Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Jun 2016 06:51 UTC
Geek stuff, sci-fi...

Ever since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, evolution has been the grand unifying theory of biology. Yet one of our most important biological traits, consciousness, is rarely studied in the context of evolution. Theories of consciousness come from religion, from philosophy, from cognitive science, but not so much from evolutionary biology. Maybe that's why so few theories have been able to tackle basic questions such as: What is the adaptive value of consciousness? When did it evolve and what animals have it?

The Attention Schema Theory (AST), developed over the past five years, may be able to answer those questions. The theory suggests that consciousness arises as a solution to one of the most fundamental problems facing any nervous system: Too much information constantly flows in to be fully processed. The brain evolved increasingly sophisticated mechanisms for deeply processing a few select signals at the expense of others, and in the AST, consciousness is the ultimate result of that evolutionary sequence. If the theory is right - and that has yet to be determined - then consciousness evolved gradually over the past half billion years and is present in a range of vertebrate species.

I know this really isn't what you'd generally expect to be posted here, but the concept of consciousness - one of a small set of words in the English language I cannot spell from the top of my head without making errors - is one of those things that, when you think too deeply about it, you enter into a realm of thinking that can get deeply uncomfortable and distressing, like thinking about what's outside the universe or what "existed" "before" (quotes intentional) the big bang.

Personally, I'm one of those insufferable people who ascribes the entire concept of consciousness to the specific arrangement of neurons and related tissue in our brain and wider nervous system - I don't accept religion or some other specific magical thing that makes us humans (and dolphins? And chimpansees? And whatever else has some level of consciousness?) more special than any other animal in terms of consciousness.

I also don't like the controversial concept of splitting consciousness up into an easy and a hard problem, because to me, that just opens the door to maintaining the religious idea that humans are somehow more special than other animals - sure, science has made it clear some other animals have easy consciousness, but humans are still special because we are the only ones with hard consciousness. It reeks of an artificial cutoff point created to maintain some semblance of uniqueness for homo sapiens sapiens so we can feel good about ourselves.

You can take the whole concept of consciousness in every which way, and one of my recent favourites is CGP Grey's video The Trouble With Transporters, which, among other tings, poses the question - if you interrupt your consciousness by being teleported or going to sleep, are you really the same person when you rematerialise or wake up?

Have fun!

Order by: Score:
Fascinating
by pmac on Tue 7th Jun 2016 06:58 UTC
pmac
Member since:
2009-07-08

This is fascinating. I'm curious, given your views on consciousness in non-human animals, Thom - do you eat animals? And if so how do you reconcile that with your views?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fascinating
by Fearandil on Tue 7th Jun 2016 07:12 UTC in reply to "Fascinating "
Fearandil Member since:
2016-06-07

Win ha loudly, huge, BUUURP

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Fascinating
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Fascinating "
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Here, have an anti-acid :/

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fascinating
by benoitb on Tue 7th Jun 2016 07:29 UTC in reply to "Fascinating "
benoitb Member since:
2010-06-29

I have the same views as Thom and eat animals.
Because in nature, conscious animals eat other conscious animals. This is not just us humans.

I don't understand how consciousness works, but observation shows it has been this way for a long time before I started asking myself these questions.

If you are not taking the life of the animal, something else will: another animal or just time.

I do have a problem with cruelty (unnecessary suffering, and bad living conditions) and industrial animal exploitation. Not with killing and eating animals.

Edited 2016-06-07 07:31 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Fascinating
by pmac on Tue 7th Jun 2016 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Fascinating "
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08

In certain cultures throughout history humans have eaten other humans. Is this OK because If you are not taking the life of the human, something else will: another animal, human, or just time.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Fascinating
by Ishan333 on Tue 7th Jun 2016 07:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fascinating "
Ishan333 Member since:
2012-06-27

Zombies come to mind, but they generally prefer BRAIIINNNSSS

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fascinating
by Rubuntu on Tue 7th Jun 2016 08:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fascinating "
Rubuntu Member since:
2016-06-07

I was wondering the same thing. If we are just another kind of animal, and we eat animals, what's wrong with eating human flesh?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Fascinating
by terra on Tue 7th Jun 2016 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fascinating "
terra Member since:
2012-11-01

Because we had time to think what would be better for humans rather than worrying what to have for next meal?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Fascinating
by kwan_e on Tue 7th Jun 2016 11:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fascinating "
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

what's wrong with eating human flesh?


There are serious diseases when it comes to cannibalism. The taboo probably evolved biologically and only later gained a moral interpretation. Same deal as incest.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Fascinating
by ilovebeer on Tue 7th Jun 2016 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fascinating "
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Human cannibalism has been present throughout human history and still continues today. As is true with eating the flesh of other animals, eating a diseased food source isn't good for you and eating improperly prepared food isn't good for you (assuming the food needs some sort of preparation). Eating from a healthy food source is ok, even if that food source is human flesh. Cannibalism isn't favored in the animal kingdom because it's counter-productive to a species existence, and/or unacceptable because of some moral basis.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Fascinating
by Drumhellar on Tue 7th Jun 2016 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fascinating "
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

As is true with eating the flesh of other animals, eating a diseased food source isn't good for you and eating improperly prepared food isn't good for you (assuming the food needs some sort of preparation).


I think he's referring specifically to Kuru, though, possibly other prion diseases of the brain. These are especially bad, and can sit dormant for 20+ years, giving no indication that the person you are eating is infected.

Cooking your food may not be enough to destroy them, either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Fascinating
by dionicio on Tue 7th Jun 2016 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Fascinating "
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Prions and slow, autoimmune syndrome related. Workers handling [and breathing] raw meat material at higher risk.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Fascinating
by Lennie on Wed 8th Jun 2016 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fascinating "
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Cannibalism isn't favored in the animal kingdom because it's counter-productive to a species existence, and/or unacceptable because of some moral basis.


