| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Little Me" |
| Date: |
13 Jan 2005 01:15:05 PM |
| Object: |
Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
DISCLAIMER: If you are Christian, then sod off and do not reply to this
thread, because no one replying to this thread will want to hear from you,
okay? Well? Get gone then you Bible thumper! . . . . .
Okay, no more sh*t or silly jokes from me (for a while anyway), I was
reading something yesterday that pricked my mind a little, it was regarding
evolution and how we, came to be, that which we are, so I was gonna ask you
guys . . .
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
What benefit would it have on a species?
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the world,
colonise most and pushed animals from their natural environment, making
several hundred thousand species extinct by the very actions of our hands,
we have managed to cause global warming and are on the brink of killing
everyone on the planet at a simple order of "Fire" so then, if nature is
evolution and the evolution of things, that make better species is life, why
are we where we are, does this mean evolution went wrong?
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that we in
fact exist in a finite sense?
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world was so
complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
?? Anyone
.
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
13 Jan 2005 03:44:19 PM |
|
|
"Little Me" <soul.lover@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:ZMzFd.361$3g5.131@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:
<snip>
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
It was a result of increased brain size. There is no sharp deliniation
between those organisms that can be considered consciously aware of
themselves and there surroundings and those organisms that aren't.
What benefit would it have on a species?
It may not have conferred any advantage at all but simply been what
Gould called a spandrel in that it is simply an accompanying 'side
effect' of some other adaptation.
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the
world, colonise most and pushed animals from their natural
environment, making several hundred thousand species extinct by the
very actions of our hands, we have managed to cause global warming and
are on the brink of killing everyone on the planet at a simple order
of "Fire" so then, if nature is evolution and the evolution of
things, that make better species is life, why are we where we are,
does this mean evolution went wrong?
Evolution has no purpose, no goal and no direction, it simply is a
result of a change in the evolutionary selection landscape. It does not
make things better, in other words, there is no procession from
undeveloped to developed, simple to complex. It can not forsee the
results of any changes that occur and plan ahead to prevent 'bad'
organisms. As was mentioned by Denis, all that is important is that an
organism lives long enough to reproduce and has more surviving progeny
that reproduce than others do.
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that we
in fact exist in a finite sense?
See above.
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world
was so complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
Unfortunately the brain's view of the world is anything but complete.
The brain can only receive impulses from our senses and makes an
'educated guess' as to the meaning of that impulse based on genetics,
the interpretation of previous experience and the current balance of
chemicals.
The connection to self awareness was necessitated by tool use.
Tool use is a byproduct of intelligence.
Our intelligence is a result of our social structure.
Our social structure allowed us to survive.
Then again I could be just full of *****.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
17 Jan 2005 06:58:14 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2005 21:44:19 GMT, Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
"Little Me" <soul.lover@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:ZMzFd.361$3g5.131@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:
<snip>
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
It was a result of increased brain size. There is no sharp deliniation
between those organisms that can be considered consciously aware of
themselves and there surroundings and those organisms that aren't.
What benefit would it have on a species?
It may not have conferred any advantage at all but simply been what
Gould called a spandrel in that it is simply an accompanying 'side
effect' of some other adaptation.
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the
world, colonise most and pushed animals from their natural
environment, making several hundred thousand species extinct by the
very actions of our hands, we have managed to cause global warming and
are on the brink of killing everyone on the planet at a simple order
of "Fire" so then, if nature is evolution and the evolution of
things, that make better species is life, why are we where we are,
does this mean evolution went wrong?
Evolution has no purpose, no goal and no direction, it simply is a
result of a change in the evolutionary selection landscape. It does not
make things better, in other words, there is no procession from
undeveloped to developed, simple to complex. It can not forsee the
results of any changes that occur and plan ahead to prevent 'bad'
organisms. As was mentioned by Denis, all that is important is that an
organism lives long enough to reproduce and has more surviving progeny
that reproduce than others do.
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that we
in fact exist in a finite sense?
See above.
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world
was so complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
Unfortunately the brain's view of the world is anything but complete.
The brain can only receive impulses from our senses and makes an
'educated guess' as to the meaning of that impulse based on genetics,
the interpretation of previous experience and the current balance of
chemicals.
The connection to self awareness was necessitated by tool use.
Tool use is a byproduct of intelligence.
Our intelligence is a result of our social structure.
Our social structure allowed us to survive.
Then again I could be just full of *****.
Not anymore!!!!!
