(August 17, 2014 at 2:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I remember doing a thread like this over a year ago now, but I thought it might be best to start with a clean slate, and see how we go. Also, I really like discussing this topic especially on an atheist forum because being in the minority is more fun. Here we go:
I don't believe consciousness can be explained by way of a naturalistic account. Why? Because I don't think particles have it in them to act in such a way as to recreate what we mean by consciousness i.e. our thoughts, beliefs, attitudes etc.
Let's use an example; my belief that spoons are curved. So to make things easier, let's call this belief p. Now, how can we possibly arrange particles in such a way that they would express p? How could some physical arrangement *ever* describe p? I don't think it's possible to physically arrange particles in such a way that would then inherently possess the belief that other sets of particles - aka spoons - have the property of being curved.
Maybe we could place a spoon on the kitchen counter, and put beside it a piece of paper pointing to it, saying "curved". But I wouldn't say the particles of lead forming the word "curved" are arranged in a way that make them hold p. The reason being that it takes an already conscious being *to make that connection*. The already conscious being has the ability to give meaning to such an arrangement of lead, and mind you, it has to be a being that speaks English. Therefore, in no way is the arrangement of lead inherently a beholder of p, since not even all conscious beings can arrive at that conclusion to begin with.
As we can see, for a particle to be "about" another particle, consciousness is a prerequisite... almost as if it weren't made up of particles in the first place
Or, our understanding of 'consciousness' is flawed/wrong. Which I'm more inclined to believe.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
