(2023-06-23, 07:18 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]As to whether the universe is conscious...Not sure. My point is much smaller, that non-conscious constituents can't produce consciousness. Anymore than red paint, no matter its arrangement on the wall, will turn green. This means either one puts consciousness into the constituents or believe the consciousness is separate from the non-conscious constituents. Of course the question of the nature of matter comes up, and how to put consciousness back in so that you get our human consciousness. Can the subjectivity of particles become my subjectivity, can the thoughts of particles become my thoughts, can their use of Reason become my personal use of Reason?
First, let me say, this thread has been quite an interesting experience. I have learned a lot here. I hope others have also learned from me. The experience has certainly made me think.
Although the level of dialog has not been perfect here, it has been far above the level of dialog I have sometimes seen elsewhere on the Internet. When people discuss controversial subjects, often incognito using pseudonyms, the dialog can quickly go off the rails. The folks here have, in general, done a good job at maintaining decent conversation, so I am thankful for that.
Second, I should explain that I cannot possibly reply to everything that has been addressed to me. This thread has taken far more of my time than I expected. And I am well aware, that even if I took a couple days off to address everything written to me, the next day I would probably find even more, so I would actually become even further behind. There is no way possible to dig out of this hole.
That being said, all I can do is take that which I think is most important and respond to that. My failure to respond to something here does not necessarily mean I have no answer. It could mean I have no time.
Rather than hitting everything that you say with a shotgun response, I think it is more useful to concentrate on what I consider to be the major points.
My interest here is in the concept of survival after death. I first wrote about it 20 years ago as part of my
Questioning website which I have now put back on the web as
The Mind Set Free. At that site, I wrote about the change in my thought life from an Evangelical Christian to a skeptic. One of the many subjects I wrote about was
Is There Life after Death?. Later I uploaded that post to
The Secular Web. Somehow, Ian Wardell found my post and left some comments. I replied to his comments at
If Only Souls Had a Brain. When those posts were later referenced in this thread, I found out about it and joined in this discussion.
We have spent a lot of time discussing consciousness, but that is really a sidetrack to the main point. However, it has some relevance, and keeps coming up, so onward, let's talk about consciousness.
Where does consciousness come from? I see three alternatives:
- The underlying unconscious nature of reality is such that, when humans exist, they are conscious. (e.g., Physicalism)
- The underlying conscious nature of reality is such that, when humans exist, they are conscious. (e.g., Pansychism)
- The underlying nature of reality is such that, conscious souls exist that interact with human bodies to make conscious humans. (e.g., Dualism)
Views 2 and 3 are definitely the most popular here. If we were to take a poll, I don't know which of those two is the most popular.
If view #1 is correct, than survival after death is not likely. Of course, one could argue that humans have a physical astral body in addition to their physical material body, and that the astral body survives death. So this view does not automatically rule out life after death. But seeing all the problems with a separate astral body, this view makes life after death unlikely.
If view #2 is correct, any survival of my self after death would hardly be described as being "me". Instead, the underlying consciousness that exists in my person would somehow break up. Later people might include some of my atoms and some of the underlying consciousness of the universe that made up me, but they would not be me. Of course, we could make the same claim for astral bodies described above. Overall, this view does little to make survival after death more likely. Discussion of #2 versus # 1 is more of an academic exercise in where our consciousness comes from. You find that topic fascinating, but to me, it is a diversion.
If view #3 is correct, survival would be much more likely. However, it leaves open many questions. Where did souls come from? Why does one soul get linked to exactly one body? How can souls interface with the molecules of a body? Why does so much evidence indicate the brain is foundational to our mental life? How can we explain all the issues with a disembodied soul retaining our self-identity? (
If Only Souls Had a Brain. )
You have argued incessantly that option #1 is impossible. But through it all, I don't actually see a significant reason posted here that proves it is impossible. Yes, you endlessly quote people like Sam Harris, who apparently does not think #1 is the correct answer,. But when it comes down to it, all you and Harris can seem to express is a sense of awe at the mere possibility that matter can produce consciousness. I find no solid arguments from you proving that #1 cannot be the answer, just continued statements of personal incredulity. Harris, however, seems to say statement #1 is possible, but he leans toward #2.
Even if you could prove statement #2 is far more likely than statement #1, so what? I have already acknowledged that statement #2 may be true. It really doesn't make much difference to this conversation. Either way, my personal survival as an identifiable continuation of myself remains unlikely.
So, unless somebody wants to make a case that statement #3 is correct, and wants to deal with the questions I have about statement #3, I don't find much here that seriously makes a case for soul survival.
I know you think that molecules cannot produce consciousness. Do you think that molecules could do any of these functions without input from some non-material something?
- Make a sunflower follow the path of the sun.
- Make a jellyfish--that has neurons but no brain--respond to simple physical signals.
- Make a toad have brain states that direct it to jump.
- Make a monkey have brain states that direct it to do its monkey business.
- Make a Homo habalis do what the Homo habalis enitities did.
- Make a "philosophical zombie", that is, a human body and brain without consciousness, do something very similar to what humans do.
- Make the full experience of human thought.
After all this discussion, I am well aware you think molecules cannot do # 7. But I still don't know how you would answer the other six.
I think molecules can possibly do all of this, but the further you go up the scale, the stronger case can be made that something (either material or nonmaterial) that is currently unknown is involved.