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
17 Jan 2005 10:14:47 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:nonou09cvuav92flhmh455e6uh78dgo8ir@4ax.com:
On 13 Jan 2005 21:44:19 GMT, Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
"Little Me" <soul.lover@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:ZMzFd.361$3g5.131@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:
<snip>
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
It was a result of increased brain size. There is no sharp deliniation
between those organisms that can be considered consciously aware of
themselves and there surroundings and those organisms that aren't.
What benefit would it have on a species?
It may not have conferred any advantage at all but simply been what
Gould called a spandrel in that it is simply an accompanying 'side
effect' of some other adaptation.
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the
world, colonise most and pushed animals from their natural
environment, making several hundred thousand species extinct by the
very actions of our hands, we have managed to cause global warming
and are on the brink of killing everyone on the planet at a simple
order of "Fire" so then, if nature is evolution and the evolution
of things, that make better species is life, why are we where we
are, does this mean evolution went wrong?
Evolution has no purpose, no goal and no direction, it simply is a
result of a change in the evolutionary selection landscape. It does
not make things better, in other words, there is no procession from
undeveloped to developed, simple to complex. It can not forsee the
results of any changes that occur and plan ahead to prevent 'bad'
organisms. As was mentioned by Denis, all that is important is that an
organism lives long enough to reproduce and has more surviving progeny
that reproduce than others do.
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that
we in fact exist in a finite sense?
See above.
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the
world was so complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
Unfortunately the brain's view of the world is anything but complete.
The brain can only receive impulses from our senses and makes an
'educated guess' as to the meaning of that impulse based on genetics,
the interpretation of previous experience and the current balance of
chemicals.
The connection to self awareness was necessitated by tool use.
Tool use is a byproduct of intelligence.
Our intelligence is a result of our social structure.
Our social structure allowed us to survive.
Then again I could be just full of *****.
Not anymore!!!!!
Oh no. I still have plenty more where that came from. Would you like to
see it?
--
apatriot #23, aa #2179, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
18 Jan 2005 07:04:55 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2005 04:14:47 GMT, Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
news:nonou09cvuav92flhmh455e6uh78dgo8ir@4ax.com:
On 13 Jan 2005 21:44:19 GMT, Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
"Little Me" <soul.lover@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:ZMzFd.361$3g5.131@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:
<snip>
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
It was a result of increased brain size. There is no sharp deliniation
between those organisms that can be considered consciously aware of
themselves and there surroundings and those organisms that aren't.
What benefit would it have on a species?
It may not have conferred any advantage at all but simply been what
Gould called a spandrel in that it is simply an accompanying 'side
effect' of some other adaptation.
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the
world, colonise most and pushed animals from their natural
environment, making several hundred thousand species extinct by the
very actions of our hands, we have managed to cause global warming
and are on the brink of killing everyone on the planet at a simple
order of "Fire" so then, if nature is evolution and the evolution
of things, that make better species is life, why are we where we
are, does this mean evolution went wrong?
Evolution has no purpose, no goal and no direction, it simply is a
result of a change in the evolutionary selection landscape. It does
not make things better, in other words, there is no procession from
undeveloped to developed, simple to complex. It can not forsee the
results of any changes that occur and plan ahead to prevent 'bad'
organisms. As was mentioned by Denis, all that is important is that an
organism lives long enough to reproduce and has more surviving progeny
that reproduce than others do.
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that
we in fact exist in a finite sense?
See above.
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the
world was so complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
Unfortunately the brain's view of the world is anything but complete.
The brain can only receive impulses from our senses and makes an
'educated guess' as to the meaning of that impulse based on genetics,
the interpretation of previous experience and the current balance of
chemicals.
The connection to self awareness was necessitated by tool use.
Tool use is a byproduct of intelligence.
Our intelligence is a result of our social structure.
Our social structure allowed us to survive.
Then again I could be just full of *****.
Not anymore!!!!!
Oh no. I still have plenty more where that came from. Would you like to
see it?
All things must pass, and I do so pass.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
13 Jan 2005 02:28:55 PM |
|
|
"Little Me" <soul.lover@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ZMzFd.361$3g5.131@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
DISCLAIMER: If you are Christian, then sod off and do not reply to this
thread, because no one replying to this thread will want to hear from you,
okay? Well? Get gone then you Bible thumper! . . . . .
Okay, no more sh*t or silly jokes from me (for a while anyway), I was
reading something yesterday that pricked my mind a little, it was
regarding
evolution and how we, came to be, that which we are, so I was gonna ask
you
guys . . .
