Philosophy Now Forum

. Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless gas that, given long enough, creates an entity that has the ability to be totally self-conscious. . Sam Harris is also mystified at how conciousness could emerge from non-conciousness. And yet, here we are. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consci...

chaz wyman wrote:Make up your own mind.

Yes, I see what you mean. She explicitly rejects agency and purpose early on, but once she gets onto those "temes" she starts getting incredibly loose.

Dawkins and Dennett are both guilty of slack use of language. Why they do not think this is important has always amazed me. By abusing language in this way they elevate evolutionary 'explanations' to a religion. For Steve Pinker and Susan Blackmore, this sort of abuse is bread and butter, they are ...

Nice try! And of indeed 'for' can have that meaning. However, in the text quoted that is NOT how it was meant. And the claims of the authors in this case were not intended to have that ambiguity. Their intention is, after long careers in related disciplines to point to errors in evolutionary interp...

How much, do you suppose, can be perceived by every infinitesimal point of Conscious Perspective in just the few feet of 'space' surrounding you? There are intinitesimal infinite perspectives within that space and how much of this space do you think that others are perceiving, at every 'level' of e...

When perception is no more, existence is no more. All the perceiver is is a Conscious Perspective, it matters not a whit whether human or dog or bacteria or a rock... In what way is a rock conscious? A rock has relations... with the rock next door, with the planet it's resting upon, with you and me...

According to wiki, an adaptive trait is one that gives advantage. If so, I cannot see much difference between 1) and 2). I may be jumping in here but I think its the idea that there is some way that something 'knows' there is an advantage, i.e. some kind of teleology being involved, whereas what ha...

Chaz, I recently read Jeremy Coyne's book Why Evolution is True. I noticed multiple occasions where he also used language that could be read as assuming intentionality. The English language seems to veer towards agency/intentionality. I agree - but I don't think it takes to much imagination to be a...

Ok, I think I missed the point being made. It's not so much about language. I didn't give enough attention to the explanation. Having done so, I find I disagree with it. But my understanding of what constitutes an adaptive trait may be faulty... I thought an adaptive trait was positive - ie a trait ...

Hmm, this might be too subtle for me. Are you saying 2) is incorrect, because of (false) connotations of purpose in "... are selected for their adaptive traits.”? I don't immediately read agency or purpose, even in 2), that is, I understand by it "because of", oh, damn, that also coul...

Chaz, I recently read Jeremy Coyne's book Why Evolution is True. I noticed multiple occasions where he also used language that could be read as assuming intentionality. The English language seems to veer towards agency/intentionality.

What an impressive visual. Hell, if you look at the centre long enough, the outer spots disappear completely and all you end up seeing is the green "non-spots" moving round. I wonder why our visual system evolved to act like this? What do you find amazing about it in a philisophical sense...

We know that there is no 'physical Universe' that can exist without being perceived. Please elaborate. As I read this, you seem to be saying that the universe could not exist prior to some beings (like us) perceiving it to exist. But how could such beings evolve - and begin to perceive the universe...

What an impressive visual. Hell, if you look at the centre long enough, the outer spots disappear completely and all you end up seeing is the green "non-spots" moving round. I wonder why our visual system evolved to act like this? What do you find amazing about it in a philisophical sense?

evangelicalhumanist wrote:Why, I wonder, does it need a separate name? And why didn't you just say so?

Insatiable hunger?