The Argument From Reason...

[seer]

Humans are the least equipped to live in nature. Self awareness, which leads to empathy, was necessary for humans to survive. It was not necessary for other species. It could have had something to do with the fact that humans don't have the physical features necessary for survival on their own, such as claws, big gorilla muscles, fangs, the ability to squirt hot boiling water from their abdomens, etc.

You are missing the point read read my last link to Tass. And BTW other species use the community to survive like wolves, with out any noticeable empathy. So empathy is not necessary to be strong, and survive.

[Stoic]

No, it is not necessary for survival. The vast majority of creatures, even living in community, do not possess self-awareness.

Legs aren't necessary for survival. Lots of creatures don't have legs.

[Machinist]

No, it is not necessary for survival. The vast majority of creatures, even living in community, do not possess self-awareness.

Humans are the least equipped to live in nature. Self awareness, which leads to empathy, was necessary for humans to survive. It was not necessary for other species. It could have had something to do with the fact that humans don't have the physical features necessary for survival on their own, such as claws, big gorilla muscles, fangs, the ability to squirt hot boiling water from their abdomens, etc.

[seer]

Consciousness was not “created” – that would imply a ‘Creator’ and there is NO good reason to think such an entity exists. Consciousness, as with everything else in the evolutionary process, evolved via Natural Selection with the selective enhancement of specific qualities (tool-making skills, language, etc.) to better survive.

That is an assertion, I asked why and how consciousness came about beside asserting that nature did it. And I never said that some creatures don't have a degree of self-awareness. Many creatures have opposable thumbs - so? That does not make human consciousness any more explainable, back to Sam Harris...

https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/

[seer]

Self reflection/awareness is an evolved survival mechanism?

I suppose that could be argued if we're talking survival of the entire species. Surely the ability to self reflect upon one's own existence, is the basis for empathy. And where there is empathy, populations will swell. The species or race itself, in this case, the human race has survived through empathy. If the empathy did not evolve, humans would have gone extinct.


Just taking a stab at it here...from an evolutionary view.

No, it is not necessary for survival. The vast majority of creatures, even living in community, do not possess self-awareness.

[Machinist]

Self reflection/awareness is an evolved survival mechanism?

I suppose that could be argued if we're talking survival of the entire species. Surely the ability to self reflect upon one's own existence, is the basis for empathy. And where there is empathy, populations will swell. The species or race itself, in this case, the human race has survived through empathy. If the empathy did not evolve, humans would have gone extinct.


Just taking a stab at it here...from an evolutionary view.

[Tassman]

Nope, that was not the question. Show when and how the evolutionary process created consciousness.

Consciousness was not “created” – that would imply a ‘Creator’ and there is NO good reason to think such an entity exists. Consciousness, as with everything else in the evolutionary process, evolved via Natural Selection with the selective enhancement of specific qualities (tool-making skills, language, etc.) to better survive.

The vast majority of creatures survive just fine without self-awareness. So it is not necessary for survival.

It may not be “necessary” but self-reflection and consciousness is a survival advantage nevertheless.

And I don't know what you mean by other animals

Humans are apes – 'Great Apes'.

https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/humans-are-apes-great-apes/

- does a monkey have an inner life, experience and thoughts as a human?

The higher animals, such as the chimpanzees experience an inner life not dissimilar (albeit, less complex) than ours.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/06/apes-can-guess-what-others-are-thinking-just-like-humans

How would you know?

How would you know that don’t – there is abundant evidence that they do?

[seer]

Yes it is. Consciousness is dependent upon the action of the evolved living brain. And our decision-making processes are grounded in the memories and experiences stored in the neurons and pathways of the physical, living brain. All mammals and many other creatures have evolved neurological substrates complex enough to support consciousness – not just the human animal.

Nope, that was not the question. Show when and how the evolutionary process created consciousness. The vast majority of creatures survive just fine without self-awareness. So it is not necessary for survival. And I don't know what you mean by other animals - does a monkey have an inner life, experience and thoughts as a human? How would you know?

[Tassman]

No, consciousness, which is necessary for all of this, is not the obvious result of blind evolutionary forces.

Yes it is. Consciousness is dependent upon the action of the evolved living brain. And our decision-making processes are grounded in the memories and experiences stored in the neurons and pathways of the physical, living brain. All mammals and many other creatures have evolved neurological substrates complex enough to support consciousness – not just the human animal.

[seer]

I reference computers in order to dispose of the first premise in the argument in your OP. There is nothing non-natural about computers. They are well understood, completely determined, and capable of causing events due to propositional content.

But they are not causing events due to propositional content. They don't do any such thing. Content itself has nothing to do with what a computer spits out. Electrons know nothing about content. Nor do they act on content.

I reference evolution when you claim that the non-rational can't create the rational. It's obvious that we are a result of evolution. The claim that our minds are somehow separate, and not a product of evolution, is just ad hoc, motivated reasoning. Keep in mind that if you want to claim that our minds are not the result of evolution, it's your burden of proof.

No, consciousness, which is necessary for all of this, is not the obvious result of blind evolutionary forces. If so, how so...

[Stoic]

Yet you keep referencing computers where their ability is merely an extension of our rational abilities: rational = rational. I don't see how that is evidence for the non-rational creating the rational.

I reference computers in order to dispose of the first premise in the argument in your OP. There is nothing non-natural about computers. They are well understood, completely determined, and capable of causing events due to propositional content.

I reference evolution when you claim that the non-rational can't create the rational. It's obvious that we are a result of evolution. The claim that our minds are somehow separate, and not a product of evolution, is just ad hoc, motivated reasoning. Keep in mind that if you want to claim that our minds are not the result of evolution, it's your burden of proof.

[seer]

Obviously, we're never going to agree on this. I find it plausible that we are the result of unguided evolution, and you don't.

Yet you keep referencing computers where their ability is merely an extension of our rational abilities: rational = rational. I don't see how that is evidence for the non-rational creating the rational.

[seer]

It's your argument. We don't have to show anything. We just have to note that you haven't supported your first premise at all, and it appears to be false (since computer applications can read maps), so your whole argument has no basis.

That makes no sense. They only way that computers can read maps (whatever that means) is because rational agents created then to do so. What are the rational agents that did the same for chemicals...

[Roy]

(At this point I expect you to try to shift the burden of proof).

I think it's your burden to show the first premise of your argument is true.

Well no, that is the whole point. You would have to show how it is possible for chemicals, biology functions and the laws of nature to know of propositions.

It's your argument. We don't have to show anything. We just have to note that you haven't supported your first premise at all, and it appears to be false (since computer applications can read maps), so your whole argument has no basis.

[Stoic]

But they don't, electrons do no such thing. We do, they only spit out what we programmed in. So computers are not really making rational inferences.

Obviously, we're never going to agree on this. I find it plausible that we are the result of unguided evolution, and you don't.