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
Survival advantage.
What benefit would it have on a species?
Our level of consciousness has allowed us to adapt the environment to our
needs.
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the
world,
colonise most and pushed animals from their natural environment, making
several hundred thousand species extinct by the very actions of our hands,
we have managed to cause global warming and are on the brink of killing
everyone on the planet at a simple order of "Fire" so then, if nature is
evolution and the evolution of things, that make better species is life,
why
are we where we are, does this mean evolution went wrong?
No, it just means that evolution works on a very long time scale, and we've
done our damage on a very short timescale.
Evolution doesn't care what an organism does to its environment as long as
it survives to reproduce.
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that we in
fact exist in a finite sense?
The same cognative abilities that allow us to survive can be put to other
purposes.
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world was
so
complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
It helps in planning.
That's my two cents.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
13 Jan 2005 01:45:42 PM |
|
|
"Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world
was so complete, that it had to include a model of itself?"
I think this is the correct short answer. The correct long answer is
horrendously long; the brain scientists are just begining to figure it
out, and you and I wouldn't understand the answer anyway.
But yes, it probably turns out that the easiest way for a mobile
creature to deal with the world is to form a model of the world, a
model of itself in the world, and be aware of its needs - e.g. hunger,
lust, curiousity, etc.
I suspect that any destructive effects humans have on the environment
have nothing to do with our being self-aware per se. It is rather the
effect of being tools users that have developed high technology, and
our instincts did not evolve to put any checks and balances on our
being anything but paleolithic tool-using apes. Our instincts are
inappropriate for factory-building apes. I am not at all sure that
intelligent rats or chimps or octopuses would do any better.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
13 Jan 2005 09:44:09 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Little Me poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
Consciousness integrates a variety of information streams from the
different senses into a holistic, unified whole. Our mind then has to
deal only with a single picture of reality, rather than multiple
realities. Having an integrated picture means being able to correlate
numerous pieces of information and understand how they are related.
This has obvious survival value. For example, by having an integrated
view then there are various different ways to recognize a particular
danger, which improves the chances for avoiding that danger.
Another benefit is that a unified picture allows us to effectively think
in the abstract. We can model reality in our minds because we only have
to deal with one picture of reality, and we can manipulate reality in
the abstract and understand how it will behave.
....
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the world,
colonise most and pushed animals from their natural environment, making
several hundred thousand species extinct by the very actions of our hands,
we have managed to cause global warming and are on the brink of killing
everyone on the planet at a simple order of "Fire" so then, if nature is
evolution and the evolution of things, that make better species is life, why
are we where we are, does this mean evolution went wrong?
Consciousness means (self) awareness. I don't see how this can be held
responsible for the problems you mention.
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that we in
fact exist in a finite sense?
It would appear that you are asking why we don't have an inherent sense
of the limits of our existence. It is unlikely that evolution could
supply such information, since evolution finds ways around limits. The
only way to find out the limits of our existence is to experience them.
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world was so
complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
Consciousness is not a model of the brain; it is a model of reality.
Regards,
Josef
Science doesn't have all the answers, only the most likely ones.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
13 Jan 2005 03:14:57 PM |
|
|
Little Me wrote:
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
What benefit would it have on a species?
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the world,
colonise most and pushed animals from their natural environment, making
several hundred thousand species extinct by the very actions of our hands,
we have managed to cause global warming and are on the brink of killing
everyone on the planet at a simple order of "Fire" so then, if nature is
evolution and the evolution of things, that make better species is life, why
are we where we are, does this mean evolution went wrong?
Evolution happens. It doesn't have a goal. If humans manage to
survive, we'll contiune to evolve.
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that we in
fact exist in a finite sense?
We are self aware because our brains are big and capable of being self
aware....and it appears they got big because it offers a survival
advantage.
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world was so
complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
I think that conciousness probably developed as the brain evolved to
it's current large size. The modeling idea is a good explanation for
it, but more likely to model the world around us, and specifically to
be able to model what *other* people are thinking. Apparently
language is also a significant factor.....it seems to be a part of
conciousness as we know it, and offers enough advantage in society
that it could be a driving force in giving us such big brains.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Lias" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
18 Jan 2005 10:55:00 PM |
|
|
Little Me wrote:
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
I seriously hope that you aren't expecting a comprehensive answer in a
Usenet thread!