Bears eat bears, mostly cubs. Not sure if it was black or brown bears. Just a quick search on Google shows it applies to polar bears too. But they they don't seem to care about how counter-productive it is. I heard a mother bear also has no problem eating her own cub after it was killed by an other.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Fascinating
by avgalen on Tue 7th Jun 2016 12:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fascinating "
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Most animals live in constant danger of being eaten. Most Humans don't.
Most animals eat to survive, not to enjoy.
Most animals don't eat their own species, unless maybe it is necessary to survive.

Comparing humans to animals works on many levels, but also fails on many levels. And not all animals are alike either. The only thing that humans and animals all seem to share is an urge to survive as an individual, a group, and a species.

Interesting how the article mentions that consciousness is mostly approached from a philosophical point of view and that is exactly what is happening here.
I personally believe every human has a right to live. I also believe this right stops when you don't honor it yourself (so if you kill someone, expect to be killed and don't complain about it). I believe this simple principle is both moral and sensical

There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that some of the more advanced animals also have a more advanced consciousness. This is my favorite anecdotal evidence; https://youtu.be/sPIcSriz_fM?t=1285

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Fascinating
by feamatar on Tue 7th Jun 2016 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fascinating "
feamatar Member since:
2014-02-25

Isn't that animals don't kill for fun is an old myth by now?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Fascinating
by unclefester on Thu 9th Jun 2016 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fascinating "
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Isn't that animals don't kill for fun is an old myth by now?


Animals kill to survive. They are not going to waste energy or risk injury for something frivolous.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Fascinating
by avgalen on Thu 9th Jun 2016 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fascinating "
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Isn't that animals don't kill for fun is an old myth by now?

If you ask such a question, you should point to something that disproves it. I couldn't really find anything that disproves it myself. The closest I came was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing and that mentions "surplus killing happens when circumstances are better than normal in order to procure food for offspring and others, to gain valuable killing experience, and to create the opportunity to eat the carcass later when they are hungry again". "fun" isn't mentioned

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fascinating
by terra on Tue 7th Jun 2016 09:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fascinating "
terra Member since:
2012-11-01

In certain cultures throughout history humans have eaten other humans. Is this OK because If you are not taking the life of the human, something else will: another animal, human, or just time.


Not just certain cultures, most likely quite a number from our (yours and mine too) ancestors most likely have eaten human flesh under famine. not thousands or tens thousands of years but probably as recently as hundreds of years ago. Don't be a racist.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Fascinating
by pmac on Tue 7th Jun 2016 09:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fascinating "
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08

You have no idea what my ancestral background is, which cultures I was referring to, or which race I am. Calling me racist out of pedantry is uncalled for.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Fascinating
by Drumhellar on Tue 7th Jun 2016 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fascinating "
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Except certain cultures did eat the flesh of others as a cultural practice and tradition, and not just extreme necessity such as famine.

The mere mention of this practice is not racist. Get over yourself.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fascinating
by Morgan on Tue 7th Jun 2016 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fascinating "
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I just finished reading "Dies the Fire" by S.M. Stirling, and a minor subplot deals with cannibalism in the wake of the main plot device, the loss of all forms of electricity and high-pressure energy (gunpowder fizzles instead of exploding, steam engines can't build pressure, etc) on Earth.

The author posits that it doesn't take very long for starvation to cause certain groups of people to resort to cannibalism, and his position is that it drives the cannibals to insanity. They revert to an animal like mental state and stop functioning as "humans". The protagonists consider them not worth living, and mercilessly hunt them down, only sparing the children who likely had no real idea what they were eating.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fascinating
by unclefester on Tue 7th Jun 2016 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Fascinating "
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

If you are not taking the life of the animal, something else will: another animal or just time.
.


I don't think the "he would have died anyway" defence would work in a murder trial.

Cattle have natural lifespans of around 20-25 years. Pigs and sheep live about 15-20 years. Even chickens live for 3-5 years.. That is 10-20x as long as they live when they are farmed.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Fascinating
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Jun 2016 08:45 UTC in reply to "Fascinating "
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is fascinating. I'm curious, given your views on consciousness in non-human animals, Thom - do you eat animals? And if so how do you reconcile that with your views?


The same way I look at a lion eating a gazelle.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fascinating
by pmac on Tue 7th Jun 2016 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Fascinating "
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08

That's a flawed argument in a huge number of ways. The lion would die if it did not eat the gazelle. The lion has no other choice. The death of the gazelle can keep the lion and its young alive. The gazelle lives a natural life up until its death. The lion's taste for the gazelle isn't one of the major contributors to climate change.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fascinating
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Jun 2016 09:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fascinating "
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That's a flawed argument in a huge number of ways. The lion would die if it did not eat the gazelle. The lion has no other choice. The death of the gazelle can keep the lion and its young alive. The gazelle lives a natural life up until its death. The lion's taste for the gazelle isn't one of the major contributors to climate change.


1. Not all farming is inhumane.

2. I pay more for meat in order to get meat from animals treated responsibly.

3. I don't eat a whole lot of meat to begin with, because it isn't necessary to do so.

4. A 'wild' sheep or cow is just as likely to be murdered by predators as the gazelle. Your argument cuts both ways.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Fascinating
by pmac on Tue 7th Jun 2016 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fascinating "
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08


1. Not all farming is inhumane.


It's definitely the case that some farms are better than others. In the best farm, is it OK to raise sentient beings and then kill them so we can eat their bodies, and if so, why? Because we're smarter than them? If a human with a mental disability, no smarter than a pig, and with no family were killed and eaten, would that be OK so long as they were treated well up until their death? I obviously think not, but it's hard to make the case that there's any difference between that and killing an animal of similar intelligence. All that aside, the environmental impact alone makes eating meat from "good" farms ethically questionable.


