I urge you to not take the attitude that "just a clump of cells" is not a meaningfully intelligent aggregate; and I mean any such grouping, not just in our brains. If you had a map of every reciprocal communicative interaction among that clump of cells, it might blow your socks off with its information-processing complexity. I find it depressingly telling that in this age of infatuation with information technology, there seems to be very little appreciation for the original innernet, the dense nexus of information processing displayed by all cooperative cellular groupings. And unlike computer chips, the signalling pathways don't even need to be contiguous. For example, our immune systems display a distributed body-wide computational system, which parenthetically is also involved in active information processing with gut bacteria and other microbiomes (yes, your white blood cells "discuss" issues with those bacteria). The Janus-faced reality of life as reciprocal regenerative biochemistry accompanied by nearly endless information processing should be chapter 1 of bio texts. And sure, the "how life began" and the origins of consciousness are open questions, but micro/nano computation as a fundamental property of living systems at all levels of organization is very well established.
The causation is a systems property, which I grant you that we understand poorly because complex adaptive systems are underpinned but not determined by their computations; hence causation is probabilistic; no surprise that it's difficult to even fathom. The problem with your analogy is that a radio is not a complex adaptive system of systems, it's deterministic, not stochastic. As such, it's so much junk compared to any biosystem.
Wow. The discussion between you and jamenta is way over my head.
May I suggest you guys figure out how to contact one another and write a paper on this, then dumb it down into a book "the rest of us" might comprehend?
May I also suggest that "so much junk" is a rather pejorative dismissal of the point.
Nice idea, tall order. But I have to disagree with you about "so much junk " because what it is is a biologist's expression of the superiority of living systems to anything technological. Why? Simple. Living systems recycle/ are regenerative and integrative; so far, tech mostly rips up the planet and pollutes. So if it's pejorative, it was certainly not toward jamenta; it's directed at many other members of our species, who unlike indigenous people tend to see tech as superior, largely ignoring its failure to attend to those natural principles that guided most indigenous societies. The reason, of course, why we find ourselves up against the climate/biosphere pauperization wall.
OK. Speaking of the superiority of living systems: A full-grown woman is a living system. She is not dependent on any other life form for her survival. A small "clump of cells" IS. A MAN has no right, human right, natural right, nor lawful right, to tell a women what she can or cannot do with her own body. That is the bottom line here. Whether or not someone else is COMFORTABLE with choices made by a woman in regard to HER OWN BODY is irrelevant. It's not something to vote on, or scientifically explain the wonders of. We're talking about CIVIL RIGHTS. To suggest that men have bodily autonomy but women do not, is illogical, immoral, illegal, and stupid.
There is currently no material evidence (at all) that electrical/chemical activity can produce what we know as consciousness. The fundamental properties of chemical compositions, of electron spin, of electro-chemical energy provide no indication (whatsoever) consciousness as we know it can be produced by these elements. Self-awareness, and the 'qualia' question of consciousness (at the heart of the mind/body problem), such as perceiving the color 'red' i.e. what makes red red, is also one of the most baffling and unanswered questions regarding the science of consciousness.
Once again, correlation is not causation. Just because the brain is a complex phenomena does not scientifically prove it is the cause/produces consciousness. Just because a computer can be built to be a highly complex series of electrical signals and computations, has not proven a computer can become 'self-aware' or conscious. In fact, some recent attempts to do just that have failed.
I am not saying it may eventually be proven consciousness is produced by fundamental properties of electricity and neurons. But what I am saying is science currently has not established this is the case. And therefore, the question is a philosophical mind/body problem remaining unresolved scientifically and ontologically.
I don't disagree at all, except to point out that you're still expounding on what I've enumerated as properties of living systems (energy transformation, matter recycling, networked feedback computation); which underpin, but do not constitute their essence. I'd wager that you're familiar with the terminology "emergent properties". Very different from the fundamental physical parameters --- but, somehow derived -- probabilistically -- from them. I emphasize the "somehow". I'm surely not saying that I have a reliable handle on what this means in detail. But I know that without that probabilistic flexibility, a truly novel idea could not arise; and even with my fundamental dark view of humanity, I still belief in the possibility of novel ideas.
But I am also familiar with the excellent work of scientists like Bruce Greyson, Sam Parnia, Pim van Lommel, Michael Sabom, Karlis Osis and Erlendur Haraldsson.
