I’m not actually making the argument that rocks are intelligent, just to clarify.
If you reject the existence of the soul then you are an Animist?
by Seraphim23 149 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Seraphim23
It doesn’t really matter for the purposes of my argument Apognophos because nothing can ever be proved to be infinite, particularly physical things that exist, just as mathematics cannot be proved to be the physical universe.
-
cofty
Lesser objects than a brain can be seen to have a lower level of organisation and complexity and thus a lower level of consciousness - Seraphim
Surely you can see why your whole point fails on this logical fallacy.
-
Apognophos
I understand that you're not saying that rocks are intelligent. Saying that they're conscious, however, is a tricky statement. As I said on the first page, it makes the word "conscious" meaningless, or at least synonymous with "obeying the laws of physics". Because all objects are affected by outside forces, this is not a meaningful statement. Animism was the belief that objects could have spirits in them, which is to say that ancient man believed they could have minds, and perhaps some physical abilities, if the spirit inside decided to act. We can pretty safely say that non-living objects do not have minds, in any way where the definition of "mind" means something to us.
-
cofty
Saying that they're conscious, however, is a tricky statement.
That is an extremely generous concession.
-
Seraphim23
Actually the quote you have of mine there cofty was an example of carrying on a thread of logic to its end point, in order to make the point I actually wanted to make which was not that rocks are conscious but that no physical object can exhibit consciousness on its own or due to that objects complexity. It’s like playing devils advocate in the literary sense in order to try and make an opposite point.
There are three main positions here, with one being that certain properties possessed of all objects makes them all conscious. The second being the amount of that property that is possessed of all objects that makes some objects conscious. The third is that no property of any object makes it conscious, which is my position. The property is question is order, which I don’t think can create consciousness on its own.
-
cofty
no physical object can exhibit consciousness on its own or due to that objects complexity
Asserting this repeatedly doesn't make it so.
Humans have consciousness that is a function of our brains.
The onus is on you to show otherwise.
-
Seraphim23
The onus is also on you to show how the brain creates consciousness or even how in theory it could! Stating that brains create consciousness also doesn’t make it so.
-
cofty
Serpahim are you seriously questioning that consciousness is a function of your brain? Really?
That's like trying to argue that breathing isn't a function of your lungs.
What happens when somebody has a brain injury or their brain function is supressed by anaesthetic?
MRI scans clearly show precisely what parts of your brain light up when you see, hear, taste or touch or when you ponder an ethical dilemma or react with fear or desire or disgust.
-
Seraphim23
I kind of addressed this line of reasoning in an earlier post. Suffice it to say, correlation does not equal causation, just as breathing doesn’t always need lungs in nature. We also breath through the skin.
So the case is not proven that the brain creates consciousness!
PS you spelled my name wrong. HOW DARE YOU!