2. I pay more for meat in t to get meat from animals treated responsibly.


That's certainly better than buying cheap meat. I'm hoping cultured meat will solve this problem in the next 10-20 years. A lot of progress has been made in this area recently.

3. I don't eat a whole lot of meat to begin with, because it isn't necessary to do so.

If everyone cut back it would be of enormous benefit to the environment.

4. A 'wild' sheep or cow is just as likely to be murdered by predators as the gazelle. Your argument cuts both ways.


I don't think it does. They only exist (particularly cows) because of farming. They're not in balance with predators, and a wild animal has a fighting (or running) chance. That said, I'm in favour of greatly reducing the number of those animals, so within a generation if we stopped farming them there'd be very few of them. Factory farming is a bigger polluter than all the transport on the planet combined. We really have a responsibility to reduce their numbers rather than the breed-and-kill cycle we're currently following.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Fascinating
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 7th Jun 2016 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fascinating "
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

The answer is humans are weird, hairless, tool using primates who have a fetish for accessorizing, and when stripped of all of our decorations, we ultimately just want to have sex, eat, not die, and get a little high.

Biologically, people are powered by sugar and fat. Sugar is rare in nature, but animals are excellent fat collection and storage units. Being the clever monkeys that we are, we figured out some species would be friendly to us if we fed and protected them. In return, we would eat some of them. It was win win. ;) Animal husbandry has been observed in other species, so it's not unusual.

Unfortunately, we're a little too clever for our own good, and we've taken everything to an extreme. We've learned the answers, but we haven't learned the questions, which has resulted in the system being horribly distorted. What once was a symbiotic relationship has turned into a cancerous caricature, and we've ruined the quality along the way as well. We still hang onto the notion that we should eat tons of sugar and tons of meat, but in actuality, that is not what the human diet has looked like in any century except the last, skipping over nobility who could sort of approximate a modern diet at times.

I do agree with you about factory farms being huge polluters, and we need to do something about the policies that enable them.

To close, let's indulge in your favorite intoxicant, char your favorite fat source, have consensual sex, and hopefully not die along the way. Yay, humans! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Fascinating
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fascinating "
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Very Flat Land Kind, your Species, no doubt ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Fascinating
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fascinating "
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Cheers!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fascinating
by terra on Tue 7th Jun 2016 09:08 UTC in reply to "Fascinating "
terra Member since:
2012-11-01

This is fascinating. I'm curious, given your views on consciousness in non-human animals, Thom - do you eat animals? And if so how do you reconcile that with your views?


Why do you need to reconcile at all ??

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fascinating
by DrillSgt on Tue 7th Jun 2016 14:01 UTC in reply to "Fascinating "
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

Well, one has to look at survival. Everything on the planet that grows is a food source for something else. If we don't eat the animals, do we eat the plants then? Why is it okay to torture plants, which have recently been proven to feel pain and have a consciousness of sorts?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fascinating
by pmac on Tue 7th Jun 2016 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Fascinating "
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08

We're really at an early stage of understanding plants at this level. Given the lack of a central nervous system, it's hard to imagine they experience anything like what we would consider pain. But even if plants do feel pain, they would almost certainly feel it less than a more complex creature, such as a cow.

But let's pretend plant suffering exists - of course by eating animals you are doing nothing to prevent plant suffering since animals eat plants. You could crudely describe a cow as being a machine that turns plants into meat. Why not cut out the middle man and eat the plants directly? That certainly causes less suffering than eating the cow, which ate the plants. A cow will also eat a much greater amount of plants than humans would need to eat in order to get the same number of calories the cow's meat provides.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fascinating
by Lennie on Wed 8th Jun 2016 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fascinating "
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Eating cow is really inefficient in general if compared to eating plants. Doesn't matter what way you look at it: animal well being, plants, environmental, use of water, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fascinating
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fascinating "
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Imagine that infinitely into the future, We will go further down the food chain. Down to the point where We could jump out of it -fully sinterized food- if some emergency status requires it.

[So far in the future as -everybody will be eternally happy in (your version of paradise here)- to qualify as Religion].

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Fascinating
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fascinating "
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Could also become the predators of our Sci-Fi Horror Movies. Bad dreams of others, surviving Species would be us. Aren't we the bad dreams of the World, already?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fascinating
by ilovebeer on Tue 7th Jun 2016 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Fascinating "
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Plants don't feel pain, they simply don't have the systems to do so. But, they do respond to stimulus and that can be interpreted as `feeling` something.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fascinating
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 7th Jun 2016 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fascinating "
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

How is that different then anything else? Pain is just a stimulus we don't like.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Fascinating
by Drumhellar on Tue 7th Jun 2016 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fascinating "
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

How is that different then anything else? Pain is just a stimulus we don't like.


Plants have no capacity for like/dislike.

Even then, pain is more than just stimulus we don't like. We have dedicated neural pathways that for handling pain, dedicated parts of the brain for handling pain, and even specific nerve receptors - insects lack these receptors, but some have functional equivalents, suggesting that many, if not most, insects do not feel pain.

Plants have none of these things. What they do have is a generalized system of physiological responses to various stimuli. This is not the same as pain, as humans also have a variety of physiological responses to various stimuli, both positive, and negative, that are not pain.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fascinating
by Gargyle on Thu 9th Jun 2016 07:04 UTC in reply to "Fascinating "
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

Since when is having a consciousness a criterium for not being considered someone's meal? Isn't that completely arbitrary?

Reply Score: 1

Biological driver
by Adurbe on Tue 7th Jun 2016 09:13 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think what made us different was that we utterly dominated.