If you are really interested in the subject, I'd recommend picking up
some good books on the subject. One excellent place to start (even
though I don't agree with all of his theories) is Dennett's
_Consciousness Explained_.
If you insist on an answer, the simple answer is that there is not a
definitive answer. Cognitive research is still an infant science. We
don't really have a firm theory to even account for consciousness
(yet!), so explaining its adaptive benefits is still a bit early.
That said, one of the theories that I rather like has to do with
something called Theories of Mind. Basically the idea is that one of
the things that social animals need to do is to be able to not only
model their physical environment but also create mental models of the
other members of their tribes. You see something like that in modern
chimpanzie troops. It is hypothesized that beyond a certain threshold,
this results in a cognitive arms race where there is selective pressure
to be a better modeler. Of course the genes for better cognitive
modeling spread, the need for even better modeling intensified. It is
further hypothesized that there comes a point where it becomes
advantageous and even necessary to not only model others but to be able
to model your own mental states. In other words, an environment arises
where a being that is able to think about its own thoughts has an
advantage over other members of its tribe that lack that capacity. Of
course, the capacity to reflect on your own thoughts is the essence of
self-awareness.
I won't deceive you by pretending that this is the only theory out
there. Never the less, it shows one possible path to self-awareness
that is consistent with the notion of adaptive fitness.
What benefit would it have on a species?
Wrong question. The right question is what benefit would it be to the
individuals who have it. If being conscious is a better trick than
lacking consciousness, the genes for it will spread through the species
automatically (presuming that there is no corresponding deficit).
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the
world,
colonise most and pushed animals from their natural environment,
making
several hundred thousand species extinct by the very actions of our
hands,
we have managed to cause global warming and are on the brink of
killing
everyone on the planet at a simple order of "Fire" so then, if
nature is
evolution and the evolution of things, that make better species is
life, why
are we where we are, does this mean evolution went wrong?
You are assuming that evolution has an associated morality and that it
has any sense of foresite. Evolution is genuinely amoral and blind.
All adaptations are in response to local conditions and are
non-predictive. When blue-green algae started pumping out oxygen deep
in the precambrian, it was an environmental disaster since the majority
of organizms were anaerobic. Global warming, by comparison, doesn't
represent a tenth of that degree of crisis. Likewise, 99% of all
species that have ever lived are now extinct. Once you put aside fuzzy
notions of ecological harmony, it is clear that the natural world is in
a constant state of tension and mutual conflict. Humans are merely the
latest curveball that's been thrown into the system.
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world
was so
complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
As I said, there is no unified theory of consciousness, yet. Cognitive
science is still waiting for its Newton to bring everything together
into a single framework. Right now, we're still at the stage where
we're amassing data and trying to make sense of it all. Science is
often like that. Eurekas take time.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
13 Jan 2005 02:03:05 PM |
|
|
Little Me wrote:
DISCLAIMER: If you are Christian, then sod off and do not reply to this
thread, because no one replying to this thread will want to hear from you,
okay? Well? Get gone then you Bible thumper! . . . . .
Okay, no more sh*t or silly jokes from me (for a while anyway), I was
reading something yesterday that pricked my mind a little, it was regarding
evolution and how we, came to be, that which we are, so I was gonna ask you
guys . . .
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
What benefit would it have on a species?
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the world,
colonise most and pushed animals from their natural environment, making
several hundred thousand species extinct by the very actions of our hands,
we have managed to cause global warming and are on the brink of killing
everyone on the planet at a simple order of "Fire" so then, if nature is
evolution and the evolution of things, that make better species is life, why
are we where we are, does this mean evolution went wrong?
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that we in
fact exist in a finite sense?
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world was so
complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
?? Anyone
I don't feel that consciousness is that big a deal in evolution. Animals
are conscious, and aware of their surroundings.
Now, the ability to reason, that causes a direct impact on the
evolutionary process. Animals that can reason out solutions to problems
stand a much better chance of survival then those that are simply
conscious and aware of their surroundings.
Many animals have shown their abilities to reason out solutions. Chimps
use small twigs and sticks to fish termites out of mounds, for food.
There was a report yesterday on Yahoo, that crows have now shown limited
tool making ability, and the octopus is a very good example of solutions
through trial and error. (Last year NOVA did a great show on this)
And we can see the survival of these very successful animals in their
natural surroundings, as well as other environments. But their ability
to reason, and solve problems, so far, have been rudimentary in nature.
