Do non physical things exist?

[Deleted member 619]

First step .. make sure everyone agrees on the dictionary definition of a term, before even starting to discuss em.

No, almost the worst thing you can do. This is a special fallacy twofer, combining both the argumentum ad verecundiam and the argumentum ad populum in one.

We're talking about science, so we should be using the terms the way they're used in the science, or you have to go back and undo all the ambiguity you injected to correct the misunderstandings that arise. Trust me on this, I have a LOT of experience of this very thing.

All else aside, dictionaries are not prescriptive, but the way technical terms are used in rigorous disciplines very much is prescriptive, because it has to be to avoid ambiguity.

The definition I've given directly reflects the way the terms are used in the literature. The Wiki does not. The Wiki's definition is a vague handwave at some macro processes, but it misses what macroevolution is, and on what scales it operates.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

I would agree, if this was a discussion of evolution and there was an agreed minimum level of education and reading comprehension, but the topic states "Do non physical things exists?", at least making it pretty obvious to me, that this is not a technical discussion, but a colloquial one .. nevermind that I do not even know, if Led Zeppelin is a native english speaker. I certainly am not.

So .. respectfully disagree. Common dictionary definition is the way to go, at least here.

 

[Deleted member 619]

TYhe topic has morphed from the stated title for reasons detailed in the thread.

Dictionaries aren't authorities on what words mean. They're descriptions of usage.

This discussion is currently about Led Zeppelin's thoughts on evolution, and clarity is important, because learning is occurring. Crappy definitions muddy the waters and hinder that process.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Imo, one of the first parts of learning is, frankly, to move beyond colloquial terminology and grasp the importance of rigorous definition for the sake of further communication and reasoning on the subject.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Dictionaries aren't authorities on what words mean.

Uhm .. actually, that is exactly what a dictionary is ... and that is the only and last authority on what words mean, that I accept.
You know, if we can not even agree on what language means, we are tangerine.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I haven't come across that claim from him. I know with absolute certainty that he's talked about some of the believing scientists he's encountered, some of whom, like Kenneth Miller, he numbers among his friends.

Alright well I cant give a specific reference. I have been re-listening to Aron Ra's foundational falsehoods series lately. I am sure one can find something close to what I am talking about there.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Macroevolution is variation in allele frequencies at or above species level, and it is observed.

Oh, Im sorry. I thought Macroevolution was the idea that higher functions such as consciousness can evolve.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Consciousness isn't a thing, it's a behaviour.

Consciousness is an ability. We have never observed a species in a process of gaining this ability. We cant predict it. It simply does not happen. If you seriously believe that this does happen, then show me a test we can use to predict it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Consciousness is an ability. We have never observed a species in a process of gaining this ability. It simply does not happen.

Why are you repeating this false assertion?

I just gave you an example we can observe repeatedly: the development of an embryo.

Further, if you want to make a serious point here, you need to do more legwork. What exactly do you mean by consciousness? I can define it in such a way that only humans possess it, or only things with a brain stem, or I could define it to include squid and octopuses with neural cells distributed all throughout their bodies, it would be plausible to say that bacteria are conscious under specific definitions; they can certainly react to stimuli.

It's no good making declarative assertions about things which are factual unless you're prepared to substantiate your contentions.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Why are you repeating this false assertion?

I just gave you an example we can observe repeatedly: the development of an embryo.

Further, if you want to make a serious point here, you need to do more legwork. What exactly do you mean by consciousness? I can define it in such a way that only humans possess it, or only things with a brain stem, or I could define it to include squid and octopuses with neural cells distributed all throughout their bodies, it would be plausible to say that bacteria are conscious under specific definitions; they can certainly react to stimuli.

It's no good making declarative assertions about things which are factual unless you're prepared to substantiate your contentions.

Hmmm...

 

[Deleted member 619]

Uhm .. actually, that is exactly what a dictionary is ... and that is the only and last authority on what words mean, that I accept.
You know, if we can not even agree on what language means, we are tangerine.

If dictionaries were prescriptive, we'd have had no new definitions since Samuel Johnson. I assume you don't define oats as:


Dictionaries tell us how words are being used, not what they mean, and they're always behind the curve.

Language simply doesn't work the way you want it to. The map is not the terrain.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Alright well I cant give a specific reference. I have been re-listening to Aron Ra's foundational falsehoods series lately. I am sure one can find something close to what I am talking about there.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I know of some Christians who say that the image is something that is apart from Himself. That the image is basically just a shape that God liked. I would love to know your thoughts on this.

I assume by "Christians", you mean American Protestants.

This is a silly anthropocentric idea.

Although the only sensible interpretation of "God created Man in his own image" is as pure spirit, it's generally taken to mean that "image" refers to God being a man (given the patriarchal culture that created the Canaanite religion).

There are too many people trying to reinterpret religious texts in (post-)modern, politically-correct terms.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Macroevolution is the idea that consciousness arises naturally. It has never been observed.