There are few (if any?) animals that can spend a day without worrying if there will be food or if we are going to be eaten. This allowed us to occupy that time with other tasks that wernt of immediate need or instict. Like Planning a hunt.


p.s. i am talking as a species, I am well aware there are people world wide Now who have these worries about food, hopefully less about being eaten though.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Biological driver
by unclefester on Tue 7th Jun 2016 09:36 UTC in reply to "Biological driver"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

IThere are few (if any?) animals that can spend a day without worrying if there will be food or if we are going to be eaten. This allowed us to occupy that time with other tasks that wernt of immediate need or instict. Like Planning a hunt.



Food security has only existed for 150 years or so. Even Western Europe suffered massive peacetime famines as recently as the 1840s. In many places hunger is still an everyday reality.

Edited 2016-06-07 09:38 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Biological driver
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Biological driver"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Long Term Food Security still a pipe dream.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Biological driver
by tonny on Thu 9th Jun 2016 05:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Biological driver"
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

Yeah. Moreover with this many of human alive. Plus 10.000 (estimate) baby born everyday, and will increase as time passes.

Reply Score: 2

Theory
by kwan_e on Tue 7th Jun 2016 11:31 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Minor nitpicks (for the linked article, not Thom's writeup):

If the theory is right - and that has yet to be determined


I don't think it qualifies as a theory then.

consciousness is the ultimate result of that evolutionary sequence


There's no ultimate result in evolution. AST itself would predict further forms, and perhaps computerized forms.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Theory
by drcouzelis on Tue 7th Jun 2016 12:43 UTC in reply to "Theory"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

Minor nitpicks (for the linked article, not Thom's writeup): "If the theory is right - and that has yet to be determined"

I don't think it qualifies as a theory then.

I'm trying to get better at this myself. Colloquially it is fine, but technically it should say "If the hypothesis is correct..." or "If the idea is correct...". ...Is that right?

Edited 2016-06-07 12:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Theory
by avgalen on Tue 7th Jun 2016 13:11 UTC in reply to "Theory"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

"If the theory is right - and that has yet to be determined

I don't think it qualifies as a theory then.
"
Of course it qualifies as a theory. This is the definition of a theory. Theories don't have to be right or proven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)

"consciousness is the ultimate result of that evolutionary sequence

There's no ultimate result in evolution. AST itself would predict further forms, and perhaps computerized forms.
" [/q]
How about we say current/this consciousness is the current ultimate result of that evolutionary sequence?
"That evolutionary sequence" has had multiple results of which the ultimate (most impressive, not final) is current consciousness. Further evolution is certainly possible. (Super Sayan was the ultimate form of Sayan for a while, but not the final ultimate form ;) )

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Theory
by kwan_e on Tue 7th Jun 2016 13:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Theory"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"[q]If the theory is right - and that has yet to be determined

I don't think it qualifies as a theory then.
"
Of course it qualifies as a theory. This is the definition of a theory. Theories don't have to be right or proven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) [/q]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Don't know about you, but it's pretty clear from the context we're talking about science.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Theory
by avgalen on Thu 9th Jun 2016 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Theory"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Thanks for pointing me to the scientific theory instead of regular theory. But just because the word theory is used in a scientific article/context doesn't mean they are talking about a scientific theory here. Actually the "and that has yet to be proven" basically says "it is just a theory for now, not a scientific theory yet"

Reply Score: 2

v Bah Humbug!
by knightrider on Tue 7th Jun 2016 14:35 UTC
RE: Bah Humbug!
by ilovebeer on Tue 7th Jun 2016 15:09 UTC in reply to "Bah Humbug!"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

We were given consciousness and set apart from animals by a higher power. This Darwinism is causing confusion. Why did humans develop a higher consciousness while monkeys didn't? They weren't created with it. It's that simple. Humans were created to be special and set apart from other animals and to have dominion over everything created after them.

We don't know to what degree other animals have consciousness. There's no evidence pointing towards monkeys lacking the `higher consciousness` of humans.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bah Humbug!
by darknexus on Tue 7th Jun 2016 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Bah Humbug!"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

By arguing with a hard core creationist (which the OP clearly is given their choice of wording), you've already lost. Don't encourage them. It's attention and validation they want, not intelligent discussion.

Edited 2016-06-07 15:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Bah Humbug!
by Drumhellar on Tue 7th Jun 2016 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bah Humbug!"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

You can't use reason to change the mind of somebody that didn't use reason to arrive at their opinion.

Edited 2016-06-07 17:04 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Bah Humbug!
by darknexus on Tue 7th Jun 2016 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bah Humbug!"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

You can't use reason to change the mind of somebody that didn't use reason to arrive at their opinion.

My point exactly. The trouble I have with most of these people isn't that they believe something I don't, but rather they make no effort to even attempt to verify their conclusions. They believe it, that's enough and if you don't, so they say, the proof is on you. I say the burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. If someone's going to tell me that humans were created by a higher power, they'd better be ready to offer genuine evidence, and evidence of the scientific variety not a book or set of books with no provenance other than the word of some long dead powerful figure.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Bah Humbug!
by Lennie on Wed 8th Jun 2016 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Bah Humbug!"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

...The trouble I have with most of these people isn't that they believe something I don't, but rather they make no effort to even attempt to verify their conclusions. They believe it, that's enough...


That is why it's called a believe system or religion.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bah Humbug!
by knightrider on Tue 7th Jun 2016 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Bah Humbug!"
knightrider Member since:
2006-12-11

"We were given consciousness and set apart from animals by a higher power. This Darwinism is causing confusion. Why did humans develop a higher consciousness while monkeys didn't? They weren't created with it. It's that simple. Humans were created to be special and set apart from other animals and to have dominion over everything created after them.

