Philosophy Discussion Forums

A Physicalist is a Physical Monist or Material Monist. They Believe that all Conscious Phenomena can be explained by Physical Material Phenomena. Some Physicalists go so far as to discount Conscious Phenomena as even Existing at all. The Physicalists have complained about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

2) Conscious Experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.

3) The Conscious Experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

As for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion. This is Naive and Shallow beyond all reasonableness. It isn't even a good Scientific guess. It is Pure Belief. It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience not the Conscious Experience itself. They treat the actual Conscious Experience as if it did not even exist. I can not understand how they get to this point in their Physicalist delirium. To perpetuate the Physicalist Belief they must Deny the actual existence of the Conscious Experience. The Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious Experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

The second statement points out how the Physicalists might come to understand that Science doesn't have any Knowledge of what Conscious Experience could be. If Conscious Experience could be found to be in any known Category of Scientific Phenomena then Science would have had a lot to say about Consciousness by now. Instead we get Silence. Conscious Experience is in a Category all by itself and this new Category of Phenomena has not been integrated into the Scientific knowledge base yet. Science does not know what to do with this Category of Phenomena. Since Science does not know what to do with this Category of Conscious Phenomena the Physicalists say it is Supernatural or Religious. It's neither of these, it's simply not understood yet. Don't be afraid you little Physicalists, those scary Conscious Experiences will not hurt you.

I think the third statement is completely sensible from even the most basic understanding of Evolutionary mechanisms. The Physicalists completely oppose this statement however. I don't know how they can justify thinking that the Conscious Experience of Pain will not actually increase the statistical Evolutionary survival advantage for an Organism or Animal and thus influence Evolutionary outcomes. And it is not just Pain but all the multitudes of other Conscious Experiences that exist in the Universe. It is a logical conclusion to state that even primitive Consciousness can influence Evolution. Evolution is not a completely Mindless, Bio Electrical Chemical, DNA Mutating, Environmentally Influenced process. Rather, Evolution is driven by a combination of primitive Conscious Desires, Bio Electrical Chemical processes, Random DNA Mutations, and Environmental Influences. I suppose the opposition to this is because it admits the existence of Conscious Experience which they Deny. So because they have to Deny Conscious Experience they must Deny a basic premise of Evolution. They say that Evolutionary literature does not mention Conscious Experience so therefore the Conscious Experience of Pain cannot influence Evolutionary outcomes. This takes Shallow thinking and fear of what's outside the Box to extremes. I'll go so far as to say that if Evolutionary literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary literature needs a Big Update.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 11:39 amAs for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion.

No, that's not the "end of discussion", because "the primary goals of consciousness science are to explain, predict, and control the phenomenological properties of conscious experience. This means explaining why a particular conscious experience is the way it is – why it has the phenomenological properties that it has – in terms of physical mechanisms and processes in the brain and body. These explanations should enable us to predict when specific subjective experiences will occur, and enable their control through intervening in the underlying mechanisms. In short, addressing the real problem requires explaining why a particular pattern of brain activity – or other physical process – maps to a particular kind of conscious experience, not merely establishing that it does."

(Seth, Anil. Being You: A New Science of Consciousness. New York: Dutton, 2021. p. 25)

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 11:39 am …It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience not the Conscious Experience itself.

To say that the neural correlates of experiences are different from these is to presuppose dualism and thereby to beg the question, since, according to reductive physicalism, those neural processes which are correlates of experiences are the experiences themselves. If this is true, then measuring neural correlates of experience means measuring experience.

By the way, if correlation isn't a reflexive relation, i.e. if nothing is correlated with itself, then there are no (ontological) psychophysical correlations if the physicalist identity theory is true.

Consul wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 12:55 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 11:39 amAs for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion.

No, that's not the "end of discussion", because "the primary goals of consciousness science are to explain, predict, and control the phenomenological properties of conscious experience. This means explaining why a particular conscious experience is the way it is – why it has the phenomenological properties that it has – in terms of physical mechanisms and processes in the brain and body. These explanations should enable us to predict when specific subjective experiences will occur, and enable their control through intervening in the underlying mechanisms. In short, addressing the real problem requires explaining why a particular pattern of brain activity – or other physical process – maps to a particular kind of conscious experience, not merely establishing that it does."

(Seth, Anil. Being You: A New Science of Consciousness. New York: Dutton, 2021. p. 25)

I agree with what you are saying, but there are many of these Physicalists that will say Consciousness IS the Neurons, and will argue for years that I'm just not understanding the Deep and Profound meaning of their statement.