Given your misunderstanding of macroevolution's meaning, I wonder what you think microevolution means?

If you understood what this means, it should be obvious what macroevolution meant.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Consciousness is an ability.

Consciousness (mind) is how matter behaves in certain circumstances.

We have never observed a species in a process of gaining this ability.

We've never observed a species in the process of gaining the ability to walk, either, except that we see our own children doing it.

We cant predict it.

That depends entirely on what you mean by 'prediction'. We can certainly make predictions about where we can expect to find it, based on what we know it to require; a sufficiently large number of neurons and a sufficiently large number of synaptic connections in a body whose brain-mass to body-mass ratio exceeds a certain number, and then we can go out and look for the signs of it in other organisms whose brain-mass to body-mass ratio fits those criteria.

And guess what? When we go out and look in the biosphere, that's what we find, with all animals having a brain-mass to body-mass ratio commensurate with ours in any measure showing clear signs of being conscious.



So, do you think evolution can explain the acquisition of more neurons and more synaptic connections?

There's nothing particularly special about consciousness. We only think it's special because we possess it and, of course, because we spent the majority of our species' history convinced that we were the only things in the biosphere that possessed it, we elevated it to this magical status that it simply doesn't deserve. It's pure hubris.

It simply does not happen. If you seriously believe that this does happen, then show me a test we can use to predict it.

I just did. We predicted, we tested, we were validated. A simple mechanism, entirely in line with evolutionary predictions, and trivial to achieve within the evolutionary paradigm.

I mean, if you're going to come up with a gotcha for evolution, you should at least stay in the realm of the purportedly irreducibly complex, and consciousness simply isn't it, because consciousness is a spectrum predicted on neurons and synapses, both of which are hugely variable as seen across the biosphere. We know how consciousness works, and we know how evolution gets us there.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

One has to be rather careful equating consciousness with behaviour.

For example, plants track the sun throughout the day, their leaves opening like solar panels In the morning, and closing at night.

Is this a "behaviour"? Is it evidence of "consciousness"?

Perhaps, yes to the first question but no to the second..

There are photo-sensitive chemicals in plants' stems that cause them to turn towards light.

What about microorganisms?

They certainly evince "behaviour" but it can't be said to be evidence of "consciousness", as most people would think of it.

With more advanced fauna, from insects upwards it's easier to believe that their behaviour is evidence of consciousness.

One still has to deal with whether there's a "light inside" or whether it's just darkness" (zombie).

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Greetings,

One has to be rather careful equating consciousness with behaviour.

For example, plants track the sun throughout the day, their leaves opening like solar panels In the morning, and closing at night.

Is this a "behaviour"? Is it evidence of "consciousness"?

Perhaps, yes to the first question but no to the second..

There are photo-sensitive chemicals in plants' stems that cause them to turn towards light.

What about microorganisms?

They certainly evince "behaviour" but it can't be said to be evidence of "consciousness", as most people would think of it.

With more advanced fauna, from insects upwards it's easier to believe that their behaviour is evidence of consciousness.

One still has to deal with whether there's a "light inside" or whether it's just darkness" (zombie).

Kindest regards,

James

I don't disagree with any of that, and I'm certainly not saying that behaviour is evidence of consciousness, I'm saying that consciousness is a type of behaviour that matter engages in.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Understood, Hack, just wasn't sure if what you were saying might be misinterpreted, given behaviour tends to be associated with conscious actions.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Indeed.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Consciousness (mind) is how matter behaves in certain circumstances.

We've never observed a species in the process of gaining the ability to walk, either, except that we see our own children doing it.

That depends entirely on what you mean by 'prediction'. We can certainly make predictions about where we can expect to find it, based on what we know it to require; a sufficiently large number of neurons and a sufficiently large number of synaptic connections in a body whose brain-mass to body-mass ratio exceeds a certain number, and then we can go out and look for the signs of it in other organisms whose brain-mass to body-mass ratio fits those criteria.

And guess what? When we go out and look in the biosphere, that's what we find, with all animals having a brain-mass to body-mass ratio commensurate with ours in any measure showing clear signs of being conscious.

View attachment 225

So, do you think evolution can explain the acquisition of more neurons and more synaptic connections?

There's nothing particularly special about consciousness. We only think it's special because we possess it and, of course, because we spent the majority of our species' history convinced that we were the only things in the biosphere that possessed it, we elevated it to this magical status that it simply doesn't deserve. It's pure hubris.

I just did. We predicted, we tested, we were validated. A simple mechanism, entirely in line with evolutionary predictions, and trivial to achieve within the evolutionary paradigm.

I mean, if you're going to come up with a gotcha for evolution, you should at least stay in the realm of the purportedly irreducibly complex, and consciousness simply isn't it, because consciousness is a spectrum predicted on neurons and synapses, both of which are hugely variable as seen across the biosphere. We know how consciousness works, and we know how evolution gets us there.

Well these are pretty good points. Looks like I'll have to think about it more. Thank you for your time.