We don't know to what degree other animals have consciousness. There's no evidence pointing towards monkeys lacking the `higher consciousness` of humans.
"

There is no evidence pointing towards monkeys having the "higher consciousness" either....Humans are the only "animals" with this "higher consciousness" my friend. Evolution can only explain so much and no more.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bah Humbug!
by Morgan on Wed 8th Jun 2016 00:51 UTC in reply to "Bah Humbug!"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

a higher power


Alien, or Abrahamic?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bah Humbug!
by Gargyle on Thu 9th Jun 2016 07:08 UTC in reply to "Bah Humbug!"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

We were given consciousness and set apart from animals by a higher power.

I reject your premise on the basis that it lacks any proof whatsoever and that claims must be proven (or failed to be falsified while still being falsifiable) before being accepted.

Alas, insert coin and try again.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Bah Humbug!
by cacheline on Fri 10th Jun 2016 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Bah Humbug!"
cacheline Member since:
2016-06-10

The same goes for origins of life from naturalistic processes. We have never observed abiogenesis in a lab. Further, even if we did, that would at most proved it could happen, not that it did happen.

While modern evolutionists may not be concerned with origins of life, without life, there could be no evolution. So, building evolution w/o understanding our origins is like building a skyscraper w/o a foundation.

So, determining origins requires a degree of faith. Not necessarily a "blind faith", but an educated faith based on available evidences. We create one or more models, just like for any scientific theory, and the model that best fits the data should be accepted, unless and until evidence points more towards another model.

The model that best fits the evidence is a creator, God, who did not use macro-evolution, but created everything in six 24-hour periods. The degree of precision required for life on Earth is so stringent, a reasonable person would not conclude it occurred by mere chance or accident. Nor, would any reasonable person then state that there's no God, but that aliens planted life here. (1) Because we have no evidence of aliens doing so. (2) Because that only shows the origins of life on Earth, not in the universe (or multiverse, however you want to look at it).

Creationists do no lack evidence. They just have their evidence constantly ridiculed and ignored. And quite often, in my own discussions, I find it is by those who are unaware of the specifics of the evidence, and have no desire to educate themselves. For instance, http://www.apologeticspress.org, gives many evidences, both for the existence of God and for reasons to doubt evolution and the big bang. And lest someone think it's just some Bible-thumping preachers writing a personal blog and making up stuff: the articles have bibliographies pointing to the scientific literature backing their statements, so you can look it up yourself instead of summarily dismissing it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Bah Humbug!
by darknexus on Fri 10th Jun 2016 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bah Humbug!"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Uh huh. But I think your so-called God forgot about the dinosaurs. Did you attend Liberty Baptist College or something?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Bah Humbug!
by Gargyle on Sat 11th Jun 2016 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bah Humbug!"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

The same goes for origins of life from naturalistic processes. We have never observed abiogenesis in a lab. Further, even if we did, that would at most proved it could happen, not that it did happen.


*If* they prove one of the current model is feasible, then we can use that model as the current candidate for what might have happened in the past. If at any time proof surfaces that contradicts the currently accepted model, then that model will be rejected and the search for a better model starts over. This is the way of science.

While modern evolutionists may not be concerned with origins of life, without life, there could be no evolution. So, building evolution w/o understanding our origins is like building a skyscraper w/o a foundation.


There are enough scientists involved in thinking about and coming up with tests for those models about how life might have started on our earth. Why wouldn't they be concerned with that? And if they aren't, what does it say about them? It's just not in their current scope then, since as a scientist you cannot be concerned with everything at the same time.

So, determining origins requires a degree of faith. Not necessarily a "blind faith", but an educated faith based on available evidences. We create one or more models, just like for any scientific theory, and the model that best fits the data should be accepted, unless and until evidence points more towards another model.


Exactly so. But it isn't the blind faith that is usually related to religious people. It's more the hope that your model will fit and will stand the test of time. It's not at all the same as faith that you talk about in religious context, so you shouldn't bring it up.

The model that best fits the evidence is a creator, God, who did not use macro-evolution, but created everything in six 24-hour periods.


You say that like it's an unrefuted fact, but unfortunately it isn't. Again, you say that the current scientific understanding of evolution and abiogenesis hasn't been proven so you reject it, but then you go on and just put this here, without any scrutiny. Where is your scientific method now?

The degree of precision required for life on Earth is so stringent, a reasonable person would not conclude it occurred by mere chance or accident. Nor, would any reasonable person then state that there's no God, but that aliens planted life here.


What do you mean by the degree of precision required for life on earth? You mean the temperature, available resources, the protective magnetic field and resulting atmosphere, etc?

Do you believe in luck or general chance for that matter? Do you think it's impossible to win the lottery without the help of a higher power?

Any reasonable person *will* state there is no god, because we cannot accept the premise of its presence before it has been proven. We can try models, but we cannot see them as correct until they have been proven and haven't been refuted by other evidence in the meanwhile. Until then: sorry, but no god. If you do want to believe in a god without any evidence to back it up, you might as well believe in a tea pot flying through space or the flying spaghetti monster as your supreme deity.

(1) Because we have no evidence of aliens doing so. (2) Because that only shows the origins of life on Earth, not in the universe (or multiverse, however you want to look at it).

Creationists do no lack evidence.


Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Instead of saying it, why don't you provide the evidence?

They just have their evidence constantly ridiculed and ignored.


I'm sorry, but it is not creationists but scientists whose evidence is constantly ridiculed and ignored, by religious nutters that think they can use science against itself while dismissing their own warped views, while it is clear that they are just stupidly ignoring reason and sanity.

And quite often, in my own discussions, I find it is by those who are unaware of the specifics of the evidence, and have no desire to educate themselves.


That's not a fair tool in discussion: blaming others for not seeing reason, while it is you that deviates from the path of the scientific method.

For instance, http://www.apologeticspress.org, gives many evidences, both for the existence of God and for reasons to doubt evolution and the big bang. And lest someone think it's just some Bible-thumping preachers writing a personal blog and making up stuff: the articles have bibliographies pointing to the scientific literature backing their statements, so you can look it up yourself instead of summarily dismissing it.