I don't see chimps play to many games of chess, and while dolphins are
very bright, and their language is very complex apparently, I don't see
them avoiding to many tuna nets, but they sure as hell know when they
are trapped in one.
Again, these animals are aware and conscious of the world around them.
But their ability to reason, is still limited compared to that of
humans. And as you have pointed out, being able to reason is not always
a good thing. We have proved that we are very capable, as a species, to
reason out all kinds of new and improved ways, to try and rub ourselves out.
And that's just my 1.50 worth.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sanguinevikings" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
13 Jan 2005 02:05:52 PM |
|
|
Little Me wrote:
DISCLAIMER: If you are Christian, then sod off and do not reply to this
thread, because no one replying to this thread will want to hear from you,
okay? Well? Get gone then you Bible thumper! . . . . .
Okay, no more sh*t or silly jokes from me (for a while anyway), I was
reading something yesterday that pricked my mind a little, it was regarding
evolution and how we, came to be, that which we are, so I was gonna ask you
guys . . .
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
What benefit would it have on a species?
Being able to distiguish the edible from the deadly.
Being able to find your dinner.
Being aware that you might be someone else's dinner.
Being able to work out how to avoid being something elses dinner.
Being able to outsmart one's dinner.
Being able to work out where to begin looking for ones dinner.
Being able to conceptualise that a heap of bleaching bones contains dinner.
Being able to fashion tools to extract ones dinner from a heap of
bleaching bones.
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the world,
colonise most and pushed animals from their natural environment, making
several hundred thousand species extinct by the very actions of our hands,
we have managed to cause global warming and are on the brink of killing
everyone on the planet at a simple order of "Fire" so then, if nature is
evolution and the evolution of things, that make better species is life, why
are we where we are, does this mean evolution went wrong?
No, it means that there is no higher purpose. Evolution often wipes out
it's own work. Look at the Cyanobacteria that choked the Earth's
atmosphere with oxygen. Humans screw things up more quickly and
efficiently because social evolution transcends biology.
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that we in
fact exist in a finite sense?
Good question.
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world was so
complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
Another toughie.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
13 Jan 2005 01:50:36 PM |
|
|
Little Me wrote:
DISCLAIMER: If you are Christian, then sod off and do not reply to this
thread, because no one replying to this thread will want to hear from you,
okay? Well? Get gone then you Bible thumper! . . . . .
LOL
Okay, no more sh*t or silly jokes from me (for a while anyway), I was
reading something yesterday that pricked my mind a little, it was regarding
evolution and how we, came to be, that which we are, so I was gonna ask you
guys . . .
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
What benefit would it have on a species?
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the world,
colonise most and pushed animals from their natural environment, making
several hundred thousand species extinct by the very actions of our hands,
we have managed to cause global warming and are on the brink of killing
everyone on the planet at a simple order of "Fire" so then, if nature is
evolution and the evolution of things, that make better species is life, why
are we where we are, does this mean evolution went wrong?
Are we conscious, or suffering a sort of 'mass hypnosis' ?
Ever come across Gurdjieff's ideas ? Some interesting stuff.....although
a bit too 'religious' for me.
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that we in
fact exist in a finite sense?
Again from Gurjieff, I like the idea that being aware that we, and all
beings we ever will meet, will die, could be used as a source for
compassion toward all creatures, although, as usual, we screw it up !
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world was so
complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
I wonder what the brains of our ancestors contained, before 'language'
came into being.
Did they think only in pictures ? How peaceful would it have been before
all that crazy 'chatter' that goes on
in our heads started up ?
?? Anyone
I think we're still a 'work-in-progress.'
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
17 Jan 2005 06:55:14 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:15:05 GMT, "Little Me"
<soul.lover@ntlworld.com> wrote:
DISCLAIMER: If you are Christian, then sod off and do not reply to this
thread, because no one replying to this thread will want to hear from you,
okay? Well? Get gone then you Bible thumper! . . . . .
Okay, no more sh*t or silly jokes from me (for a while anyway), I was
reading something yesterday that pricked my mind a little, it was regarding
evolution and how we, came to be, that which we are, so I was gonna ask you
guys . . .
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
IMO, by accident.
What benefit would it have on a species?
Enhances survival to a degree.
It seems that very thing we prize has managed to destroy most of the world,
colonise most and pushed animals from their natural environment, making
several hundred thousand species extinct by the very actions of our hands,
we have managed to cause global warming and are on the brink of killing
everyone on the planet at a simple order of "Fire" so then, if nature is
evolution and the evolution of things, that make better species is life, why
are we where we are, does this mean evolution went wrong?
