I dont see how any of your post address the points I raised.
Simon James

“I am not suggesting that dualism is correct.”

Okay.. So I don’t think you read my comment? Because I did not claim you thought dualism was correct in any way.

“As for your point about non human studies of consciousness, they are even more limited by the hard problem because they cannot report whether they are conscious.”

Your argument very quickly went from “you have no evidence in any non human systems to back that up” (because you didn’t look through the citations I had just listed, albeit I listed too many) back to the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Yes, it is a problem that non humans cannot articulate their conscious states, but with that logic we could not begin to assume that plants, fungi, or bacteria are not conscious. Aside — bacteria and archaea are often a heck of a lot more motile and responsive relative to some bivalves. They even “learn” in a sense, as they incorporate segments of DNA they are exposed to which allows their propagation to continue. That doesn’t make them conscious, as they have no mind, it just makes them capable of evolution.

“But I dont think you really care about this debate, since you never actually address the issues, but instead go off an massive irrelevant distractions.”

Not only did I address your claim “we have no idea HOW any of that results in subjectivity”, I dissected your own citation. You also obviously have not read any of the citations I linked that delve into the evolution of sentience throughout the animal kingdom — citations that delve into how it neurologically came to be throughout the animal kingdom, what biological purpose it serves throughout the animal kingdom, and why it evolved the way that it did — both in respect to morphology and evolutionary pressure, throughout the animal kingdom.

“I think in general many science fanboys understand very little of philosophy, and it really comes through with your posts.”

I’m a biologist and chemist currently work in computational pharmaceutics enhancing in silico technology with my goal being to help alleviate the need for animal testing while providing superior treatments for difficult or currently impossible to treat diseases, so yes, I am a science fanboy — and a scientist. I wear both badges with pride, because I know that it can make the world a better place. As far as philosophy is concerned, I don’t claim to be an expert on philosophy, and my deductions are not based on philosophical definitions of consciousness. I do know that philosophy cannot supplant science, but I also know that philosophy is very important. A given philosophy can claim atoms or sunlight are sentient — that’s fine and obviously interesting to read about (like I said, I did read his work — very well-written and captivating), but these types of discussions aim to redefine the generally accepted meaning of sentience, which is not what I am trying to do. Again, some philosophies (including the aforementioned) claim that plants are sentient. That is not how the term is usually used in veganism (else we’d starve), or most major animal rights ethicists like Peter Singer, so it is not how I was using the term for this discussion.

“You would have to show not that a ganglion CANT be conscious. You are discussing research about HOW we think the brains of mammals are conscious.”

Again, I don’t think you read my comment. You went from saying I wasn’t talking about anything “non human” to saying I’m not talking about anything that isn’t a “mammal”. Several of my citations discuss birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc. Many of my citations and thousands more that I haven’t listed delve into, again, the entire animal kingdom. I have many more citations delving into the evolution of consciousness and even on the scientific determination of consciousness in invertebrates (and why one of the biggest challenges in determining whether they are conscious is identifying precise neuroanatomical and neurophysiological properties that might suggest possible conscious states in said invertebrates that specifically possess relatively large, differentiated, and centralized nervous systems, like the octopus, but not like its bivalve cousins).

“But showing that has nothing whatsoever about to do with how radically different nervous systems might be conscious. Its a simple logical point, but again and again you ignore it, and instead you makes these huge statements that I don’t think you appreciate just how ridiculous they are. Its like you have been reading too many IFLScience articles or something.”

So you are arguing on the basis of philosophy. If there was an awareness that an extremely simple nervous system could have, it would still not be consciousness. For example, as noted in the article, plants have various intricate movements, internal and external communication, and responses to stimuli, that could be viewed as something analogous to consciousness, but this does not meet the minimum threshold presented in any biological definitions of consciousness, which is what I am talking about. Also, as mentioned earlier, I’m a scientist myself. I’m not a big fan of IFLS or the way the media in general reports science. They get people thinking our guts are a second brain.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated David Cascio’s story.