Yes, life vs . non-life exists on a continuum. Alot, of this is just a rehash of the pro-life right to life debate and why it will always be debated. It's pretty hard to make a black and white distinction between something being "just a bunch of cells" or being a live human. On the other hand there are always pretty clear instances of when we can say something isn't alive - a rock, or something is alive - you sitting there typing. This alive debate vs. not-alive debated started I think because of consciousness being the distinguishing element between an alive human and a dead one. But, the question then is, is consciousness necessary for life? And, if so, do all living things have consciousness? I think most people would agree that consciousness isn't necessary for life, and that all life forms are not conscious. So for me the really big question is why is there consciousness at all?
************* M*W: An eleven-month old dog is a teenager, and all the teenager crap goes with it. He's frisky, he's rebellious, he's vindictive. I know, because I've had a teenage dog! They're not unlike human teenagers!
Bravo, LG. Matter is a mystery. Quite why it is a mystery that invokes souls, heavens, gods, devils etc. I do not know. Also, bravo for noticing that we are indeed limited in finding answers through scientific examination, but if you are suggesting that superstitious mumbojumbo should replace it, or fill in the gaps, you have some explaining to do. Actually, spare me your rose-tainted explanations.
still doesn't explain why you hold reductionist paradigms as absolute - guess its just a matter of faith then eh?
Reductionist? Listen. Life is animated matter. This much is obvious. The complexities of life result in emergent phenomena - like consciousness - that clearly are insufficiently explaind by chemistry alone. This is no way means that they are not rooted in chemistry however. Why do people like you (mystics) always backpedal as our understanding of life grows? It started with souls and "vital essences". Then we discovered that the body is a network of nerves and a brain that controls it. Then we discovered that there is a nicely functioning biochemistry of cells that are the foundation for our structure. Then we figured out the very plans for life - DNA. When will you mystics accept that this is just the way it is? Certain types of molecules can replicate. And if they make mistakes once in a while, they can evolve. Just like certain kinds of molecules grow in regular geometric shapes. I don't see you complaining about salt crystals needing a soul??? Life is just another of a myriad of inherent properties of matter. What you call "faith" is simply the most rational approach to growing our understanding of life. The ultimate point though, is that without any hard evidence to support it, you feel the need to construct gods and souls just because you're too lazy (or frightened) to get a better grip on reality.
-First, I'd just like to clarify that I think when christian mystics talk about soul or buddhists talk about mind what they are talking about is consciousness. -The reason I believe that consciousness is immaterial is because it self-evidently is. Now, you claim that that which appears to be immaterial is actually physical, and you claim this without any hard physical evidence to support this, none. There is not a single experiment ever conducted in the history of the world that supports the hypothesis that consciousness is physical, and yet it is insisted that consciousness is physical. It is not science that holds that consciousness is physical because no experiments have ever been done to prove this hypothesis. Rather it is nothing but the dogma of scientific materialism which holds as a matter of faith that the only matter exists. Scientific materialism is and religous fundamentalism havein common that they are both rooted in the fear of uncertainty.
Consciousness is a concept and is therfore immaterial. So what? So is pain. So is love. All of these "conceptual sensations" derive from the functioning of the brain. We have huge masses of hard evidence of this since it's so easy to damage a brain and loose the sensations of pain, love, and consciousness. Wrong. See above. It is a manifestation of physical processes. There is immense proof of this in the medical history of brain damage. False hypothesis to begin with, followed by blathering.
-Consciousness is a concept? No, it is isn't. Consciousness is a directly observable phenomenon. -So quit your blathering and point me in the direction of some of this "huge mass of hard evidence" that supports the hypothesis that consciousness is the manifestation of physical processes.
You mean to tell me you have no idea that physical brain damage can alter or destroy consciousness in an individual? Really?
Is it? Prove to me that you have what I think of as "consciousness". You could be a crude AI for all I know. Can you hold consciousness in your hand? Can you paint it? No? I guess that qualifies it as an immaterial concept. Consciousness is thought by many to be simply an illusion born of the complex self-referential nature of brain function.
