RE: If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)
July 27, 2014 at 1:08 am
(July 26, 2014 at 8:49 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Yes, but here's my problem: the mechanical framework is DEFINED by us as acting deterministically and having certain inaliable properties: conservation of energy, the balance of the 4 basic forces, etc. Consciousness isn't included in this definition, so we are trying to force consciousness INTO that definition by redefining it AS a mechanical framework.
Nature obviously includes consciousness. But I don't think our definition of the natural universe as a mechanical system sufficiently encapsulates or explains the capacity for consciousness. (by which I mean the existence of qualia, not the ability of complex systems to interact with their environment)
Mechanical systems -except those we actually engineer ourselves- are descriptions of life systems. They're not ours to define. When we try to understand physiology we can describe ion uptake and calcium deposits and many more systems which I've forgotten about. But we don't 'define' them; the body's processes - including consciousness - can be understood up to a point but we don't quite seem ready to build up a living body from inorganic parts. Our descriptions are not complete. So I am not surprised that we cannot exhaustively account for all aspects of consciousness.
But the fact that our descriptions are not adequate does not mean we need to look elsewhere than the physiology and the chemistry and physics which underlies it. Can you suggest a more promising place to look for clues to understanding qualia and the rest of it?