I'm finding it hard to let you convince me of your point of view, but I'm giving it a try. Beware, though, that I will not fall for dogma or false truth. I think the truth I accept is the truth that fits the reality the best, and if another truth is found that fits the reality even better, then that original truth must be discarded and replaced. This last bit is what religion lacks: it does not accept the premise that it might be wrong, it just clings and clings trying to keep itself alive and in power. That's the wrong way.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Bah Humbug!
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 11th Jun 2016 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bah Humbug!"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

While modern evolutionists may not be concerned with origins of life, without life, there could be no evolution.


It's not that "evolutionists" are unconcerned with the origins of life, they simply recognize that it's separate from the way life diversified and changed over time.

So, building evolution w/o understanding our origins is like building a skyscraper w/o a foundation.


No, it really isn't. That's akin to arguing that you can't conclude that a person changed as they aged unless you have a video record of their birth.

So, determining origins requires a degree of faith. Not necessarily a "blind faith", but an educated faith based on available evidences.


Ah yes, evidences - and don't forget about the datums from research projectae.

We create one or more models, just like for any scientific theory, and the model that best fits the data should be accepted, unless and until evidence points more towards another model.


That sounds like a decent description of how science is - or should - be practiced. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how you get from there to your next statement:

The model that best fits the evidence is a creator, God, who did not use macro-evolution, but created everything in six 24-hour periods.


...LOL WUT? I'm gonna give a big 'ol [citation needed] on that one.

The degree of precision required for life on Earth is so stringent, a reasonable person would not conclude it occurred by mere chance or accident.


Actually, reasonable people understand that natural phenomena tend to have natural, non-magical causes.

Nor, would any reasonable person then state that there's no God, but that aliens planted life here. (1) Because we have no evidence of aliens doing so.


Claims presented without evidence should be assumed to be false -- and to an actual reasonable person, both claims fall short of that standard.

I have to say, though -- aliens? Why is that you (and so many other creationists) so determined to assume that "Aliens dunnit" is any kind of mainstream belief amongst "evolutionists"? Pro-tip: the panspermia hypothesis has nothing to do with the Ancient Astronauts/"Chariots of the Gods" BS.

(2) Because that only shows the origins of life on Earth, not in the universe (or multiverse, however you want to look at it).


Amusingly, the only group that criticism actually applies to are the IDiots... sorry, I mean "Cdesign Propontentists".... sorry I mean "Intelligent Design" advocates. By insisting that ID is not religious, and that abiogenesis & evolution is impossible, the only possibilty they leave is aliens. Which just restarts the debate by raising the question of "where did the alien life come from?"

Creationists do no lack evidence.


For example...?

They just have their evidence constantly ridiculed and ignored.


Probably because most creationist "evidence" has been either debunked decades ago, or is dishonest quote-mining of legitimate scientists -- or is just out-and-out fallacy-laden apologetics.

And quite often, in my own discussions, I find it is by those who are unaware of the specifics of the evidence, and have no desire to educate themselves.


...who are/do what? Your sentence seems to be missing it's conclusion. Oh, and... WHAT evidence?

For instance, http://www.apologeticspress.org, gives many evidences, both for the existence of God and for reasons to doubt evolution and the big bang. And lest someone think it's just some Bible-thumping preachers writing a personal blog and making up stuff: the articles have bibliographies pointing to the scientific literature backing their statements, so you can look it up yourself instead of summarily dismissing it.


A site with "apologetics" in the name doesn't exactly inspire confidence -- correct, accurate claims that are positively-indicated by evidence don't need apologetics/ists.

Since you didn't bother linking to any specific articles to backup any of your individual claims, tell you what: how about you save us all some time and answer me one question. Are there ANY claims on the site you linked that haven't already been refuted in numerous places - E.g. the "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw)?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bah Humbug!
by cacheline on Fri 10th Jun 2016 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Bah Humbug!"
cacheline Member since:
2016-06-10

Then do you reject the claim that life began through abiogenesis?

We have never seen it in experiments. And even if we did, at most, that shows it could occur, not that it did occur. I.e., we never saw the alleged event, so it's mere speculation that it has occurred.

And if so, how did life begin? Either it was God or it was naturalistic processes*.

* Even the claim of aliens planting life on Earth fails to fully answer the question. It would only explain origins of life on Earth, not life in general. You'd end up needing to know how life started for the aliens. You could say a 2nd set of aliens planted life for the first set of aliens, but then you're just moving the problem farther and farther back, not answering the original question.

I'd rather have a model with 1000's of pieces of evidence pointing in its direction, even if there's no conclusive proof, than one that's speculative and masquerading as scientific. Namely, the model of creationism. Apologetics Press is a good site to check for many of those evidences. It has bibliographies for all of its articles. Many, if not most, of those bibliographical references pointing to reputable scientific journals and publications.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bah Humbug!
by dionicio on Thu 9th Jun 2016 14:20 UTC in reply to "Bah Humbug!"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Hey, midnight cowboy: If punching accept the punchings.

Arrogant Bullies not welcomed here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bah Humbug!
by dionicio on Thu 9th Jun 2016 14:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Bah Humbug!"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Binary Minds...

Reply Score: 2

What about...
by mgarba on Tue 7th Jun 2016 14:38 UTC
mgarba
Member since:
2011-04-23

... the knowledge of being?

I know that "I am", all of us do. And IMHO that knowledge is beyond the human brain. It doesn't require any sensory input, any thought process to know that one is.

As for the "outside of the universe" and "before the big bang"... interesting questions.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What about...
by darknexus on Tue 7th Jun 2016 14:53 UTC in reply to "What about..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I'd say that everything alive, from the tiniest microbe onward, has at least some knowledge of being and consciousness doesn't enter into that. They may not be able to think about what they are, but they do know that they exist on some level. If not, why try to continue and survive at all?

