Theory number 3.

[Mystic]

Oh christ...now we're on to the magical gift of consciousness and how evolution just couldn't have done it, eh? What, to you, would qualify as such a step? "Perception" of your exterior environment and reaction to it, perhaps? Self regulatory systems in complex organisms sans "mind"?

Heh, I posted this as one of "proofs" I believed proves a Creator, in my first thread here.

Like I said, it's an argument from semi-ignorance. For all I know, there can possibly be a scientific explanation, but it just seems impossible from my perspective right now.

As I haven't really discussed this topic (people ignored it except Rayaan who agreed with it on the first post I posted here)...so I don't believe in it per se, it just helps boost the emotional hope that a higher power exists.

Well perception is there, but it can't be like a computer perceiving im puts. There has to be a living perceiver.

It can't go from perceiving in a computer sense, non-conscious perceiver, to conscious perceiver, by simply mutations in one step. But there has to be essentially a step.

Like I said, I'm going to discuss with scientists hopefully and will get back to you on it.

Of course I shouldn't expect people here who don't know about biology of concsiousness etc, to refute this.

[Angrboda]

If one is asking the question of how A led to B, be very carefully that you have a good handle on both A and B. In particular, many people assume or adopt a traditional B, or endpoint, and then become logically frustrated when they can't build a bridge between A and B. We see this a lot in ethics and atheism with people trying to prove that you can have objective ethics without religion or God, when they should first be asking just what an objective ethics would be, and if that even does or can exist.

I'm in a little different boat. I'm not so much interested in a specific A or B, I'm interested in what makes an A an A, its A-ness and so forth. So I don't worry about the question of belief much, except to steer my own personal religious experience. I'm interested in deep structure, structure which itself is agnostic to the question of whether X exists, or Yahweh is merciful.

Don't take my harsh words the wrong way. I like you. You just seem very 'stuck'. Some days that's harder to take than others. I've experienced a lot of heavy losses of late, and am probably not as ebullient as I typically would be. I've been referred to as a curmudgeon. That fits. Consider the source.

Anyway, back to the point, I don't worry about the truth content of my religious beliefs much, as that's not what matters to me. It's the deep questions, independent of theism or atheism, which get my attention, love, and ministrations.

[Mystic]

Heh, where our interest lies, what drives us to learn and investigate certain things is interesting topic itself...I use to not to care about too much about theology, or whether Islam is true or not, just wanted to know who was right between Shiites and Sunnis, I took Islam as a given fact.

Most of my forum life has been on the Shia-Sunni issue.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would you assume that consciousness, whatever that means to you, arose in a single mutation? Do you mean a "consciousness" like our own? That took fair few more than one, so far as we can tell. On the other hand, how would you be proposing that consciousness was gained? Magic? When did that magic occur, does it occur at some indefinite point before (or during) every human birth? Are we the only "conscious" creatures? Assuming that this magic does not or did not occur at the moment of birth, if consciousness is somehow inherited as a part of this creators design then clearly biology (and evolution) are capable of handling that, because here we are, products of the same. I can't even see why a biologist is required on this one....it's pretty transparent. Creator as source of consciousness falls on ignorance, parsimony, and as always...a complete and deplorable lack of evidence.

(You seem to be attempting to rationalize a desire, in this case a desire for belief or faith, it might be useful to consider that our desires are not always rational, nor do they necessarily arise from reason. "I want there to be a creator" is probably the strongest -reason- you're going to be able to present.)

[Mystic]

Why would you assume that consciousness, whatever that means to you, arose in a single mutation? Do you mean a "consciousness" like our own? That took fair few more than one, so far as we can tell.

Well there would have to be logically a lot of steps (perhaps millions) to get to consciousness from unconsciousness. But at the same time, there has to be a point where it's actually conscious as opposed to not. But before that, it's not conscious. So there has to millions of steps but at the same time, there has to be but one step as well. Hence you have the problem. Aside from that, is it even possible that it heading to that direction by natural selection, as opposed to simply a computer like receiving im puts?

On the other hand, how would you be proposing that consciousness was gained? Magic?

It's highly possible.

When did that magic occur, does it occur at some indefinite point before (or during) every human birth?

I don't know. I don't see the relevance though.

Are we the only "conscious" creatures?

Don't seem to be. I am not inclined to believe that animals are just machines acting as if they have a conscious without one. They seem to run on emotions, fear, love, attraction, pleasure, selfishness, etc...

Assuming that this magic does not or did not occur at the moment of birth, if consciousness is somehow inherited as a part of this creators design then clearly biology (and evolution) are capable of handling that, because here we are, products of the same.