Evolution is nothing but change. There's no 'direction' to it.
Why would it get to such a stage that we realise subjectively that we in
fact exist in a finite sense?
Why not?
Perhaps consciousness developed, because the brains view of the world was so
complete, that it had to include a model of itself?
?? Anyone
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Little Me" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
14 Jan 2005 04:54:21 AM |
|
|
Thanks you guys, for all your responses, you guys are brain boxes!
So when do you think of the term "consciousness" where does it stop in one
species and start in another, for example, animals are aware, can eat, hunt,
run away, but they cannot realise that
they will one day die. So maybe asking what good did it do was not quite
right. I wonder if I am really asking about subjective consciousness? I
refer to
us, as a race and the knowledge of death.
So is the knowledge of death the clue of subjective consciousness, I realise
it might be a naive statement, but I am trying to get to the simplest
way to say "it", if there is one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
14 Jan 2005 08:02:47 AM |
|
|
Little Me wrote:
Thanks you guys, for all your responses, you guys are brain boxes!
So when do you think of the term "consciousness" where does it stop in one
species and start in another, for example, animals are aware, can eat, hunt,
run away, but they cannot realise that
they will one day die.
Not so sure about that.
I had 2 dogs disappear, when very old, and they seemed to just 'go away
to die.'
The first one spent about 6 months just laying about and seeming
sad....then he just wandered off and died.
Weird.
So maybe asking what good did it do was not quite
right. I wonder if I am really asking about subjective consciousness?
What other type is there ? What would be 'objective' consciousness ?
I
refer to
us, as a race and the knowledge of death.
So is the knowledge of death the clue of subjective consciousness, I realise
it might be a naive statement, but I am trying to get to the simplest
way to say "it", if there is one?
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
14 Jan 2005 08:21:01 AM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:tLadnYWgCqqeTHrcRVnyjg@pipex.net...
Little Me wrote:
Thanks you guys, for all your responses, you guys are brain boxes!
So when do you think of the term "consciousness" where does it stop in
one
species and start in another, for example, animals are aware, can eat,
hunt,
run away, but they cannot realise that
they will one day die.
Not so sure about that.
I had 2 dogs disappear, when very old, and they seemed to just 'go away to
die.'
The first one spent about 6 months just laying about and seeming
sad....then he just wandered off and died.
Weird.
Not really, it's very common. I remember a neighbor's cat doing that when I
was young. He seems to be failing, health-wise, and one day just never came
home. They assumed he'd gone off to die.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Little Me" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
14 Jan 2005 12:41:59 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:tLadnYWgCqqeTHrcRVnyjg@pipex.net...
Little Me wrote:
Thanks you guys, for all your responses, you guys are brain boxes!
So when do you think of the term "consciousness" where does it stop in
one
species and start in another, for example, animals are aware, can eat,
hunt,
run away, but they cannot realise that
they will one day die.
Not so sure about that.
I had 2 dogs disappear, when very old, and they seemed to just 'go away
to die.'
The first one spent about 6 months just laying about and seeming
sad....then he just wandered off and died.
Weird.
Yeah but was moving away from home an evolutionary traite, built in to stop
a dog dying and leaving it's pack prone to disease from his rotting corpse?
So maybe asking what good did it do was not quite
right. I wonder if I am really asking about subjective consciousness?
What other type is there ? What would be 'objective' consciousness ?
LOL you are so nasty to me Jes and here I was thinking how sexy you were
*grump*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
14 Jan 2005 01:14:42 PM |
|
|
Little Me wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:tLadnYWgCqqeTHrcRVnyjg@pipex.net...
Little Me wrote:
Thanks you guys, for all your responses, you guys are brain boxes!
So when do you think of the term "consciousness" where does it stop in
one
species and start in another, for example, animals are aware, can eat,
hunt,
run away, but they cannot realise that
they will one day die.
Not so sure about that.
I had 2 dogs disappear, when very old, and they seemed to just 'go away
to die.'
The first one spent about 6 months just laying about and seeming
sad....then he just wandered off and died.
Weird.
Yeah but was moving away from home an evolutionary traite, built in to stop
a dog dying and leaving it's pack prone to disease from his rotting corpse?
Hmm..could well be !
So maybe asking what good did it do was not quite
right. I wonder if I am really asking about subjective consciousness?
What other type is there ? What would be 'objective' consciousness ?
