Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

by cofty 98 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  John_Mann

  ask them to draw a line in biology that makes us "us" (without relying on metaphysical mumbo jumbo)

  Law.

  This line can't be defined by biology. Because consciousness can't be detected through biology.

  There's no animal that I could kill and eat it and go to jail because such animal had consciousness just like any other human.

  Are you a vegan? If not then you're an hypocrite if you are eating beings that you don't see any distinction from humans.

  One of the several axioms in the very scientific method is the human mind can understand the universe. There's no axiom about other species being able to do that.

  The recognition of consciousness in non humans is made by a metaphysical experiment called Turing test. AFAIK this is the only test proposed to recognize consciousness in non humans.
  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  well yes and this brings us back to the opening post on this thread!!!!!
• 

  John_Mann

  well yes and this brings us back to the opening post on this thread!!!!!

  Yes, but before I want to answer your post:

  I mean much much much before 4000 bc.

  I presented a mathematical model, a virological evidence (JC virus), a psychological thesis (bicameralism), a Catholic tradition, and a Jewish tradition (Anno Mundi 5777) that says our more recent ancestor lived in a very recent point in history.

  I know the mathematical and virological evidence doesn't mean exactly the origin of consciousness but at least says we have a sole ancestor by the time appointed by the other hypothesis I mentioned. My view is consciousness certainly cannot appeared after this MRCA.

  But you only said you prefer your own hypothesis about consciousness appearing much earlier. In what exactly is based your hypothesis of the origin of consciousness being older than 4,000 BC?
• 

  Ruby456

  I think it would help if you define what u mean by consciousness ?
• 

  John_Mann

  I think it would help if you define what u mean by consciousness ?

  Putting aside the causation controversy (brain or soul) I agree with Julian Jaynes when he start by defining what consciousness is not, like intelligence/intellect for instance.

  Basically consciousness is what gives us will. Bicameral men possessed intellect but not will.

  This intellect-will pair enables us to sustain a clearly internal dialogue. If you pay attention there are two distinct persons inside your mind (psychology defines as introversion and extroversion). And if you look closer there's a very subtle third person (because we are images of the Trinity) who observes the dialogue (this third person is very faded because original sin).

  Bicameral men had only one person inside their minds. The second person was not only perceived as a voice but as an external image too. Jaynes says this image was seen as a kind of ghost.

  With consciousness we lost this image and the voice became part of us and not an external entity.

  But these internal people don't create ideas out of the blue. Complete ideas appear all the time and these internal persons discuss about deciding what ideas to keep.

  Bicameral men received this ideas only by the external person and they couldn't decide to obey or not. We receive this ideas not from any internal person but from intuition that access the two sources of ideas.

  We have the ability to decide upon these appearing ideas inside our minds.

  Basically consciousness is the ability of decision (free will) by three internal persons in our minds about appearing ideas.

  Consciousness is also an enhancer for all bicameral abilities.
• 

  John_Mann

  I think the bicameral mind appeared about 20,000 to 10,000BC. But was a gradual origin.
• 

  Ruby456

  John_Mann, cool explanations - no probs from me
• 

  Anony Mous

  This line can't be defined by biology.

  Well if you throw out biology, you can just define your own field of study (such as theological philosophy) but don't feel sorry when nobody has to takes you seriously that biology at some point in human development is being taken over by theology.

  There is definitely no biological "line" you can draw and that's my point. Creationists define that a deity or entity outside of nature has created such line and made "us", mankind, (in its image) as a separate being that is somehow, at some point <6000 years ago simply been endowed with much more advanced features than other species.

  The truth is that we see all stages of evolution currently in nature. We don't have a definition of consciousness or intelligence other than that other animals have the same sort of thing in various stages of development. There is no single feature that makes us all that different from most of our primate cousins except that we lucked into a situation ~20k years ago that benefited us greatly.

  At that point you see the emergence of tools, fire and art which accelerated the development even further. You can't really pinpoint a particular emergence of our species to a fixed period, that is the above posters' fallacy. These things take time thousands of years worth of time where you see what we now call "humans" interbreed with what we now call "proto-humans".

  
  
• 

  John_Mann

  We don't have a definition of consciousness or intelligence other than that other animals have the same sort of thing in various stages of development.

  I'm not a creationist. I accept the whole theory of evolution.

  And yes we have an intuitive definition of consciousness. That's why I mentioned law. Maybe the definition of consciousness is just like the undefined terms of geometry (point, line and plane). But I know you're very biased toward scientism and will never accept humans can get knowledge beyond the scientific method.

  The theory of evolution doesn't grab consciousness. Darwin tried all his life include consciousness in ToE.

  Wallace is not well remembered because he knew ToE was lacking an explanation of consciousness then he spent the rest of his life trying to get a paranormal explanation into science.

  Darwin and Wallace always knew the problem of consciousness and the inability of ToE to explain it.

  There is no single feature that makes us all that different from most of our primate cousins except that we lucked into a situation ~20k years ago that benefited us greatly.

  Sense of justice, infinity, art and so on. Please show me traces of our sense of justice in animals.

  At that point you see the emergence of tools, fire and art which accelerated the development even further.

  As I said tools don't need consciousness only intelligence.

  You can't really pinpoint a particular emergence of our species to a fixed period, that is the above posters' fallacy.

  I never said that.

  These things take time thousands of years worth of time where you see what we now call "humans" interbreed with what we now call "proto-humans".

  Not proto-humans. Anatomically they were identical. Adam was only the first homo sapiens to receive consciousness. An unsouled human was just like a person with a mild mental deficiency.
• 

  John_Mann

  @Ruby

  Thank you!