This is non-sequitur, if consciousness is solely created by biological/physical, it doesn't mean evolution was capable of producing it.

[Cyberman]

Why would you assume that consciousness, whatever that means to you, arose in a single mutation? Do you mean a "consciousness" like our own? That took fair few more than one, so far as we can tell.

Well there would have to be logically a lot of steps (perhaps millions) to get to consciousness from unconsciousness. But at the same time, there has to be a point where it's actually conscious as opposed to not. But before that, it's not conscious.

Or semi-conscious, to varying degrees. Consciousness isn't an all-or-nothing condition.

---

This is non-sequitur, if consciousness is solely created by biological/physical, it doesn't mean evolution was capable of producing it.

How would that work? Biological and physical processes are the bread and butter of evolution. I agree that your comment is a non sequitur.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well there would have to be logically a lot of steps (perhaps millions) to get to consciousness from unconsciousness. But at the same time, there has to be a point where it's actually conscious as opposed to not. But before that, it's not conscious. So there has to millions of steps but at the same time, there has to be but one step as well. Hence you have the problem. Aside from that, is it even possible that it heading to that direction by natural selection, as opposed to simply a computer like receiving im puts?

We do see "alot of steps". Why does there have to be such a point, given that you haven't taken the time to define what consciousness is (nor have any of us, in it's particulars)? Before what, at what point does the miracle occur? I'm asking you this because it's very likely that we do have examples of organisms that are capable of achieving whatever it is you might want to reference. It's also likely that I can give you an example of a creature which does not have "consciousness" but nevertheless achieve a similar or identical effect.

It's highly possible.

When did magic become "highly possible", and by what hilarious definitions of the words magic, highly, and possible?

I don't know. I don't see the relevance though.

The relevance would be establishing the moment or ability that you choose to propose as an opportunity for a skyhook. I'm just wondering how long the God of Self has to wait for hardware to appear before it deciding to install the app.

Don't seem to be. I am not inclined to believe that animals are just machines acting as if they have a conscious without one. They seem to run on emotions, fear, love, attraction, pleasure, selfishness, etc...

Do you think magic is involved in their inner workings as well? Consciousness pixies, perhaps, flitting about painting the morning dew? Whether or not something has emotions would have what to do with whether or not it was operating on a mechanical process? Is this the magic, emotions? It's not like there are chemicals involved here, or external stimuli replete with internal response. Couldn't even begin to condition emotions. Surely we wouldn't expect goal seeking or goal orientation....surely no, because we aren't machines......

(You -are- a machine, by any definition of the word. If you read less into that it probably wouldn't make you uncomfortable. There's nothing wrong with machines, and as far as they go, you're a magnificent one.)

This is non-sequitur, if consciousness is solely created by biological/physical, it doesn't mean evolution was capable of producing it.

Dissonance at play. "biological and physical forces" is probably the simplest and most descriptive summary of evolutionary synthesis.

[Mystic]

Or semi-conscious, to varying degrees. Consciousness isn't an all-or-nothing condition.

Whatever degree of consciousness, semi, 1%, whatever...there has to be a step that would go from no consciousness. But at the same time, there needs not only be tons of steps but natural selection should be guiding it towards consciousness (semi or 1% or any level of consciousness).

What I mean by physical/biological, is that if we had no soul, it doesn't mean necessarily that consciousness could have arisen from evolution process.

[Edwardo Piet]

According to some, in certain Asian cultures, intelligence itself is not fixed but teachable and malleable.

I say there are ultimately two types of intelligence that both come down to understanding: 1. Our capability of understanding something when we have the information necessary to understand it. The greater our capability of understanding the information required for said understanding, the greater our intelligence. If we don't understand something simply because we have been sheltered from the necessary information, that doesn't mean we're stupid, that just means we're ignorant. 2. The speed of our understanding - i.e the longer it takes to understand something the less intelligent we are. If we understand things really quickly, the speed of our intelligence is greater.

I believe intelligence is therefore not identical to but is very much about understanding. I believe it is different to knowledge because you may know many things without actually understanding them, and if you don't understand them that doesn't mean you have great intellect - you may just have a good memory. It is merely that people who are more intelligent are much more likely to be knowledgeable than people who are not, and they're also much more likely to have better memory. It doesn't imply that it's the same thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Natural selection doesn't do any guiding, let alone guiding anything towards consciousness. NS has no goals, it has no top down perspective. It's a winnowing process.

Biological and physical processes -are- evolutionary processes. Evolutionary Synthesis is the unifying theory of biology.....

What would 1% consciousness look like, in your estimation? Lets see if we can find an organism that would match this description.