Richard Dawkins interviewed in Salon

by Nathan Natas 12 Replies latest social current

• 

  Nathan Natas

  (this article was filched from BoingBoing.com)

  Steve Paulson of Salon conducted a lengthy and interesting interview with scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins about his latest book, The God Delusion.

  SALON: What do you do with consciousness? I mean, do you really think the mind is totally reducible to neural networks and the electro-chemical surges in the brain? Or might there be something else that goes beyond the physical mechanics of the brain?
  DAWKINS: Well, once again, let's not use the word "reducible" in a negative way. The sheer number of neurons in the brain, and the complication of the connections between the neurons, is such that one doesn't want to use the word "reducible" in any kind of negative way. Consciousness is the biggest puzzle facing biology, neurobiology, computational studies and evolutionary biology. It is a very, very big problem. I don't know the answer. Nobody knows the answer. I think one day they probably will know the answer. But even if science doesn't know the answer, I return to the question, what on earth makes you think that religion will? Just because science so far has failed to explain something, such as consciousness, to say it follows that the facile, pathetic explanations which religion has produced somehow by default must win the argument is really quite ridiculous. Nobody has an explanation for consciousness. That should be a spur to work harder and try to understand it. Not to give up and just say, "Oh well, it must be a soul." That doesn't mean anything. It doesn't explain anything. You've said absolutely nothing when you've said that.
• 

  VM44

  Richard Dawkins is correct, Consciousness is NOT explained be positing the existence of a soul.

  However, I think Dawkins could have given a less "poisoned" answer by not referring to religions explaination as a "facile" and "pathetic" one.

  --VM44
• 

  skyking

  This is the very question that has no scientific answer and keeps me hanging onto to the thought there might be a GOD, but only by a little thread
• 

  VM44

  Based upon what Richard Dawkins has written and said in interviews, I would say he has a strong emotional compulsion to continually denounce religion and religious thinking, if not also religious people as well.

  Of course, it might be he has found a controversial subject that results in very good book sales.

  --VM44
• 

  Satanus

  Consciousness is the biggest puzzle facing biology, neurobiology, computational studies and evolutionary biology. It is a very, very big problem. I don't know the answer.

  There is no need to jump to religion to explain consciousness. It may be that science will broaden its view of life though. I remember some time ago a small controversy when a 'new' smaller organism of some kind was found, the smallest up to that time. The arguement was about whether it was alive or not. My point, my theory is that life, or perhaps a form of consciousness extends down into matter, matter which is considered to be dead, inanimate. This form of animism fits very easily onto the front end of current evolutionary theory, and answers the question about the origin of life.

  S
• 

  Satanus

  Here is an article about that. They called it nonbacteria - http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=408&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

  I may be mixing up life and consciousness. If these things are prove to be alive, the question would remain of how conscious they are.

  S
• 

  Nathan Natas

  One difficulty in determining "consciousness" in lower life forms is figuring out what the criteria will be. We can say that the organism displays a response to environmental stimuli, but does that mean it is concious?

  Are bug-bots conscious? They respond to their environment also, even deciding when to replenish their energy reserves. But robots aren't alive. Or are they?

  I think that there is no shame in saying, " yep, that's pretty marvelous, and I haven't got the slightest clue how it works." To me, that is more honest than saying "dancing wood-faeries are making it go," which unneccessarily compounds complexity: now we have TWO thngs we can't explain, where originally we had only one.
• 

  Dansk

  Skyking:

  This is the very question that has no scientific answer and keeps me hanging onto to the thought there might be a GOD, but only by a little thread

  Read a good book on Buddhism. It explains consciousness (from a Buddhist perspective), which is incredibly thought-provoking. What I particularly like is that God doesn't come into it at all and evolution is accepted. Ian
• 

  TopHat

  Based upon what Richard Dawkins has written and said in interviews, I would say he has a strong emotional compulsion to continually denounce religion and religious thinking, if not also religious people as well.

  Of course, it might be he has found a controversial subject that results in very good book sales.

  --VM44

  ASOLUTELY! No question about it! I saw through this man from the very start.
• 

  acsot

  Read a good book on Buddhism. It explains consciousness (from a Buddhist perspective), which is incredibly thought-provoking. What I particularly like is that God doesn't come into it at all and evolution is accepted.

  
  Ian, that is one of the many appealing aspects of Buddhism. And it is also something that flies in the face of what many creationists wail on so annoyingly about – that atheists cannot be spiritual.
  
  
  I will be attending a sangha based on Thich Nhat Hahn’s Community for Mindful Living next month for meditation practice.