One approach reductive materialists often overlook when attempting to ascertain the fundamental properties of 'consciousness' is by not studying consciousness itself. That is, what does the observation of consciousness (behavior and perception) tell us about consciousness? Luminaries such as William James, his good friend Frederic Myers, Carl Jung - all of whom spent their lives studying consciousness itself (not just neurons)and were able to deduce certain properties of consciousness that the 'materialists' are only now beginning to theorize about, many do so based on the scientific parameters that have been discovered in quantum physics, such as nonlocality is a fundamental property of our reality, and time also is a property that is not quite what it appears to be.
It is interesting reality (and consciousness) may be fundamentally driven by probability - and it seems quantum physics has put to rest the age old question of determinism. I would also posit the still ongoing scientific research into Psi and the extensive NDE research is putting to rest the materialistic assumption consciousness is simply a product of neural processes. It is more likely (to me at least, at this time) consciousness is a more fundamental property of reality, just as electrons and electromagnetic energy are fundamental properties. And though I would not go so far as to assume consciousness itself produces reality, I would say it interacts with reality, is a part of it as a fundamental Observer.
This is a bit far afield though of the Abortion debate. But I think it serves to point out we all have different metaphysical/philosophical views on the nature of ourselves and reality. And it was a wise decision by the founding fathers of the US government to insist church and state remain separate.
The most recent theory about consciousness is that neurons are fired by a naturally collapsing quantum wave function. The paper can be found searching for consciousness-is-the-collapse-of-the-wave-function. It is an interesting idea but far from solid evidence, really just a thought experiment.
Science has not proven reductive materialism. In fact, there is plenty of new scientific evidence which appears to point to consciousness being a fundamental aspect of reality - such as the last 3 decades of NDE research, with over 60+ retrospective and prospective scientific studies by such academics like Bruce Greyson and Sam Parnia.
I know one thing absolutely for sure John Carter: you cannot prove, no scientist today can prove consciousness itself simply can be reduced to a "clump of cells". That has not been scientifically established at all. As far as we know, the body can just be a conduit for consciousness like a radio is a conduit for a Mozart symphony, but not the source (nor did a radio write Mozart's Sonata Semplice).
Therefore, you and others have no right to foist your own belief system on the rest of us based on just your ideological framework that really has no scientific basis at all.
I'm honestly baffled by what your argument is. For the record, I'm a panentheist: I believe that consciousness is primary, and intrinsic to reality down to the subatomic scale. I'm certainly not a reductionist.
How you jump from there to 'murdering babies is fine' is just weird.
One thing Caitlin gets right, with her Thought One: The Elites and propagandists and corrupt Democratic party are going to exploit this divisive issue for all its worth, while the economic plunder of US citizens and the world's ecosystem will continue unabated.
The most recent theory about consciousness is that neurons are fired by a naturally collapsing quantum wave function. The paper can be found searching for consciousness-is-the-collapse-of-the-wave-function. It is an interesting idea but far from solid evidence, really just a thought experiment.
And I'm honestly baffled by your declaration that a fetus is a baby.
Show me when "the divine" has entered "the radio" as jamenta put it.
Or tell me that you've never squished a bug. If you have, your pantheist beliefs are inconsistent.
Heinlein showed us that "Thou art God", but he had no problem destroying the evil manifestations of what that meant. (in fact, he was a fervent believer in the second amendment)
Certainly you don't believe all of creation is "Good".
I view it much more simply. I am just one of God's experiments to discover what is "good" and what is "bad". God hasn't figured it out.
When (s)he does will he experience eternal light or eternal dark? How will any experience happen without the contrast between the two?
Like the second law of Thermodynamics that says entropy will rule, when everything breaks down to the same thing how is that different from one thing? how is it different from nothing?
At one time the US congress believed that a fetus regardless of gestation age can be a victim of violence.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
If they are only clumps of cells how can they be a victim of violence as a member of the species Homo sapiens ?
Where does it say that acknowledging the presence of consciousness in other entities means you can't kill them? That's obviously absurd. All life needs to eat, and all life, one way or the other, feeds on death. You don't get to wash your hands clean by pretending that it's fine because the thing you killed doesn't have consciousness; equivalently, killing something doesn't (necessarily) mean your hands are dirty.
The consciousness argument is neither an argument for nor against the practice, any more than it is an argument for or against hunting or warfare. Although infanticide enthusiasts do seem to be rather l eager to imagine the practice is acceptable because babies don't have consciousness.
Context matters. If you kill a man who is attempting to kill you, you've done nothing wrong. If you kill a man because you want his watch, you're a murderer.
Similarly with abortion. If the argument is "a baby would cramp my style", which it seems to be in the overwhelming majority of cases - it's murder.