LOL you are so nasty to me Jes and here I was thinking how sexy you were
*grump*
Oh dear ! So sorry, wasn't trying to be...'onest.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Little Me" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
15 Jan 2005 05:01:16 AM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:D7KdnY5t9ZGAh3XcRVnyjw@pipex.net...
Little Me wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:tLadnYWgCqqeTHrcRVnyjg@pipex.net...
LOL you are so nasty to me Jes and here I was thinking how sexy you
were
*grump*
Oh dear ! So sorry, wasn't trying to be...'onest.
*pulls out a pen and notebook, fumbles thu it, find a a page and scribbles
something down*
There! You are back on the sexy list, sorry about that hon :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
18 Jan 2005 06:42:13 AM |
|
|
Little Me wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:D7KdnY5t9ZGAh3XcRVnyjw@pipex.net...
Little Me wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:tLadnYWgCqqeTHrcRVnyjg@pipex.net...
LOL you are so nasty to me Jes and here I was thinking how sexy you
were
*grump*
Oh dear ! So sorry, wasn't trying to be...'onest.
*pulls out a pen and notebook, fumbles thu it, find a a page and scribbles
something down*
There! You are back on the sexy list, sorry about that hon :-)
Phew !
Close one !
:)
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
14 Jan 2005 11:13:47 AM |
|
|
Little Me wrote:
Thanks you guys, for all your responses, you guys are brain boxes!
So when do you think of the term "consciousness" where does it stop in one
species and start in another, for example, animals are aware, can eat, hunt,
run away, but they cannot realise that
they will one day die. So maybe asking what good did it do was not quite
right. I wonder if I am really asking about subjective consciousness? I
refer to
us, as a race and the knowledge of death.
So is the knowledge of death the clue of subjective consciousness, I realise
it might be a naive statement, but I am trying to get to the simplest
way to say "it", if there is one?
The problem seems to me to be that we can't discuss this with other
species, so we really don't know for sure what's going on in their minds.
You might want to think about "machine conciousness", ie. artificial
intelligence...and what would be required to make it be recognizably
human-like.
But don't be surprised if you don't get too far with your mental
excersize, as the field has far more questions than answers. It's
actually very difficult to define just what consciousness is.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
15 Jan 2005 05:15:16 AM |
|
|
J Forbes wrote:
Little Me wrote:
Thanks you guys, for all your responses, you guys are brain boxes!
So when do you think of the term "consciousness" where does it
stop in one
species and start in another, for example, animals are aware, can
eat, hunt,
run away, but they cannot realise that
they will one day die. So maybe asking what good did it do was not
quite
right. I wonder if I am really asking about subjective
consciousness? I
refer to
us, as a race and the knowledge of death.
So is the knowledge of death the clue of subjective consciousness,
I realise
it might be a naive statement, but I am trying to get to the
simplest
way to say "it", if there is one?
The problem seems to me to be that we can't discuss this with other
species, so we really don't know for sure what's going on in their
minds.
You might want to think about "machine conciousness", ie. artificial
intelligence...and what would be required to make it be recognizably
human-like.
But don't be surprised if you don't get too far with your mental
excersize, as the field has far more questions than answers. It's
actually very difficult to define just what consciousness is.
--
Jim
You could ask Koko the gorilla. She knows sign language.
There seems to be curiosity in predators. Animals that have to interact
with other somewhat cognitive animals have competitiveness as an
evolutionary factor.
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
17 Jan 2005 07:00:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:54:21 GMT, "Little Me"
<soul.lover@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Thanks you guys, for all your responses, you guys are brain boxes!
So when do you think of the term "consciousness" where does it stop in one
species and start in another, for example, animals are aware, can eat, hunt,
run away, but they cannot realise that
they will one day die. So maybe asking what good did it do was not quite
right. I wonder if I am really asking about subjective consciousness? I
refer to
us, as a race and the knowledge of death.
So is the knowledge of death the clue of subjective consciousness, I realise
it might be a naive statement, but I am trying to get to the simplest
way to say "it", if there is one?
Could be.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
17 Jan 2005 07:44:24 PM |
|
|
<more piggybacking>
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:54:21 GMT, "Little Me"
<soul.lover@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Thanks you guys, for all your responses, you guys are brain boxes!
So when do you think of the term "consciousness" where does it stop in one
species and start in another, for example, animals are aware, can eat, hunt,
run away, but they cannot realise that they will one day die.
