Explain consciousness to the layman.

Status
Not open for further replies.
rocketdodger said:
Now -- was there an actual point to your argument ?
Click to expand...

I think it was a response to your actual point.

Which, I deduce, was something to do with showing the superior survival capability of life compared to non-life because of the replication ability of living cells? Or something like that.

This slightly ignores the fact that all known life could be instantly wiped out by some planetary catastrophe...

Atoms are very much systems and are based on more simple systems, . They had to evolve from earlier processes. Chemicals had to evolve further down the line. Their robust reliance on repetitive physical processes means their class is less vulnerable to proximate annihilation. Which is handy for us, because without chemicals, cells couldn't reproduce/survive either.

Regarding 'winning', I didn't realise it was a competition...more a mutual learning process.
 
Last edited:
keyfeatures said:
I think it was a response to your actual point.

Which, I deduce, was something to do with showing the superior survival capability of life compared to non-life because of the replication ability of living cells? Or something like that.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was my point.

My issue with your response is that nobody even thinks of atoms in terms of "living" or "non-living" without linking them to the greater system they are part of.

That is, an atom is neither living nor non-living. It is part of a system that is either living or non-living.

Speaking about atoms by themselves, or even small collections of atoms, isn't relevant.

keyfeatures said:
This slightly ignores the fact that all known life could be instantly wiped out by some planetary catastrophe...
Click to expand...

Not really. The likelihood of that happening is small, and life is 3+ billion years old because of that small likelihood.

keyfeatures said:
Atoms are very much systems and are based on more simple systems, . They had to evolve from earlier processes. Chemicals had to evolve further down the line. Their robust reliance on repetitive physical processes means their class is less vulnerable to proximate annihilation. Which is handy for us, because without chemicals, cells couldn't reproduce/survive either.
Click to expand...
I don't consider atoms or chemicals to be systems. I consider systems to be made up of things like atoms and chemicals. And as I said above, it is irrelevant anyway because people don't consider individual atoms and chemicals to be "non-living."

keyfeatures said:
Regarding 'winning', I didn't realise it was a competition...more a mutual learning process.
Click to expand...
Then why are you making pointless responses, like arguing that atoms can survive longer than life?

I think you are fully aware that the central issue here is whether rocks can survive longer than life.
 
rocketdodger said:
The likelihood of that happening is small, and life is 3+ billion years old because of that small likelihood.
.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. 3+billion is small fry compared to the universe. Current predictions show that it will not provide the conditions to support life in future.

Replicate your way out of that one.

Life is made from atoms that have already survived far longer than any life, made from elements born from the death of stars. All known life also evolved on the third rock from the sun. Which is luckily holding together so far.
 
Last edited:
keyfeatures said:
You don't know that. 3+billion is small fry compared to the universe. Current predictions show that it will not provide the conditions to support life in future.

Replicate your way out of that one.

Life is made from atoms that have already survived far longer than any life, made from elements born from the death of stars. All known life also evolved on the third rock from the sun. Which is luckily holding together so far.
Click to expand...

Again -- why are you making pointless responses?

This is why I asked you if "winning" was so important -- all you are doing is taking random statements of mine completely out of context and wiggling the meaning around until you can prove them "wrong."

Let me repeat myself for the 5th time -- nobody cares that atoms last longer than life. Nobody is comparing life to individual atoms.

Let me repeat myself for the 6th time -- we are comparing life to rocks. Not comparing life to the universe, or whatever the heck you are comparing it to in this response. If anything.

FYI, it is easy to confirm that the "likelihood" of a global catastrophe that utterly ends life happening over any discrete period of time is small. Like I said, it hasn't happened in the last 3+ billion years, so right off the bat we know the likelihood is small. Yes it can happen sometime in the future, but the chances of it happening in for example the next 500 million is small.
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
Let me repeat myself for the 6th time -- we are comparing life to rocks. .
Click to expand...


I thought you were comparing the survival advantage of life to non-life? The survival advantage of life is they can avoid falling off ledges etc (unless they are yeast) and replicate (via dna).

I didn't realise you were only comparing life to a rock that can be crushed (as long as it's not Earth).

Non-life doesn't contain life but all life contains non-life. Unless you're a rocket dodger in which case atoms are neither living nor dead. Okay George A. Romero.
 
btw there's a much better card to play regarding why life is different to non life. I'll give you a clue. Thermodynamics.
 
It's a shame this interesting thread has decayed into a skeptic/woo battle royal.

I'm reading the fantastic paper linked in this thread a while ago "THE DEVELOPMENT AND
ANALYSIS OF CONSCIOUS MACHINES"

The point made on pages 37-38 is terrific, as is the whole of chapter 2.4 "Metaphysical Theories of Consciousness."

Carry on.
 
annnnoid said:
If you doubt the scientific position, check out the legal one. There’s no ambiguity there. The scientists may be able to play games with their conclusions, but the lawyers can’t. Things have to be crystal clear or there can be severe consequences (lawsuits that shut down research / put corporate directors in jail..etc.)…and if there is one conclusion that can be reached from those legal papers, it is that things are very far from crystal clear when it comes to consciousness and what it does, in fact, mean.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's a different question. Define legal consciousness (for lawyers, judges, and juries).

My lawyer friend says anything is legal if you can convince a judge it's legal.

So, it depends on the judge. A religious judge may have a different definition from a secular, or a science-educated judge.

Googling "legal definition of consciousness" gets 1,820,000 hits. Still, how far would one get with metaphysical arguments in a courtroom? Should American law have to deal at all with the metaphysical aspects of the mind or the hereafter? Entities for which there is exactly zero evidence for their existence?
 
Belz... said:
Unless you are using Dodger's definition, which makes perfect sense, in which case there is.

But it's much more fun to argue for argument's sake.
Click to expand...

The thermodynamic uniqueness of life is a popular argument used by creationists. It's a fallacy. No, there's no way to define "life" or "thermodynamics" to get around that one. Life operates under entirely normal thermodynamic processes that can be seen in many other physical processes.

If you want to argue this for argument's sake, feel free.
 
westprog said:
The thermodynamic uniqueness of life is a popular argument used by creationists. .
Click to expand...

Do I sound like a creationist? That's not the argument I'm making. At least not how they spin it. Play out of book westprog!
 
Last edited:
westprog said:
The thermodynamic uniqueness of life is a popular argument used by creationists. It's a fallacy. No, there's no way to define "life" or "thermodynamics" to get around that one. Life operates under entirely normal thermodynamic processes that can be seen in many other physical processes.
Click to expand...

No one's saying it's not, and you know it.

You can't possibly not know it because it was explained to you in detail. I'm not saying it's a perfect definition, but it is an elegant way to define and distinguish life. So, again, I assume you're arguing because you feel you have to.
 
keyfeatures said:
Do I sound like a creationist? That's not the argument I'm making. At least not how they spin it. Play out of book westprog!
Click to expand...

Then all you have to do is agree that yes, there's nothing thermodynamically different or unusual about life and you're in the clear. I have no wish to assign views to anyone that they don't hold, but the idea that life is in contradiction with the laws of thermodynamics is a popular fallacy and it needs to be made clear that nobody is suggesting it.
 
Belz... said:
No one's saying it's not, and you know it.
Click to expand...

Then what are you arguing about? I point out an obvious truth. Why not just accept it and move on? If nobody is arguing any different, then there shouldn't be a controversy about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom