JK,
They’re not conclusions, and nor are they unfounded or premature. Science tells us that complex systems come from simpler components, and emergence shows us that no top down designer is necessary for that to be so. There’s nothing we know if that’s inherently special about consciousness that would exclude it from that basic model. Absent any alternative explanation, consciousness as an adaptive emergent property appears therefore to be the most likely hypothesis.
I am not questioning emergence per se. And I'm not a theist. What concerns me is that science in this respect has redefined consciousness to basically mean a robot, an automaton, that is not right.
Well, my wife would agree with you there but, in general, when a logical fallacy is committed it’s usually enough just to say so rather than have to explain what the fallacy entails. Nonetheless, if you really want me to I can readily in future say, “that a XXX fallacy because…” it that helps.
Your avoidance has been noted.
No it isn’t. Emergence is the point at hand.
To you may be, but I'm talking about consciousness not emergence.
You don’t understand the burden of proof. If you think that there’s something inherently different about consciousness that places it outside the rules by which nature plays then it’s for you to tell us why.
Depends on what you mean by nature.....and of course you lot haven't provided a definition for consciousness.
No, it’s not “iffy” at all as an hypothesis because it's logically coherent and because there’s no other hypothesis on the table to falsify or supplant it.
It is not logically coherent it is just you lot saying, "Duh!....well, what else could it be....? Can't think of anything else so it has to be emergence."
Why don't we ask the 7 billion people in the world what they think their selfhood is. Do they sense it is as being a delusion and not real or do they see themselves as a single entity, a personality as an 'I'. Result : most say (or would say) that they are a conscious single entity or agent. That's an inter subjective approach and the evidence points to the fact that 'we' are real and not some fluffy exhaust from an emergent process from the brain.
I have lots of them – books full, research papers, lectures from people working in the field etc. What facts do you have for an alternative explanation – indeed what do you even think your alternative explanation to be?
So you believe them the way theists believe their priests! Such unguided faith.
And I keep saying to you lot my beef isn't about me presenting a different answer or theory etc. but only that I think you lot are jumping to conclusions or going to far down a road of your materialistic ideology.
What confirmation bias do you think “science” has exactly, especially as its methods are often designed precisely to avoid that?
How can it if all the 'church goers' are from the same school of materialism's ideology. Group pressure and all that.
