much mistaken (again). Consciousness is not an exception to natural law; it is a consequence of natural law as it applies to the specific class of complex systems we call 'brains'; in exactly the same way that photosynthesis is a consequence of natural law as it applies to the specific class of complex systems we call 'chloroplasts'. Systems have abilities that their parts do not. A pile of gears and springs does not have the same ability to show the passage of time as a watch.when I based all my ideas about reality from the idea of non-conscious natural law determining things up until a certain threshold of complexity.
Demonstrably incorrect assertion - telling time is an emergent property of watches; the parts do not tell the time, unless correctly assembled. Emergence is unquestionably a real thing; There is nothing incorrect about the position that a whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.I argued emergence, and all the other incorrect positions
ad-Homyou are regurgitating.
Statement too vague to convey any information; evolving is a property of living entities, not of 'reactions of matter/energy', which is a far broader class of objects.Anyways..
Reactions of matter/energy have been evolving for a long time.
Statement far to vague to convey any information. 'Stuff is exactly the same as the preceding stuff, except in the ways that it is different'. Deep.Every state of any matter/energy is preceded by another state of the exact same stuff, with the exact same properties, except for the specific forms that it is in.
Again, too vague to be meaningful. Interactions between matter and energy are many and varied; In some cases matter and/or energy interact strongly, and in other cases weakly or not at all.One of the properties of matter/energy is that it reacts to other matter/energy.
Unsupported assertion; attempted ad-HomSometimes a specific form of it is caused that is a bit full of itself, and believes that it has an additional property that all other matter and energy lack, instead of simply being a different form of the same stuff, with the same fundamental reactions.
Attempted ad-Hom.This ignorant form of matter/energy thinks that it reacts consciously, but all other reactions that do not resemble its own are non-conscious.
Word salad. No information conveyed. You appear to be trying to assert that the parts of any complex structure are necessarily equal in complexity to the whole, but as that would be self-evidently stupid, I have to assume that you are trying to say something else - and failing.It doesn't consider that an apparently complex larger single reaction to many smaller reactions does not indicate that the smaller reactors with other forms lack the same exact primary attribute of conscious reaction to other forms that the larger, apparently more complex entity has.
The old 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit' line of persuasion.Particles bonded together create different structure fields because of the properties they have. The fields can be seen as unitary phenomena, if one looks at the combined action of the many different individual fields as a single phenomena. The individuals within the field respond to the field as if it were one field, while participating in the generation of the field at the same time.
The interaction between individuals and fields has been going on since the BB. Since fields interact with fields and individuals, and individuals interact with fields and individuals, there is nothing different about a human consciousness reciprocally interacting with individuals within it, nor their interaction with it.
Depending upon their structure, individuals are more, or less responsive to certain fields. Depending upon their structure, individuals are more, or less, supportive of certain fields. Individuals generate their own field, and feel fields, whether they are human scale, smaller, or larger.
That misses out on the interactions always being between the individual fields participated in by many individuals and the individuals.a brain's consciousness is an emergent behaviour specific to the formation of billions of atoms that is a brain, just as photosynthesis is an emergent behaviour of chloroplasts.
Individuals and fields that individuals project have interacted with one another since the BB, at a minimum. The interaction of individuals to fields and other individuals has evolved over time, so now many individuals create a united field in a human brain that interacts with them as an individual field that is connected to a big field.
Refuted by the evidence.We still have the dichotomy:
1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
Makes sense.--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.
Poo flinger accusing someone of throwing poo? oooohhhh!!Attempted ad-HomIt's like I'm talking to creationists
Poo flinger accusing someone of throwing poo? oooohhhh!!Attempted ad-Hom
Not at all. Emergence is not evidence. Precise reactions on the smallest scale are not evidence. Regular reactions are not evidence.Refuted by the evidence.We still have the dichotomy:
1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
Not at all. Emergence is not evidence. Precise reactions on the smallest scale are not evidence. Regular reactions are not evidence.Refuted by the evidence.
What we have here is a semi-complex reactor (a human consciousness) reacting to other reactors believing that other reactors are non-conscious without any evidence that they are actually non-conscious.
We have the conscious ability to create imaginary scenarios, such as the scenario in which non-conscious reactions become conscious when they reach a certain threshold of complexity.
However complexity != consciousness, just like simplicity != non-consciousness.