No you can't hold consciousness, paint it, or do any of the other things with it that you can do with physical things precisely because it is not a physical thing - it is immaterial. I don't understand why you keep referring to it as a concept. A concept is an idea. But, since you do agree with me that it is immaterial I don't see where we disagree. And since we both agree that it is immaterial how can it be destroyed? How can you destroy something that isn't physical? And, I can't prove to you that I have consciousness. Nor can you prove to anyone that you have consciousness. Nor can it be proven that someone that appears to be a vegetable is not conscious. So, consciousness is an immaterial phenomenon that is knowable through direct experience but not provable throught scientifc investigation that one is in posession of it. I would go further and say that consciousness by its nature can only be studied through direct observation and I don't see anyway that science can be applied to when we can't even so much as prove that we are in posession of it.
"the results of the scientific search in which during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born (one of the founders of quantum physics) "in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So , in my old age, I am now retracing my steps " Szent Gyorgyi (exemplary scientist in the field of medicine) the difficulty is in seeing what we are seeing with
Your - and LG's for that matter - idea of immateriality is screwy (note the highly technical term Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). Consciousness is not an "immaterial thing" in the way you seem to understand it. To call something "immaterial" suggests that it has similar properties of material things, but because it is "immaterial" it is undetectable. Consciousness is no more a thing than a football match is a "thing"? A football match is nothing more than a term we use to describe a series of interactions that happen to follow certain rules. Likewise consciousness is nothing different - other than our understanding of those rules and the complexity of the interactions. Consciousness is not an "immaterial thing" but a (emergent) property of the complexity of our brains. Immaterial / Material are properties of "things". But properties do not themselves have properties. If you think they do, please tell me the temperature of height, or the width of strength. So please stop referring to consciousness as "immaterial" - it makes no sense - unless you truly believe consciousness to be a "thing" - like a brick that but which happens to be immaterial? Then do you see a football match as the same? As a brick that happens to be immaterial?
Ah - your old classic logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. You should have learnt by now that this rightly doesn't work here.
I think grover established how it was detectable - but it is not detectable by empirical standards - for instance when you say hello to someone, which part of the body do you say it to (the nose, the eye brow, the bellybutton?) with a football match you can break it down to its constituent parts and reassemble them to form a "football match" - if you could do the same in regards to consciousness your argument wouldn't be flawed This appears to be th proper situation to apply that technical term you opened with - perhaps I am not getting your point, but isn't the property of height something like centimetres,and isn't the property of temperature degrees celcius?
my mistake - I will have to remember not to post the conclusions of persons who have contributed major developments to the fields of scientific evidence that deal specifically with the issu ebeing discussed since they are obviously not sharp enough to post on sciforums
You say it to the entirety - much as when you see a football match you watch the entirety - not the grass, not the posts, not the players individually. Ah yes - your God of the Gaps. "We can't do it yet - so it must be God". Pathetic argument on your part. LOL! No. Centimetres, Celcius etc are merely the units of measurement of the property. They, themselves, are not properties. But good try.
When you post nothing but the conclusion as the argument, and rely on the strength of the person's authority - that is the classic APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Look at it. Understand it. Learn from it.
so the consciousness saying hello to someone by empirical standards? would this included evidence and observations? saying hello is a mere form of communication... a greeting which usually informs friendly acknowledgement; simple case of adaptation of the mind here. consciounesness is detectable indeed, by empirical evidence/observations... hence, the brain waves during sleep during being awake. the correlation between the waves versus awareness of oneself provides an standard for which we can understand. REM sleep is one form of it; and thus, an empirical standard, no? when you are greeting someone, which party are you saying it to? psychology studies this, even in first year. eyes, nose, and mouth are the most common parts that the individual is talking to. that's empirical evidence of which party ou are saying it to. then the question why? you look at new factors now. you look at factors as to why the individual is doing so. is it self-esteem? is he depressed? etc. how do genes effect this? etc. and there definitely studies with observations.