When I am asleep I don't know I exist, when not dreaming...what constitutes 'consciousness' here? Unborn fetus's respond to all kinds of stimuli. Some prospective parents sing, talk etc. to the unborn...and there is research to suggest this is advantageous to the development...Science harmonises with the Bible in telling us when human life begins (at conception) but it is a human debate as to who decides and when to decide that that life should be respected.
Your stance is that you know the right answer and refuse to consider other perspectives. How is that helpful?
The Thunderbolts Project (you posted elsewhere) doesn't answer when the "consciousness" manifests itself within the brain ("radio") of the fetus.
Sure, if people want to think about this kind of thing, fine. It might help them decide where they stand on abortion.
I'm in no way denying psychic phenomena. I have an opinion on it, but that in no way can be applied to the question of when a fetus, or for that matter a human being, becomes conscious.
IOW, your point is totally orthogonal to the question.
Oh, waaah. There are no "opposite poles." There is ONE thing: Women's rights. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean you're RIGHT.
When society starts talking about making decisions, on a CONTINUUM, about when men need to have vasectomies, maybe that will wake you up, but I doubt that's gonna happen.
Insulting someone you disagree with doesn't make your case work.
I think it more likely consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, and at some point, makes the decision to enter a growing physical structure. But (obviously) this is my own metaphysical/spiritual leanings at the moment. I have no proof either way this is absolutely the case.
That is why I think the most important point Caitlin makes in her essay here is that the State has no right to dictate to the rest of us an ideology which is only based on a metaphysicial belief system not every citizen in the US subscribes too, and that we are not free if we are subjugated to someone else's religious/metaphysical beliefs - no matter how much they think they are right and/or their God has spoken to them about it.
Can you prove that you're not just a clump of cells?
I urge you to not take the attitude that "just a clump of cells" is not a meaningfully intelligent aggregate; and I mean any such grouping, not just in our brains. If you had a map of every reciprocal communicative interaction among that clump of cells, it might blow your socks off with its information-processing complexity. I find it depressingly telling that in this age of infatuation with information technology, there seems to be very little appreciation for the original innernet, the dense nexus of information processing displayed by all cooperative cellular groupings. And unlike computer chips, the signalling pathways don't even need to be contiguous. For example, our immune systems display a distributed body-wide computational system, which parenthetically is also involved in active information processing with gut bacteria and other microbiomes (yes, your white blood cells "discuss" issues with those bacteria). The Janus-faced reality of life as reciprocal regenerative biochemistry accompanied by nearly endless information processing should be chapter 1 of bio texts. And sure, the "how life began" and the origins of consciousness are open questions, but micro/nano computation as a fundamental property of living systems at all levels of organization is very well established.
Micro/nano computations are also fundamental to radios. Does not prove the radio is the source of the music.
Correlation is not causation.
The causation is a systems property, which I grant you that we understand poorly because complex adaptive systems are underpinned but not determined by their computations; hence causation is probabilistic; no surprise that it's difficult to even fathom. The problem with your analogy is that a radio is not a complex adaptive system of systems, it's deterministic, not stochastic. As such, it's so much junk compared to any biosystem.
Wow. The discussion between you and jamenta is way over my head.
May I suggest you guys figure out how to contact one another and write a paper on this, then dumb it down into a book "the rest of us" might comprehend?
May I also suggest that "so much junk" is a rather pejorative dismissal of the point.
Nice idea, tall order. But I have to disagree with you about "so much junk " because what it is is a biologist's expression of the superiority of living systems to anything technological. Why? Simple. Living systems recycle/ are regenerative and integrative; so far, tech mostly rips up the planet and pollutes. So if it's pejorative, it was certainly not toward jamenta; it's directed at many other members of our species, who unlike indigenous people tend to see tech as superior, largely ignoring its failure to attend to those natural principles that guided most indigenous societies. The reason, of course, why we find ourselves up against the climate/biosphere pauperization wall.
OK. Speaking of the superiority of living systems: A full-grown woman is a living system. She is not dependent on any other life form for her survival. A small "clump of cells" IS. A MAN has no right, human right, natural right, nor lawful right, to tell a women what she can or cannot do with her own body. That is the bottom line here. Whether or not someone else is COMFORTABLE with choices made by a woman in regard to HER OWN BODY is irrelevant. It's not something to vote on, or scientifically explain the wonders of. We're talking about CIVIL RIGHTS. To suggest that men have bodily autonomy but women do not, is illogical, immoral, illegal, and stupid.
There is currently no material evidence (at all) that electrical/chemical activity can produce what we know as consciousness. The fundamental properties of chemical compositions, of electron spin, of electro-chemical energy provide no indication (whatsoever) consciousness as we know it can be produced by these elements. Self-awareness, and the 'qualia' question of consciousness (at the heart of the mind/body problem), such as perceiving the color 'red' i.e. what makes red red, is also one of the most baffling and unanswered questions regarding the science of consciousness.
