Re: MD Chance and natural selection

From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Wed Aug 20 2003 - 20:03:13 BST

  • Next message: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com: "Re: MD Pirsig and Peirce"

    On 18 August 2003 7:57 PM Scott R writes:

    Hi Scott, Ian and all,

    Scott:
    I did not say the difficulty proves Darwinism false. I said it makes it
    implausible. I do in addition, though, consider Darwinism impossible as an
    explanation for the existence of consciousness, but did not give my reason.
    It is given below. I've presented it a couple of times in this forum, but no
    one has given an argument as to why it is not valid. (I do not assume it is
    unassailable, just that no one so far has assailed it). Nor has anything
    I've read in Dennett or Rorty or anywhere else addressed the problem it
    raises. If you know of a response, I'd like to know.

    I would also ask, why is an explanation that avoids purpose better than one
    that doesn't? Other than, of course, a prior commitment to a mindless
    materialism. Purpose obviously exists. Matter (which I would define as that
    which the senses can perceive) doesn't obviously exist outside the mind, or
    rather, it "obviously" (naively) exists, but analysis raises doubts. What we
    perceive is produced in the act of perception: we see trees, not photons. So
    why do materialists try to provide an explanation of how perception works in
    terms of what perception produces?.

     Here's the argument (taken from a Jan. 10 post):

    Consciousness, or even sentience, *cannot* evolve out of non-consciousness.
    To see the problem, take the normally accepted view of how visual perception
    works: light bounces off an object, stimulates the rods and cones in the
    eye, which stimulate nerve cells, and (much complexity later) we say "I see
    the tree". The materialist is forced to conclude that all that nerve cell
    agitation is the seeing of a tree. But this is impossible, if one assumes
    that space and time are the context in which all that is necessary to
    explain perception occurs.

    To see this, ask how the excitation of one electron being hit by one photon
    can have any *connection* to any other electron that is being, or has been
    hit by another photon. For this to happen a signal must pass from the first
    to the second, but that signal cannot carry any additional information than
    that of a single photon. So unless we assume an electron has memory, and can
    distinguish between one photon and another, there can be no greater
    experience than that which an electron experiences on absorbing a photon (or
    any other single interaction it can undergo, like being annihilated by a
    positron.).

    joe: as a first division for knowledge I accept I know the dynamic
    undefined quality, and the static defined quality.

    I want to talk about gravity. In gravity there is dynamic and static
    quality. Static quality defines gravity as a force that accelerates objects
    at 32 feet per second/per second. It is a field surrounding a planet. The
    dynamic quality of gravity concerns its origin, its location, how it acts,
    its obscurity in nucleus-electron mathematics etc.

    If I describe gravity as an electromagnetic force I am in error. I compare
    two words 'radiation' and 'emanation'. Gravity does not radiate from a
    planet. Does it emanate from a planet. Using 'emanate' as a word meaning
    connected to, but not defining the quality, I would say that a planet
    emanates a gravity field.

    In the place of dynamic quality, I now have another word to use indicating
    connected to, but not defined. The moral orders emanate from the inorganic
    order through evolution. In an undefined way the inorganic order contains
    the organic, inorganic, and intellectual orders. Without defining it, I can
    say a characteristic of evolution is emanation.

    I now have a word to describe the connection of DNA to consciousness. My
    DNA, by definition contains the four orders, inorganic, organic, social, and
    intellectual. My DNA emanates a field I call awaeness. Awareness is a more
    precise word than consciousness. It is connected to my individual DNA. My
    DNA controls my awareness. Since awareness is now defined, I see that an
    artistic creativity is an undefined aspect of my awareness. The Greek
    emphasis on creative awareness led to the faulty substance accident division
    for first knowledge.

    My awareness now can emanate a soul through work. My soul becomes the
    vehicle of consciousness. Some people are more conscious than others. Work
    is important.

    The nerve cells react to radiation. The connection of a brain to the object
    is through emanation from the object. I know the undefined.

    Scott:
    [Added now:]
    I've been considering whether an appeal to fields (e.g., the electromagnetic
    field) could provide another out. I don't see it. For one thing, fields are
    just mathematical models to describe the results of action at a distance.
    That is, there is action at a distance, and that is basically saying that
    space and/or time is transcended. So if we say these fields are real in
    themselves, and that perhaps consciousness is a very complicated nexus of
    fields, well, aren't we saying that fields transcend space and time? The
    question, then, is this still materialism, or are the goal posts being
    moved?

    In any case, we would be saying that the electromagnetic field arising from
    one moving electron has to be conscious. Otherwise, adding and combining
    fields together won't add up to qualia.

    By the way, I am familiar with Dennett's and Hofstadter's "systems" response
    to Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment. This is not the same. It (my
    argument) is that spacetime separation means that there can be no larger
    awareness than that of the smallest unit of matter or signal one knows
    about.

    joe: a superior explanation based on a first division of knowledge into
    dynamic and static quality best answers these objections. Radiation and
    emanation use these qualities to confirm a difference.

    Joe

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 20 2003 - 20:00:37 BST