Is Subjective Idealism compatible with Evolution?

[ceptimus]

Any metaphysical system has many difficulties. I'm not sure why you think this poses no difficulty for materialism at all. You are saying that there is an organism which is completely lacking in consciousness, but its offspring is very slightly conscious? What is the crucial difference which leads to this conscious awareness?

I really think this question doesn't pose a problem for materialists. I view 'consciousness' as a measure of 'computing power' if you like, and I can easily posit a whole string of machines from zero computing power, up to a modern supercomputer. For example a very simple machine might have two valves, one after the other, on the same length of pipe, and water could only flow through the pipe if both valves are open at the same time. I think we also mentioned the thermostat last time we went down this road.

This question however DOES pose a problem to your sort of idealism, I think, simply because you believe there is the event of the consciousness attaching to the brain. So it either does do that, or it doesn't.

Maybe you could get around it by having a universal consciousness, that attaches in different degrees to different things. I think the problem with your form of idealism results from the 'either sentient or not' property, with no in-between.

Edit: typo. I had 'materialism' instead of 'idealism' Oops!

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Natural processes are an illusion? What do you mean? Would this mean ghosts are as real as the rest of the world btw (ie all is illusion)?? Or are there diferent degrees of illusion?

Sorry. I'm not going down this road. I don't think natural processes are illusion. It was suggested as something you might think being an immaterialist. Sorry I brought it up.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I really think this question doesn't pose a problem for materialists. I view 'consciousness' as a measure of 'computing power' if you like, and I can easily posit a whole string of machines from zero computing power, up to a modern supercomputer. For example a very simple machine might have two valves, one after the other, on the same length of pipe, and water could only flow through the pipe if both valves are open at the same time. I think we also mentioned the thermostat last time we went down this road.

This question however DOES pose a problem to your sort of materialism, I think, simply because you believe there is the event of the consciousness attaching to the brain. So it either does do that, or it doesn't.

Maybe you could get around it by having a universal consciousness, that attaches in different degrees to different things. I think the problem with your form of idealism results from the 'either sentient or not' property, with no in-between.

You don't see a problem in the idea of a thermostat being conscious? Hmmmm . .what about a stone?

 

[ceptimus]

You don't see a problem in the idea of a thermostat being conscious? Hmmmm . .what about a stone?

Well, a stone doesn't do any computing, unless it is part of a larger assembly.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Natural processes are an illusion? What do you mean? Would this mean ghosts are as real as the rest of the world btw (ie all is illusion)?? Or are there diferent degrees of illusion?

Sorry. I'm not going down this road. I don't think natural processes are illusion. It was suggested as something you might think being an immaterialist. Sorry I brought it up. [/B]

That'll teach ya!

 

[ceptimus]

Here's an analogy. (These are always dangerous on this sort of thread, so hold on tight).

Consciousness is analagous to music.

Now I can take a musical piece and chop it up into movements, phrases, bars etc. and these are still musical, though to a lesser extent. When I get down to a single note, or a single beat on a drum, is that still music? What about the sound of a coin being dropped on the floor? Well it's kind of a stupid question really, but everyone agrees that music is just made up of a collection of such sounds, in a certain order, and with a certain timing.

Does that help? *prepares to run away if this backfires*

 

[Interesting Ian]

Well, a stone doesn't do any computing, unless it is part of a larger assembly.

Right, so would any sort of change in the world be very slightly conscious? Or is it only certain types of change? What precisely do you mean by computing in other words. Does a boulder compute when it rolls down a hill?

 

[hammegk]

. It was suggested as something you might think being an immaterialist.

You mistake nihilism and solipsism for immaterialism (if by immaterialism you mean, for example, either subjective or objective Idealism).

 

[ceptimus]

Right, so would any sort of change in the world be very slightly conscious? Or is it only certain types of change? What precisely do you mean by computing in other words. Does a boulder compute when it rolls down a hill?

I suppose it does compute to an infinitessimal degree, but it seems like a pointless question to me. See my music analogy post above. When you try and divide something down too finely, it becomes meaningless.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Here's an analogy. (These are always dangerous on this sort of thread, so hold on tight).

Consciousness is analagous to music.

Now I can take a musical piece and chop it up into movements, phrases, bars etc. and these are still musical, though to a lesser extent. When I get down to a single note, or a single beat on a drum, is that still music? What about the sound of a coin being dropped on the floor? Well it's kind of a stupid question really, but everyone agrees that music is just made up of a collection of such sounds, in a certain order, and with a certain timing.

Does that help? *prepares to run away if this backfires*

But music is an auditory phenomenological experience. You're making a leap here from music as measured and music as actually experienced. If your analogy incorporates consciousness surely it can't be used to explain consciousness? I'm very unhappy with this analogy basically.

 

[ceptimus]

But music is an auditory phenomenological experience. You're making a leap here from music as measured and music as actually experienced. If your analogy incorporates consciousness surely it can't be used to explain consciousness? I'm very unhappy with this analogy basically.