Consul wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 1:05 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 11:39 am …It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience not the Conscious Experience itself.

To say that the neural correlates of experiences are different from these is to presuppose dualism and thereby to beg the question, since, according to reductive physicalism, those neural processes which are correlates of experiences are the experiences themselves. If this is true, then measuring neural correlates of experience means measuring experience.

That is a big If, with no real justification other than they don't know where else or how to look.

Consul wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 1:05 pm By the way, if correlation isn't a reflexive relation, i.e. if nothing is correlated with itself, then there are no (ontological) psychophysical correlations if the physicalist identity theory is true.

Whether the Physicalist Identity Theory is true or whether the Connectist Connection Theory is true, will be decided Scientifically and with good Reasoning and Chains of Logic after some period of time with more Research. Right now the Identity Theory has no basis in any kind of Science. It is merely a Guess. The Connectist Theory is also a Guess right now. However, I like my Guess better than yours.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 1:13 pmI agree with what you are saying, but there are many of these Physicalists that will say Consciousness IS the Neurons, and will argue for years that I'm just not understanding the Deep and Profound meaning of their statement.

What reductive physicalists are saying is that the (constitutive) neural mechanisms of experiences are identical with the experiences. To have an experience is to have some neural mechanism implemented in one's brain which is (identical with) the experience. Of course, there are things to explain: What makes the general difference between an experiential neural mechanism and a nonexperiential one? What makes the specific difference between this experiential neural mechanism and that experiential one?

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 1:21 pmWhether the Physicalist Identity Theory is true or whether the Connectist Connection Theory is true, will be decided Scientifically and with good Reasoning and Chains of Logic after some period of time with more Research. Right now the Identity Theory has no basis in any kind of Science. It is merely a Guess. The Connectist Theory is also a Guess right now. However, I like my Guess better than yours.

Call it a "guess", but reductive materialism about consciousness is by far the best, most promising guess. Dualism has no explanatory advantage at all—on the contrary, scientifically it's a dead end.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 11:39 am A Physicalist is a Physical Monist or Material Monist. They Believe that all Conscious Phenomena can be explained by Physical Material Phenomena. Some Physicalists go so far as to discount Conscious Phenomena as even Existing at all. The Physicalists have complained about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

2) Conscious Experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.

3) The Conscious Experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

As for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion. This is Naive and Shallow beyond all reasonableness. It isn't even a good Scientific guess. It is Pure Belief. It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience not the Conscious Experience itself. They treat the actual Conscious Experience as if it did not even exist. I can not understand how they get to this point in their Physicalist delirium. To perpetuate the Physicalist Belief they must Deny the actual existence of the Conscious Experience. The Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious Experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

The second statement points out how the Physicalists might come to understand that Science doesn't have any Knowledge of what Conscious Experience could be. If Conscious Experience could be found to be in any known Category of Scientific Phenomena then Science would have had a lot to say about Consciousness by now. Instead we get Silence. Conscious Experience is in a Category all by itself and this new Category of Phenomena has not been integrated into the Scientific knowledge base yet. Science does not know what to do with this Category of Phenomena. Since Science does not know what to do with this Category of Conscious Phenomena the Physicalists say it is Supernatural or Religious. It's neither of these, it's simply not understood yet. Don't be afraid you little Physicalists, those scary Conscious Experiences will not hurt you.

I think the third statement is completely sensible from even the most basic understanding of Evolutionary mechanisms. The Physicalists completely oppose this statement however. I don't know how they can justify thinking that the Conscious Experience of Pain will not actually increase the statistical Evolutionary survival advantage for an Organism or Animal and thus influence Evolutionary outcomes. And it is not just Pain but all the multitudes of other Conscious Experiences that exist in the Universe. It is a logical conclusion to state that even primitive Consciousness can influence Evolution. Evolution is not a completely Mindless, Bio Electrical Chemical, DNA Mutating, Environmentally Influenced process. Rather, Evolution is driven by a combination of primitive Conscious Desires, Bio Electrical Chemical processes, Random DNA Mutations, and Environmental Influences. I suppose the opposition to this is because it admits the existence of Conscious Experience which they Deny. So because they have to Deny Conscious Experience they must Deny a basic premise of Evolution. They say that Evolutionary literature does not mention Conscious Experience so therefore the Conscious Experience of Pain cannot influence Evolutionary outcomes. This takes Shallow thinking and fear of what's outside the Box to extremes. I'll go so far as to say that if Evolutionary literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary literature needs a Big Update.

