Secular Morality?

[seer]

I experienced it. At the beginning of my existence, I had no consciousness. Sometime afterward, I had it. I don't remember my first conscious thoughts, but I must have had them, and I know I couldn't have had them before that occasion.

No, I'm asking did you see consciousness arise through the evolutionary process. In other words why do we have consciousness in the first place, it is not necessary for survival, there is no biological reason for consciousness.

[Truthseeker]

Words are defined by usage. As far as I can tell, I mean the same thing everyone else means when I use the word "consciousness."

Is there some way for scientists to measure some thing's consciousness, or at least detect its existence in some thing using a kind of analog/digital instrument?

Which of my assertions do you disagree with? I'm not going to waste time proving things that you don't disagree with. I said I began my life as a unicellular organism. Are you disputing that?

No, not that. Do you know what "operational definition" in science is?

[Yttrium]

No, I'm asking did you see consciousness arise through the evolutionary process. In other words why do we have consciousness in the first place, it is not necessary for survival, there is no biological reason for consciousness.

Consciousness is extremely useful for survival in many circumstances. That should be obvious. It's not necessary, since many organisms survive just fine without it, but it's one of the many paths to survival. Mutations happen, and the ones that work best for survival in the current conditions tend to stick around.

[Truthseeker]

Consciousness is extremely useful for survival in many circumstances. That should be obvious.

Obvious to you, of course, but I'm not sure I can think of an example. Could you please help me out?

[Yttrium]

Obvious to you, of course, but I'm not sure I can think of an example. Could you please help me out?

Well, let's say that there's a nasty virus going around that has a very high fatality rate. By examining the methods of transmission, conscious steps can be taken to avoid contracting the disease. Or we could develop a vaccine, which requires conscious actions.

[Doug Shaver]

No, I'm asking did you see consciousness arise through the evolutionary process. In other words why do we have consciousness in the first place, it is not necessary for survival, there is no biological reason for consciousness.

What Yttrium said. It is a misreading of evolution to think that every property of every organism evolved out of bare necessity. Many properties are just incidental byproducts of other properties that were necessary for survival. Consciousness seems to be such an incidental property.

[Doug Shaver]

Is there some way for scientists to measure some thing's consciousness

Just their own. We each experience our own consciousness but cannot experience anyone else's. We assume, not without good reason, that all the other humans we meet have a similar experience. The extension of that assumption to other species gets iffier the farther we get, taxonomically, from our own species, but at least for closely related species, there is no reason to not to assume that they too experience something sufficiently similar to call it consciousness as well.

[Doug Shaver]

Do you know what "operational definition" in science is?

My comment here was not about definitions. I was responding to your statement that you "don't see that you have evidence that supports your assertions."

[Truthseeker]

My comment here was not about definitions. I was responding to your statement that you "don't see that you have evidence that supports your assertions."

I'm not certain you understand my objections and questions. Let me try again, putting up this scenario: A scientist becomes interested in the question of whether someone in a coma is conscious. Doctors think he will eventually "awaken." Now, how would the scientist go about building some instrument to detect its presence or even to measure it?

[seer]

What Yttrium said. It is a misreading of evolution to think that every property of every organism evolved out of bare necessity. Many properties are just incidental byproducts of other properties that were necessary for survival. Consciousness seems to be such an incidental property.

Let me quote Sam Harris:

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world. Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view...

...Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

[Doug Shaver]

I'm not certain you understand my objections and questions. Let me try again, putting up this scenario: A scientist becomes interested in the question of whether someone in a coma is conscious. Doctors think he will eventually "awaken." Now, how would the scientist go about building some instrument to detect its presence or even to measure it?

As I said, words are defined by usage. The way practically everyone uses the word "consciousness," someone in a coma lacks it, because a coma, by definition, is the absence of consciousness. Of course a coma may be only temporary, but that doesn't mean its victim is actually conscious.

[Doug Shaver]

Let me quote Sam Harris:

Why? Evolution is not a religion, and Sam Harris is not its pope. Christians may think they can settle every dispute by quoting some authority. Science doesn't work that way.

[Truthseeker]

As I said, words are defined by usage.

That is not always true. One way to define a word is to point at something that exists outside anyone's mind and utter the word that is supposed to represent it. For example, "That is a tree. And that is a dog." That is not possible for "consciousness," and indeed science, as far as we know, cannot have anything useful or intelligent to say about it.

The way practically everyone uses the word "consciousness," someone in a coma lacks it, because a coma, by definition, is the absence of consciousness. Of course a coma may be only temporary, but that doesn't mean its victim is actually conscious.

You don't know that for sure. And there is another objection. What one has in mind what "consciousness" means may vary from person to person; there is no way to refute that hypothesis, as far as I know.

[seer]

Why? Evolution is not a religion, and Sam Harris is not its pope. Christians may think they can settle every dispute by quoting some authority. Science doesn't work that way.

That is fine, but I noticed that you did not dispute his points.

[Doug Shaver]

That is fine, but I noticed that you did not dispute his points.

OK, I'll say it outright: I don't agree with him.