I was only using music as an example of something can exist in varying degrees. Music seemed a good analogy to me, because when music becomes very simple (a single note or two) then it is arguably no longer music.

There is no clear point where 'sound / noise' stops, and music begins. I see consciousness in exactly the same way - there is no clear point where simple material actions become so complex that we begin to call them conscious. But I believe consciousness is made up of those simple material actions, in the same way that the most glorious music is composed of individual notes.

 

[Darat]

...snip... I see consciousness in exactly the same way - there is no clear point where simple material actions become so complex that we begin to call them conscious. ...snip...

Strange - I thought you were asking Ian to explain and expand on his beliefs - not the other way round.

 

[ceptimus]

Strange - I thought you were asking Ian to explain and expand on his beliefs - not the other way round.

I was wondering myself when I should try and get this thread back on the tracks. I've not forgotten that he hasn't answered my questions yet. At least he won't be able to accuse me of not answering his questions!

 

[Interesting Ian]

I was wondering myself when I should try and get this thread back on the tracks. I've not forgotten that he hasn't answered my questions yet. At least he won't be able to accuse me of not answering his questions!

I did answer your question. I said I don't know.

Am I expected to know all the secrets of the Universe?

 

[ceptimus]

I did answer your question. I said I don't know.

Am I expected to know all the secrets of the Universe?

No, I don't think you did answer. Not adequately anyway.

The 'do you believe in Darwinian Evolution' question might have a yes/no answer, or you could explain which parts you believe in, if you don't buy the whole deal.

If you believe (say) a gorilla is sentinent, but the worm-like ancestor of all vertebrates wasn't, then your answer to the second question must be 'Yes'. Saying, 'I don't know' is simple evasion.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I did answer your question. I said I don't know.

Am I expected to know all the secrets of the Universe?

You keep claiming to know them. Or perhaps you've already explained, but we were just too stupid to realize it.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

You mistake nihilism and solipsism for immaterialism (if by immaterialism you mean, for example, either subjective or objective Idealism).

Quite possibly. It all seems like mental masturbation to me.

 

[Mercutio]

Right, so would any sort of change in the world be very slightly conscious? Or is it only certain types of change? What precisely do you mean by computing in other words. Does a boulder compute when it rolls down a hill?

We've been here before, Ian. You are assuming a "consciousness" that exists, then trying to figure out which behaviors a materialist would say constitute this consciousness. Instead, what is happening is that there is a wide range of behaviors and changes and events that happen, and our language community speaks of a fuzzy set of those behaviors as belonging to a category we call "consciousness". The actions are not the result of consciousness--to say that consciousness causes these behaviors, when the only evidence we have for consciousness is these behaviors is, of course, circular. "Consciousness" is a label for a category of behaviors, Ian, nothing more. A rock has not yet, to the best of my recollection, ever engaged in any of those behaviors. Nor has a thermostat, although you may see a bit of the "fuzziness" of the set if you speak of the thermostat "deciding" that it "feels too cold" and so turns on the furnace. (And yes, I have heard people describe the function of a thermostat that way.)

Many of our (people's) behaviors are in this "conscious" category, but we do speak of doing things unconsciously, or being knocked unconscious. If you want to know which behaviors are in this category, simply look at the language. That's how we learn the term, anyway. And yes--you and I would probably have different sets of behaviors we would consider "conscious"--as would any given other person...this is what I mean by a fuzzy set. It is a useful word to our community because we have a great deal of agreement as to what behaviors we put in this category...but obviously, as evidenced by this thread, we do not have 100% agreement, and as a result, the word sometimes gives us difficulty.

 

[Interesting Ian]

We've been here before, Ian. You are assuming a "consciousness" that exists, then trying to figure out which behaviors a materialist would say constitute this consciousness. Instead, what is happening is that there is a wide range of behaviors and changes and events that happen, and our language community speaks of a fuzzy set of those behaviors as belonging to a category we call "consciousness". The actions are not the result of consciousness--

Where on earth did I claim this?? The actions are the results of physical laws, not consciousnesses. (in the context of materialism)

to say that consciousness causes these behaviors, when the only evidence we have for consciousness is these behaviors is, of course, circular. "Consciousness" is a label for a category of behaviors, Ian, nothing more.

Only someone who is hopelessly insane would suggest this.

And no! This is your definition. Not of the vast majority of materialists.

But let's test it. Hands up those who are eliminitivist materialists.

A rock has not yet, to the best of my recollection, ever engaged in any of those behaviors.

Why describe anything as conscious at all then if it doesn't exist? All we have is behaviour, therefore the word consciousness is redundant.

 

[Mercutio]

Why describe anything as conscious at all then if it doesn't exist? All we have is behaviour, therefore the word consciousness is redundant.

Finally! Yes, this I will agree with. Thank you, Ian.

But to answer it anyway...because the category of behaviors that we lump together as "conscious" is a useful one. In our everyday speech, it is easier to speak of this category than to speak of the separate members of the category. This is, of course, not the only example of our using categories as convenient place-holders for the elements within them.