Reply Score: 2

RE: What about...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Jun 2016 15:12 UTC in reply to "What about..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It doesn't require any sensory input, any thought process to know that one is.


Bollocks. Without any sensory input, you wouldn't know speech, you'd have no inner monologue, you'd have no way of organising your thought stream into words.

It's a very common error to underestimate - or not even consider at all - the impact language has on our sense of self and consciousness. Without any sensory input - without ever having had sensory input - you wouldn't be able to develop an inner monologue, no way to articulate or experience awareness, put it into "words", and actively "think" about it.

Language is probably one of the biggest contributing factors to humans developing what we call "consciousness" - if not the biggest factor.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What about...
by mgarba on Tue 7th Jun 2016 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE: What about..."
mgarba Member since:
2011-04-23

I don't get it, Thom.

To me, if a person, an animal or a plant suffers (by way of example), it's because there's consciousness. Machines don't suffer (for now, at least!); living organisms do.

What does language or speech have to do with it?

In any case, I think there's a big difference between consciousness and self-awareness.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What about...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Jun 2016 15:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You asked about the knowledge of being; not the wider concept of consciousness. The two things are not the same.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What about...
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What about..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

My dog is a conscious been. Is She able to acknowledge that fact, as an idea? There it is the edge of the research, right now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What about...
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Can't ask Her. But can research if She makes use of that idea, as a tool.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What about...
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

My farther memories are about that OVERWHELMING of the senses, of the present tense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What about...
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

These continuously-evolving 'signal-processing' models detach conscience from identity. Which is [an approach]very Oriental [and Old], in its philosophy.

Reply Score: 2

Consiousness has limits ?
by atomic on Tue 7th Jun 2016 14:54 UTC
atomic
Member since:
2014-12-02

[quote]The theory suggests that consciousness arises as a solution to one of the most fundamental problems facing any nervous system: Too much information constantly flows in to be fully processed. [/quote]

Interesting, but who's to say that consciousness (as a phenomenon) has processing limits ? You need to prove the limits before making claims about the subjects application.

Edited 2016-06-07 15:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Consiousness has limits ?
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 17:16 UTC in reply to "Consiousness has limits ?"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Think of the tools a new carpenter aficionado sets or build at disposition. Decades later, mastering his craft, how would his shop look like?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Consiousness has limits ?
by Gargyle on Thu 9th Jun 2016 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Consiousness has limits ?"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

Full of wood chips?

Reply Score: 1

dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Good one, Gargyle ;)

Reply Score: 2

Philosophy 101
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 7th Jun 2016 16:42 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Its an interesting question, that deserves an interesting discussion. Through no one's fault at all, I don't think this is where it will be had.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Philosophy 101
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 17:48 UTC in reply to "Philosophy 101"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Very AI, future IT related.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Philosophy 101
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 17:52 UTC in reply to "Philosophy 101"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Every passing decade will be harder to talk about our constructed environments, without -at the same time- talking about ourselves.

Reply Score: 2

Sigh
by tylerdurden on Tue 7th Jun 2016 17:39 UTC
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

This is more of a "hypothesis" or conjecture than a "theory," No? The article seemed very speculative.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by cb88
by cb88 on Tue 7th Jun 2016 17:58 UTC
cb88
Member since:
2009-04-23

"Ever since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, evolution has been the grand unifying theory of biology." Which he then scoffed at on his deathbed... If you are going to talk about evolution you may as well leave out Darwin since he didn't even believe in it.

You'll find that most evolutionists are decidedly religious in their belief of it. Even to the point of persecuting non believers... (especially college professors...) So, I'm just gonna keep it simple and believe that an omnipotent being,God namely Jesus in my case, created life, and I'll eat me some guilt free pork while I'm at it too, because naturally I'm at the top of the food chain...

It is also noteworthy that many of greatest minds of the past 100 years were not evolutionists, also not being an evolutionist doesn't mean a person doesn't believe mutation, or even that natural selection is impossible just that it isn't the origin of species.

Evolution rides on the same political wave as climate change... while the real science that will improve the world is done elsewhere.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by cb88
by darknexus on Tue 7th Jun 2016 18:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by cb88"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

And your proof of this God hypothesis of yours?
P.S. I'm in no way saying the evolutionists are right, 100%. I do think though, that they are on the right track in attempting to figure things out rather than just "keeping it simple" and believing in religions that are clearly self-contradictory nonsense. At least they're trying.

Edited 2016-06-07 18:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by cb88
by cb88 on Tue 7th Jun 2016 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by cb88"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

I disagree, and that I think is one of the most important freedoms we have. In addition to this scientifically it is of no significant consequence if you and I disagree on this matter!

Which is what really irks me when evolutionists make out like it matters what you believe. Trying to convert me to their "religion" which really doesn't bother me so much except when people get heavy handed about it. Science is science in the end cold hard facts... believe in evolution or not doesn't really hinder science in any way. If anything close mindedness hinders science more than anything...

Edited 2016-06-07 18:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by cb88
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Jun 2016 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by cb88"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

But nobody "believes" in evolution, just as much as nobody "believes" in gravity. It just is. We know evolution is a thing because humans have been exploiting it since time immemorial - everything you eat, every natural material you build with, and so on, has been selectively "evolved" (i.e., bred) by humans to combine the best traits. Once we got the knowledge of genetics, DNA, and all that stuff, we could even selectively "evolve" down to the lowest levels. Pretty sure you'll have somebody in your circle of family and friends who owe their life to some gene-related therapy... An evolution-related therapy.

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity. It just makes no sense.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by cb88
by darknexus on Tue 7th Jun 2016 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by cb88"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity. It just makes no sense.