Once again, correlation is not causation. Just because the brain is a complex phenomena does not scientifically prove it is the cause/produces consciousness. Just because a computer can be built to be a highly complex series of electrical signals and computations, has not proven a computer can become 'self-aware' or conscious. In fact, some recent attempts to do just that have failed.
I am not saying it may eventually be proven consciousness is produced by fundamental properties of electricity and neurons. But what I am saying is science currently has not established this is the case. And therefore, the question is a philosophical mind/body problem remaining unresolved scientifically and ontologically.
https://youtu.be/x-6hosFAObI
I don't disagree at all, except to point out that you're still expounding on what I've enumerated as properties of living systems (energy transformation, matter recycling, networked feedback computation); which underpin, but do not constitute their essence. I'd wager that you're familiar with the terminology "emergent properties". Very different from the fundamental physical parameters --- but, somehow derived -- probabilistically -- from them. I emphasize the "somehow". I'm surely not saying that I have a reliable handle on what this means in detail. But I know that without that probabilistic flexibility, a truly novel idea could not arise; and even with my fundamental dark view of humanity, I still belief in the possibility of novel ideas.
I am familiar with 'emergent' properties.
But I am also familiar with the excellent work of scientists like Bruce Greyson, Sam Parnia, Pim van Lommel, Michael Sabom, Karlis Osis and Erlendur Haraldsson.
One approach reductive materialists often overlook when attempting to ascertain the fundamental properties of 'consciousness' is by not studying consciousness itself. That is, what does the observation of consciousness (behavior and perception) tell us about consciousness? Luminaries such as William James, his good friend Frederic Myers, Carl Jung - all of whom spent their lives studying consciousness itself (not just neurons)and were able to deduce certain properties of consciousness that the 'materialists' are only now beginning to theorize about, many do so based on the scientific parameters that have been discovered in quantum physics, such as nonlocality is a fundamental property of our reality, and time also is a property that is not quite what it appears to be.
It is interesting reality (and consciousness) may be fundamentally driven by probability - and it seems quantum physics has put to rest the age old question of determinism. I would also posit the still ongoing scientific research into Psi and the extensive NDE research is putting to rest the materialistic assumption consciousness is simply a product of neural processes. It is more likely (to me at least, at this time) consciousness is a more fundamental property of reality, just as electrons and electromagnetic energy are fundamental properties. And though I would not go so far as to assume consciousness itself produces reality, I would say it interacts with reality, is a part of it as a fundamental Observer.
This is a bit far afield though of the Abortion debate. But I think it serves to point out we all have different metaphysical/philosophical views on the nature of ourselves and reality. And it was a wise decision by the founding fathers of the US government to insist church and state remain separate.
The most recent theory about consciousness is that neurons are fired by a naturally collapsing quantum wave function. The paper can be found searching for consciousness-is-the-collapse-of-the-wave-function. It is an interesting idea but far from solid evidence, really just a thought experiment.
Science has not proven reductive materialism. In fact, there is plenty of new scientific evidence which appears to point to consciousness being a fundamental aspect of reality - such as the last 3 decades of NDE research, with over 60+ retrospective and prospective scientific studies by such academics like Bruce Greyson and Sam Parnia.
I know one thing absolutely for sure John Carter: you cannot prove, no scientist today can prove consciousness itself simply can be reduced to a "clump of cells". That has not been scientifically established at all. As far as we know, the body can just be a conduit for consciousness like a radio is a conduit for a Mozart symphony, but not the source (nor did a radio write Mozart's Sonata Semplice).
Therefore, you and others have no right to foist your own belief system on the rest of us based on just your ideological framework that really has no scientific basis at all.
I'm honestly baffled by what your argument is. For the record, I'm a panentheist: I believe that consciousness is primary, and intrinsic to reality down to the subatomic scale. I'm certainly not a reductionist.
How you jump from there to 'murdering babies is fine' is just weird.
One thing Caitlin gets right, with her Thought One: The Elites and propagandists and corrupt Democratic party are going to exploit this divisive issue for all its worth, while the economic plunder of US citizens and the world's ecosystem will continue unabated.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that they will exploit this for all that it's worth.
All of that doesn't make the issue any less valid.
The most recent theory about consciousness is that neurons are fired by a naturally collapsing quantum wave function. The paper can be found searching for consciousness-is-the-collapse-of-the-wave-function. It is an interesting idea but far from solid evidence, really just a thought experiment.
