[TUT317]

Unfortunately I didn't get to share my ideas about evolution because the post was closed. What I wanted say is that I go along with those people who think that evolution is not a satisfactory explanation of our evolution.

The last entry was by me where I agreed with Asking that there is a problem when it comes to defining consciousness. However, this was not an admittance that a definition of consciousness was insurmountable.
A suitable definition of consciousness is difficult but not impossible when it comes to an evolutionary theory of consciousness .

Does exploring the avenue of consciousness have anything to do with the science of evolution? If this were a science forum then the answer would probably be, no. Science is quite clear in this regard. Science rejects any notion of dualism. In other words, science reject that there exists entities such as minds/souls. Such ideas can be explain away by reductionist explanations.

I have said many times that I don't have a problem with this. Rather, I am wanting to point out that there is a point at which science is unable to provide a suitable explanation when it comes to evolution. I am wanting to use a theory of consciousness to highlight where evolutionary theory breaks down.

While this may seem somewhat controversial there are certain aspects of consciousness which are less controversial. I might start with these.

When it comes to consciousness the less controversial elements are what David Chalmers would call, 'the easy problem of consciousness'. No doubt Chalmers means 'easy' in relative terms. There are of course hard problems when it comes to consciousness.

Chalmers argues that the easy problems are easy because they relate to cognitive ability and function. I referred to this in the other post as 'access' consciousness. These included such things as reporting our mental state, focusing our attention and deliberate control of behaviour.

With this type of behaviour we need only to specify a mechanism suitable of carrying out such functions. The brain being suitable for such a task. The methodology of cognitive science is well suited to carry out such investigations of the brain.

I also said that evolution of consciousness was a biological advantage. This is because access to our own thoughts allows for adaptability and flexibility. This allows for humans to plan and co operate which would increase their chances of survival. Again, I don't think this claim is too controversial.

The controversy begins when Chalmers asks the question.'Why is it when electrometric wave forms impinge on a retina and discriminated and categorized by a visual system this visual system and categorization is offered up as an experience?' He also asks the question,'why can't this process go on 'in the dark' free of any feelings?'

There is no controversy in the claim that we have experience. The problem arises when we try and come up with an explanation for experience. Science provides an answer in terms of reductionism, i.e. experience is really the brain carrying out its function.

The question that needs to be asked is what evolutionary advantage is there in humans having experience? Chalmers rightly points out that there is no functional reason why experience cannot be carried out free of feelings. I think that experience from an evolutionary point of view doesn't seem to be necessary and functional at any stage of development of any species.

Cognitive science does a good job when it comes to explaining such things as perception, memory and behaviour in general. But what it cannot explain is experience.

[cdad]

Could it be that experience on its basic level ads to the total amount of experience to draw from for allowing forethought? That way you can build a bridge to consiquence? From there the natural bridge would be to logic. The difference between savageness and society is the boarderline created by cruelty. If everything was without emotion of some kind then there is no way to judge experience. If like in the world of star trek you have a race deviod of emotion based on logic. (vulcans). You lose compassion. Compassion is a needed tool for survival because it allows someone to extend beyond themselves.

[Fr_Chuck]

I am not the moderator that closed the old thread, but if we wanted it open, we would not have closed it.

So I am closing this one, for the basic reason, the post was not a question, but a statement and actually somewhat preaching.