Can't they? How do you know? Some animals have been known to
recognize deceased acquaintances (it's hard to say if they view them
as "friends", "herdmates", "family" or whatever), where they appear to
be saying "goodbye" to the remains in some way. It's just a hop, skip
and a jump to actual funeral ceremonies. With that degree of
awareness on the issue of death, is it not conceivable that they may
have an inkling of their own mortality?
Granted, it's a lot of "ifs". Far too many to assume it a given that
they can't.
So maybe asking what good did it do was not quite
right. I wonder if I am really asking about subjective consciousness? I
refer to us, as a race and the knowledge of death.
So is the knowledge of death the clue of subjective consciousness, I realise
it might be a naive statement, but I am trying to get to the simplest
way to say "it", if there is one?
Speaking of knowledge of death, and knowledge of one's own mortality
are different subjects. Either way, there's still no clear line
between us and many other animals. And there's nothing to indicate
that knowledge of one's own mortality is anything "special" to
consciousness. Some computer programs are built with pre-programmed
knowledge that they are going to end. Yet few would argue that they
are conscious.
Still not clear on what you're trying to get at? I think you're
trying to find something that makes us "special" or "superior" to the
rest of the animal kingdom. Far as I can tell, no such thing exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
18 Jan 2005 06:44:10 AM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
<more piggybacking>
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:54:21 GMT, "Little Me"
<soul.lover@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Thanks you guys, for all your responses, you guys are brain boxes!
So when do you think of the term "consciousness" where does it stop in one
species and start in another, for example, animals are aware, can eat, hunt,
run away, but they cannot realise that they will one day die.
Can't they? How do you know? Some animals have been known to
recognize deceased acquaintances (it's hard to say if they view them
as "friends", "herdmates", "family" or whatever),
Food ?
.....where they appear to
be saying "goodbye" to the remains in some way. It's just a hop, skip
and a jump to actual funeral ceremonies. With that degree of
awareness on the issue of death, is it not conceivable that they may
have an inkling of their own mortality?
Granted, it's a lot of "ifs". Far too many to assume it a given that
they can't.
So maybe asking what good did it do was not quite
right. I wonder if I am really asking about subjective consciousness? I
refer to us, as a race and the knowledge of death.
So is the knowledge of death the clue of subjective consciousness, I realise
it might be a naive statement, but I am trying to get to the simplest
way to say "it", if there is one?
Speaking of knowledge of death, and knowledge of one's own mortality
are different subjects. Either way, there's still no clear line
between us and many other animals. And there's nothing to indicate
that knowledge of one's own mortality is anything "special" to
consciousness. Some computer programs are built with pre-programmed
knowledge that they are going to end. Yet few would argue that they
are conscious.
Bloody Microsoft !
Still not clear on what you're trying to get at? I think you're
trying to find something that makes us "special" or "superior" to the
rest of the animal kingdom. Far as I can tell, no such thing exists.
Indeed !
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
13 Jan 2005 02:27:32 PM |
|
|
on 13 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Little Me dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
You are barking up the wrong tree. One should ponder "how" rather than
waste time on "why".
What benefit would it have on a species?
Consider natural selection. Consciousness is required for decision-making
and survival. Those species without consciousness could not survive to
reproduce.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Little Me" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
14 Jan 2005 04:54:21 AM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DD7EEF647E9vicman@127.0.0.1...
on 13 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Little Me dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Apart from "God" - why did consciousness develop?
You are barking up the wrong tree. One should ponder "how" rather than
waste time on "why".
Good point
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Lias" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Questions - re: consciousness |
18 Jan 2005 11:02:07 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 13 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Little Me dropped trou, farted,
whirled,
then shouted:
What benefit would it have on a species?
Consider natural selection. Consciousness is required for
decision-making
and survival. Those species without consciousness could not survive
to
reproduce.
Tell that to a starfish (no brain) or a sponge (ditto). For that
matter, tell it to a tree.
Because we have big brains, we have a natural tendency to think of
brains as something important and necessary but it's really amazing to
see how many animals (to say nothing of all the rest of the kingdoms)
get along perfectly well with out them (or with nearly next to none,
just take a look at the insects and tell me they aren't successful).
Brains are just one type of strategy that certain creatures employ
(just as others have poisonous stingers or wings or what have you). It
is neither the be all nor the end all of the natural world. Indeed,
taking a stock of the sum biomass of the world it becomes clear that,
just as in the world of politics, brains are in the minority.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
