Theli

Beoran...

I admit, I wasn't too specific regarding the physics of the brain.
The point was that people tend to discard the old view of the self (being a person with feelings and purpose) when they hear a new one, in this case the physiology of the brain. And if they don't like the new view they reject naturalism as a system because of it.
And my initial question was: why?
What makes the soul more appealing?
I've got some good answers already, but you are free to offer your viewpoint.

BTW, welcome onboard.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Theli

crocodile deathroll
That's another thing. I had this discussion with Tercel awhile ago.
Is the consciousness a lightswitch or a dimmer?
Did a very simple lifeform millions of years ago suddenly wake into consciousness?

Naked Ape

I think consciousness is the sum of an ability to sense, plus memory, plus an ability to correctly relate sense to memory. I think it’s more of a gradient than a binary transition. But what I really wonder about are those who would claim souls for mankind but deny them to Apes or other animals. Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t believe in any sort of ghosts inhabiting any of the clever meat puppets that have evolved on our pretty blue rock in space. But the folks who assert that souls are some sort of magic fairy dust that was only sprinkled on the naked apes make me scratch my head.

Cheers

Naked Ape

crocodile deathroll

The "dimmer" analogy sounds more appealing to me because if consciousness of a product of a <a href="http://focus.aps.org/story/v4/st30" target="_blank"> phase transition </a> even thought there is some degree of semi-suddenness about it there would be a transitional phase between unconsciousness and consciousness and that would act like a dimmer switched being turned up. Same as there is a transitional phase between matter in a liquid state to matter in a solid state, water does not suddenly become solid as the temperature drops below zero, so a phase transition applies there as well. A phase transition has some element of suddenness about it but the is no infinitesimal line between one solid state and another liquid state.
Consciousness is a survival function when the critical conditions arrive, and would of been useless on a microbe. I do not think very simple life forms like microbes or sponges needed consciousness any more that they need wings to fly. Just blind natural selection would of helped the sponge to survive just as well. But as soon as a critical level of biological complexity is reached, consciousness would be possible to emerge. But just how simple a system has to be before consciousness cut out is the big question I would love to answer, but can't.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>

Beoran

Why is naturalism not palatable? Very simple. In the extreme reductionist naturalistic view that I oppose, people are equated to potatoes, rocks and dust. "All we are is dust in the wind." Of course, this view is unappealing to people, not to mention that it's wrong. Nobody wants to be equated with or treated like a mere thing.

The essential reason that people find naturalism unpalatable is because it's usually served raw and reductionistical. "We are just..." I think using the word "just" for such a complex structure as a human being is incorrect. Not to mention it is a bad PR move.

We are all the result of the law of nature, of the will of nature. Because we are living beings, we are driven forward by the will to life. Beauty, wonder, and amazement increase our feeling of well-being, our appreciation of life, and are thus favorable to promote life, and in accordance with our will to life. In essence, what I'm trying to say it's that it's a law of nature that people want to feel good.

Naturalism can increase our will to life because it takes away the mistaken idea that death is another form of life. However, it has to be brought in a palatable way that increases the sense of well-being of people. Equating humans with a "mere bunch of atoms" is NOT the way to do it. Try using "Wonderfully complex structure of stardust", and you'll see a much more positive response. ^_^

Theli

Croc...

Do you suppose that consciousness is a product of our inability to forsee events, to "be suprised"?
Where the being must be 'aware/awake' to deal with the sudden situation.
That might be horseshit, I don't know.