But it doesn't have to make sense. Religious people are able to selectively shut their brains off, and everyone gives them a free pass for it because well, hey, it's what they believe. Personally, as far as I'm concerned, they can believe whatever self-contradictory nonsense they want. It's when they try to force the rest of us into it that I get pissed off.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by cb88
by darknexus on Tue 7th Jun 2016 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by cb88"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity. It just makes no sense.


To be fair, I'm sure they said the same thing about Zeus in ancient times. There's a lot more evidence for evolution though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by cb88
by cb88 on Tue 7th Jun 2016 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by cb88"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

"It just is" That's what you believe, I certainly don't believe that. It's nothing like gravity other than nobody has really figured out gravity thoroughly yet.

If you couldn't get along and work with me in a scientific environment not dealing with the origin of species... then the problem is on your end not mine.

Also breeding is not natural selection... its unnatural and if anything it's semi-intelligent design. When you have engineered genes in a GMO etc... they don't call them designer genes for nothing.

Edited 2016-06-07 20:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by cb88
by tylerdurden on Tue 7th Jun 2016 23:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by cb88"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

So your counter-argument, to repudiate evolution, is a fabricated myth (that Darwin denied evolution on his deathbed). Fascinating lack of self awareness.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by cb88
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by cb88"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

A new thinkering avenue. Little more than hardly deforested, gravel path.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by cb88
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by cb88"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Oops! Misplaced. should anchor at:

"This is more of a "hypothesis" or conjecture..."

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by cb88
by Gargyle on Thu 9th Jun 2016 07:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by cb88"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

If you are going to talk about evolution you may as well leave out Darwin since he didn't even believe in it.
It doesn't matter if the painter ultimately didn't like his painting, he still painted it himself.
You'll find that most evolutionists are decidedly religious in their belief of it.

First elaborate on what it *is* 'to be religious in their belief of it'. You'll find that real scottsmen aren't using those tactics to defend science. But if they don't, then they aren't practicing science, but just stiffheadedness.
Even to the point of persecuting non believers... (especially college professors...)

I'm sorry, I did not know religious folk had the monopoly on persecuting whoever doesn't agree with them. Also: irrelevant in this discussion.
So, I'm just gonna keep it simple and believe that an omnipotent being,God namely Jesus in my case, created life, and I'll eat me some guilt free pork while I'm at it too, because naturally I'm at the top of the food chain...

If you cannot live your life without fantasies, that's too bad, but if you must you are free to do so.
It is also noteworthy that many of greatest minds of the past 100 years were not evolutionists, also not being an evolutionist doesn't mean a person doesn't believe mutation, or even that natural selection is impossible just that it isn't the origin of species.

Most people haven't a real clue what proper evolutionary theory is about and thus can be counted as being neither an evolutionist nor an anti-evolutionist. They just don't know and don't care.

Evolution rides on the same political wave as climate change... while the real science that will improve the world is done elsewhere.

You may be in denial that there isn't any sign that may prove the existence of a higher power, but you may not be in denial that the current climate is changing for the worst and for the sake of our preservation we should try and do something about it.

Edited 2016-06-09 07:22 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Already answered
by JLF65 on Tue 7th Jun 2016 22:53 UTC
JLF65
Member since:
2005-07-06

You can take the whole concept of consciousness in every which way, and one of my recent favourites is CGP Grey's video The Trouble With Transporters, which, among other tings, poses the question - if you interrupt your consciousness by being teleported or going to sleep, are you really the same person when you rematerialise or wake up?


Science already answered this decades ago - your conscious is not interrupted, it's ALTERED. Even if you aren't aware or remember it later, you still have a conscious mind working in a different state than normal. We even have different names for those different states of consciousness. We have measured/monitored those states with ever-better equipment. So you simply cannot equate sleeping or being unconscious (due to injury or anesthesia) to death. Death is generally now even defined as a lack of any of those measured states of consciousness.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Already answered
by dionicio on Wed 8th Jun 2016 19:19 UTC in reply to "Already answered"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Really in need of reboot at critical moments. 2 o 3 times a week, of lately ;)

Full Stop, Blank, Reassess.

Reply Score: 2

Belief systems...
by vtpoet on Thu 9th Jun 2016 02:29 UTC
vtpoet
Member since:
2013-12-31

//Personally, I'm one of those insufferable people who ascribes the entire concept of consciousness to the specific arrangement of neurons and related tissue in our brain and wider nervous system...//

That's not insufferable. That's metaphysical naturalism. That's a belief system like any other, no different than a religious belief system -- and not scientific in any way.

As for myself, I'd rather not get attached to any belief systems. The book on consciousness is still wide open. The article quoted is interesting, but pure speculation.

Edited 2016-06-09 02:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Belief systems...
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 9th Jun 2016 06:07 UTC in reply to "Belief systems..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That's a belief system like any other, no different than a religious belief system -- and not scientific in any way.


It's the ultimate scientific way of looking at it. The simplest, most logical explanation until we arrive at something better. It requires no magic, special bearded white cloud men, arrangements of words that make them have magical powers, or whatever other non-scientific nonsense.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Belief systems...
by vtpoet on Thu 9th Jun 2016 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Belief systems..."
vtpoet Member since:
2013-12-31

//It's the ultimate scientific way of looking at it.//

No it's not. Science is a methodology, not a springboard from which one can make assertions without evidence (though that's what individuals do every day whilst calling their beliefs "scientific"). That's metaphysical naturalism and it's a belief system.

The proper "scientific way" of looking at it is methodological naturalism; and that requires us to say that we first have to establish what consciousness is before we can establish how the brain might have created it.

All I'm saying is, someone like Thom is welcome to express their beliefs (as well as those who wrote the article) but they don't get to drape themselves in the mantel of "Science". They're expressing beliefs as to the origination of consciousness. Who knows, they may be right; and they may not be.

Edited 2016-06-09 12:27 UTC

Reply Score: 1