And I'm honestly baffled by your declaration that a fetus is a baby.
Show me when "the divine" has entered "the radio" as jamenta put it.
Or tell me that you've never squished a bug. If you have, your pantheist beliefs are inconsistent.
Heinlein showed us that "Thou art God", but he had no problem destroying the evil manifestations of what that meant. (in fact, he was a fervent believer in the second amendment)
Certainly you don't believe all of creation is "Good".
I view it much more simply. I am just one of God's experiments to discover what is "good" and what is "bad". God hasn't figured it out.
When (s)he does will he experience eternal light or eternal dark? How will any experience happen without the contrast between the two?
Like the second law of Thermodynamics that says entropy will rule, when everything breaks down to the same thing how is that different from one thing? how is it different from nothing?
At one time the US congress believed that a fetus regardless of gestation age can be a victim of violence.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
If they are only clumps of cells how can they be a victim of violence as a member of the species Homo sapiens ?
Where does it say that acknowledging the presence of consciousness in other entities means you can't kill them? That's obviously absurd. All life needs to eat, and all life, one way or the other, feeds on death. You don't get to wash your hands clean by pretending that it's fine because the thing you killed doesn't have consciousness; equivalently, killing something doesn't (necessarily) mean your hands are dirty.
Thanks, an elegant support in favor of abortion.
Making me even more question your statement about "killing babies".
The consciousness argument is neither an argument for nor against the practice, any more than it is an argument for or against hunting or warfare. Although infanticide enthusiasts do seem to be rather l eager to imagine the practice is acceptable because babies don't have consciousness.
Context matters. If you kill a man who is attempting to kill you, you've done nothing wrong. If you kill a man because you want his watch, you're a murderer.
Similarly with abortion. If the argument is "a baby would cramp my style", which it seems to be in the overwhelming majority of cases - it's murder.
"I think. Therefore, I am," Descartes. The only thing we know for certain is our own existence.
Does a fetus know it exists?
People are sentient. Fetuses are not.
Does an 18 month old baby know it exists?
It is my understanding that in some societies, the answer is "no" up to 3 years old.
Just pushing the boundary of the discussion not trying to suggest it as a solution.
When I am asleep I don't know I exist, when not dreaming...what constitutes 'consciousness' here? Unborn fetus's respond to all kinds of stimuli. Some prospective parents sing, talk etc. to the unborn...and there is research to suggest this is advantageous to the development...Science harmonises with the Bible in telling us when human life begins (at conception) but it is a human debate as to who decides and when to decide that that life should be respected.
Doesn’t make those societies objectively correct.
Who ever said it did?
Your stance is that you know the right answer and refuse to consider other perspectives. How is that helpful?
The Thunderbolts Project (you posted elsewhere) doesn't answer when the "consciousness" manifests itself within the brain ("radio") of the fetus.
Sure, if people want to think about this kind of thing, fine. It might help them decide where they stand on abortion.
I'm in no way denying psychic phenomena. I have an opinion on it, but that in no way can be applied to the question of when a fetus, or for that matter a human being, becomes conscious.
IOW, your point is totally orthogonal to the question.
I was just showing you something, I wasn’t trying to talk about the fetus.
Eighteen-m-o babies do not get aborted, since they're already "out."
Says you.
Great job on displaying the arrogance that the extremists apply to the opposite poles of this issue.
Oh, waaah. There are no "opposite poles." There is ONE thing: Women's rights. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean you're RIGHT.
When society starts talking about making decisions, on a CONTINUUM, about when men need to have vasectomies, maybe that will wake you up, but I doubt that's gonna happen.
Insulting someone you disagree with doesn't make your case work.
There ya go again, proving the definition of idiot.
I think it more likely consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, and at some point, makes the decision to enter a growing physical structure. But (obviously) this is my own metaphysical/spiritual leanings at the moment. I have no proof either way this is absolutely the case.
That is why I think the most important point Caitlin makes in her essay here is that the State has no right to dictate to the rest of us an ideology which is only based on a metaphysicial belief system not every citizen in the US subscribes too, and that we are not free if we are subjugated to someone else's religious/metaphysical beliefs - no matter how much they think they are right and/or their God has spoken to them about it.
When a baby is murdered in the womb, is it not being subjected to the metaphysical belief system of the mother?
What is consciousness?
No.
The fetus has no consciousness.
Prove you have consciousness. Until you do, you're a clump of cells.
Consciousness is the first and only obvious fact of my existence. Everything else in fact, remains unproven.
Prove you're sentient.
Prove you have a right to control another human being.