As pertains statement 1, does anyone (theologists, yogis, philosophers, paranormal experts etc) understand anything about consciousness?

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 11:39 am A Physicalist is a Physical Monist or Material Monist. They Believe that all Conscious Phenomena can be explained by Physical Material Phenomena. Some Physicalists go so far as to discount Conscious Phenomena as even Existing at all. The Physicalists have complained about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

2) Conscious Experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.

3) The Conscious Experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

It is not often that I read a post in this forum and smile, but your post actually had me chuckling. I agree that the "self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science" are delirious and getting worse. They dismiss or accept information based on belief. Science is becoming a faith based study, which will stop it from being science.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 11:39 am It is a logical conclusion to state that even primitive Consciousness can influence Evolution. Evolution is not a completely Mindless, Bio Electrical Chemical, DNA Mutating, Environmentally Influenced process. Rather, Evolution is driven by a combination of primitive Conscious Desires, Bio Electrical Chemical processes, Random DNA Mutations, and Environmental Influences. I suppose the opposition to this is because it admits the existence of Conscious Experience which they Deny. So because they have to Deny Conscious Experience they must Deny a basic premise of Evolution. They say that Evolutionary literature does not mention Conscious Experience so therefore the Conscious Experience of Pain cannot influence Evolutionary outcomes. This takes Shallow thinking and fear of what's outside the Box to extremes. I'll go so far as to say that if Evolutionary literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary literature needs a Big Update.

They are afraid of religion -- it is the only thing that makes any sense. I wrote a thread in a science forum that showed a viable path between consciousness and evolution that worked through emotion and chemistry, specifically hormones. They could not disprove my facts because they were valid, but neither would they accept my conclusions. It will be up to philosophy to solve these questions.

Gee

Consul wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 2:19 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 1:13 pmI agree with what you are saying, but there are many of these Physicalists that will say Consciousness IS the Neurons, and will argue for years that I'm just not understanding the Deep and Profound meaning of their statement.

What reductive physicalists are saying is that the (constitutive) neural mechanisms of experiences are identical with the experiences. To have an experience is to have some neural mechanism implemented in one's brain which is (identical with) the experience. Of course, there are things to explain: What makes the general difference between an experiential neural mechanism and a nonexperiential one? What makes the specific difference between this experiential neural mechanism and that experiential one?

Yes, that is what they are saying, but there is no Scientific reason to say this. They are Guessing and proclaiming that their Guess is a Scientific principle.

Consul wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 2:27 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 1:21 pmWhether the Physicalist Identity Theory is true or whether the Connectist Connection Theory is true, will be decided Scientifically and with good Reasoning and Chains of Logic after some period of time with more Research. Right now the Identity Theory has no basis in any kind of Science. It is merely a Guess. The Connectist Theory is also a Guess right now. However, I like my Guess better than yours.

Call it a "guess", but reductive materialism about consciousness is by far the best, most promising guess. Dualism has no explanatory advantage at all—on the contrary, scientifically it's a dead end.

I have gone back to Dualism because Physicalist Identity Theory is the greater Dead End. I would say that Identity Theory or Reductive Materialism has no Explanatory advantage over Connectism. This would have to be an Embarrassing realization for the cocksure Physicalists.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 3:18 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 11:39 am A Physicalist is a Physical Monist or Material Monist. They Believe that all Conscious Phenomena can be explained by Physical Material Phenomena. Some Physicalists go so far as to discount Conscious Phenomena as even Existing at all. The Physicalists have complained about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

2) Conscious Experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.

3) The Conscious Experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

As for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion. This is Naive and Shallow beyond all reasonableness. It isn't even a good Scientific guess. It is Pure Belief. It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience not the Conscious Experience itself. They treat the actual Conscious Experience as if it did not even exist. I can not understand how they get to this point in their Physicalist delirium. To perpetuate the Physicalist Belief they must Deny the actual existence of the Conscious Experience. The Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious Experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

The second statement points out how the Physicalists might come to understand that Science doesn't have any Knowledge of what Conscious Experience could be. If Conscious Experience could be found to be in any known Category of Scientific Phenomena then Science would have had a lot to say about Consciousness by now. Instead we get Silence. Conscious Experience is in a Category all by itself and this new Category of Phenomena has not been integrated into the Scientific knowledge base yet. Science does not know what to do with this Category of Phenomena. Since Science does not know what to do with this Category of Conscious Phenomena the Physicalists say it is Supernatural or Religious. It's neither of these, it's simply not understood yet. Don't be afraid you little Physicalists, those scary Conscious Experiences will not hurt you.

I think the third statement is completely sensible from even the most basic understanding of Evolutionary mechanisms. The Physicalists completely oppose this statement however. I don't know how they can justify thinking that the Conscious Experience of Pain will not actually increase the statistical Evolutionary survival advantage for an Organism or Animal and thus influence Evolutionary outcomes. And it is not just Pain but all the multitudes of other Conscious Experiences that exist in the Universe. It is a logical conclusion to state that even primitive Consciousness can influence Evolution. Evolution is not a completely Mindless, Bio Electrical Chemical, DNA Mutating, Environmentally Influenced process. Rather, Evolution is driven by a combination of primitive Conscious Desires, Bio Electrical Chemical processes, Random DNA Mutations, and Environmental Influences. I suppose the opposition to this is because it admits the existence of Conscious Experience which they Deny. So because they have to Deny Conscious Experience they must Deny a basic premise of Evolution. They say that Evolutionary literature does not mention Conscious Experience so therefore the Conscious Experience of Pain cannot influence Evolutionary outcomes. This takes Shallow thinking and fear of what's outside the Box to extremes. I'll go so far as to say that if Evolutionary literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary literature needs a Big Update.

As pertains statement 1, does anyone (theologists, yogis, philosophers, paranormal experts etc) understand anything about consciousness?

Nobody knows anything about Consciousness. Science has Zero Explanation for Consciousness, but many Scientists claim that the problem of Consciousness is solved.

Definition of delirium

1 : an acute (see acute sense 1a(2)) mental disturbance characterized by confused thinking and disrupted attention usually accompanied by disordered speech and hallucinations

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delirium

It seems the expression "delirium" is based on an [anti-physicalist] dualistic circularity here in this context. But since matter is doing the speaking and writing, "delirium" - given the definition - should be excluded from the set of [neuro-]scientifically appropriate verbal expressions.

Gee wrote: ↑May 7th, 2022, 1:57 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 11:39 am A Physicalist is a Physical Monist or Material Monist. They Believe that all Conscious Phenomena can be explained by Physical Material Phenomena. Some Physicalists go so far as to discount Conscious Phenomena as even Existing at all. The Physicalists have complained about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

2) Conscious Experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.

3) The Conscious Experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

It is not often that I read a post in this forum and smile, but your post actually had me chuckling. I agree that the "self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science" are delirious and getting worse. They dismiss or accept information based on belief. Science is becoming a faith based study, which will stop it from being science.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 11:39 am It is a logical conclusion to state that even primitive Consciousness can influence Evolution. Evolution is not a completely Mindless, Bio Electrical Chemical, DNA Mutating, Environmentally Influenced process. Rather, Evolution is driven by a combination of primitive Conscious Desires, Bio Electrical Chemical processes, Random DNA Mutations, and Environmental Influences. I suppose the opposition to this is because it admits the existence of Conscious Experience which they Deny. So because they have to Deny Conscious Experience they must Deny a basic premise of Evolution. They say that Evolutionary literature does not mention Conscious Experience so therefore the Conscious Experience of Pain cannot influence Evolutionary outcomes. This takes Shallow thinking and fear of what's outside the Box to extremes. I'll go so far as to say that if Evolutionary literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary literature needs a Big Update.

They are afraid of religion -- it is the only thing that makes any sense. I wrote a thread in a science forum that showed a viable path between consciousness and evolution that worked through emotion and chemistry, specifically hormones. They could not disprove my facts because they were valid, but neither would they accept my conclusions. It will be up to philosophy to solve these questions.

Gee

Thank you for the good feedback. You should continue to press your theories on Evolution and Consciousness. I think there has been a Dereliction of Duty by Scientists when it comes to Consciousness and Evolution.

stevie wrote: ↑May 7th, 2022, 8:24 am

Definition of delirium

1 : an acute (see acute sense 1a(2)) mental disturbance characterized by confused thinking and disrupted attention usually accompanied by disordered speech and hallucinations

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delirium

It seems the expression "delirium" is based on an [anti-physicalist] dualistic circularity here in this context. But since matter is doing the speaking and writing, "delirium" - given the definition - should be excluded from the set of [neuro-]scientifically appropriate verbal expressions.

Hmmm ... Hahhhh ... Exactly!