evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
C'mon John! if you want to challenge your "knowledge " on science simply visit the appropriate " science" sites. I am sure your comments would be highly respected.
What? Are you serious or am I in some kind of twilight zone?
I posted from NCBI and from Gallup itself.
And previously I answered cofty with a link from Nature.
evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
Care to show where my posts indicate a lack of knowledge about science?
C'mon man! You said the Gallup's test was not controversial in science when it's highly controversial.
It's not an evil thing to be ignorant but to be dishonest is.
evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
read up about what you are talking about John-Mann - sorry to dismiss it so easily. but there is one thing I do take exception to and that is the early date 4,000 years ago. I think that if anything like what you say happened it happened a lot lot earlier - - however I agree that hallucinogenic things had something to do with this sort of expansion of consciousness - indeed there is evidence that humans learned about the hallucinogen properties of plants from animals - or that chimps achieved a cross over to humanoid species by means of such plants - I mean what other explanation could there be for our need for spirits (literal spirits that is)
I don't know why you keep saying I'm talking about 4,000 ago when I say 4,000 BC.
And yes I know this drug hypothesis. The first man was an ape that ate a mushroom. :)
evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
They might be controversial to you but I am not aware of any particular controversy in scientific circles.
As usual you seem to be very ignorant about science.
Every scientific paper always mentions the controversy and they avoid the term consciousness but uses the technical term "visual self-recognition".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16432640
" For 30 years Gallup's (Science 167:86-87, 1970) mark test, which consists of confronting a mirror-experienced test animal with its own previously altered mirror image, usually a color mark on forehead, eyebrow or ear, has delivered valuable results about the distribution of visual self-recognition in non-human primates. Chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and, less frequently, gorillas can learn to correctly understand the reflection of their body in a mirror. However, the standard version of the mark test is good only for positively proving the existence of self-recognition. Conclusive statements about the lack of self-recognition are more difficult because of the methodological constraints of the test. This situation has led to a persistent controversy about the power of Gallup's original technique. We devised a new variant of the test which permits more unequivocal decisions about both the presence and absence of self-recognition. This new procedure was tested with marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus), following extensive training with mirror-related tasks to facilitate performance in the standard mark test. The results show that a slightly altered mark test with a new marking substance (chocolate cream) can help to reliably discriminate between true negative results, indicating a real lack of ability to recognize oneself in a mirror, from false negative results that are due to methodological particularities of the standard test. Finally, an evolutionary hypothesis is put forward as to why many primates can use a mirror instrumentally - i.e. know how to use it for grasping at hidden objects - while failing in the decisive mark test."
What the guy who invented the test said:
“Self-awareness is defined as the ability to become the object of your own attention, consciousness as being aware of your own existence, and mind as the capacity to be aware of your own mental states… either you are aware of being aware or you are unaware of being aware, and the latter is tantamount to being unconscious.” (Gallup G “Do minds exist in species other than our own?” Neuroscience & Behavioral Reviews 9(1985):631-41).
He clearly made a distinction between self-awareness, consciousness and mind.
Now show me a scientific paper where it's said animals possess consciousness without any shadow of controversy.
“we don’t celebrate holidays because god doesn’t approve of any celebration that is rooted in pagan customs and manmade traditions.” (see here for a similar jw response.).
if you were once an ex-jw like me, you have probably said something like this out in field service to someone who asked the question: why don’t you people celebrate holidays?
as the witnesses' official website states in an faq about not celebrating easter:.
This pagan paranoia is a Protestant thing.
Protestants seem to forget Abraham was not a Jew but a Sumerian.
Certainly he kept the Sumerian rituals and philosophy that were compatible with his unique monotheistic view.
evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
Please start your own thread if you want to promote Roman Catholic superstitions. You have already trashed at least two of my other threads with this nonsense.
Thought police?
evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
How do you square that with the really strong evidence of self awareness in other animals?
What strong evidence?
Are you talking about the mirror test and/or the spot test? They're are very controversial.
There's sensory reaction by instinct in the same way robots can be programmed to be self-protective.
evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
And consciousness decides if these random ideas will be nurtured. The bicameral men don't had this ability to choose among appearing thoughts inside their minds.
evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
Yes, Dennett is an advocate of this theory. Dawkins tend to agree too.
Independently if consciousness is metaphysical or physical anyone agrees that there's a historical origin.
Some believe consciousness started with the human brain. But our physical brains were around way before civilizations. What these people were doing during all that time if they had our same mind power?
That's why I think history shows a sudden (and recent) appearance of consciousness.
Consciousness is a very small part of the human mind IMHO. Buddhism, Catholicism and memetics (Dawkins) say that complete ideas just appear in human minds. The creation of these ideas/memeplex it's not a product of human consciousness. Catholicism says evil ideas (concupiscence) are produced by Satan and good ideas (grace) come from directly God's nature.
evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
john-mann
correct me if wrong - but I get the impression that you only go back 4,000 years for the 'qualia' that you think entered humans at that point?
as far as I know complex human settlements surely go back further than that?
About 4.000 BC somewhere in Mesopotamia.
My view about the origin of consciousness is based on Catholic tradition and the Bicameralism theory from Julian Jaynes.
The modern human behavior starts about 50.000 to 40.000. This is the mark of the development of high level (mortal) sensitive soul in humans.
Technological innovation is a key to compare unconscious species. Some species of Homo have no technology innovation for ages and became extinct because this inability.
Human settlements goes back to 20.000 BC. Ohalo is the oldest settlement ever found AFAIK.
Jaynes argues that language and civilization are prerequisites to consciousness. There's no shortcuts to his theory and I suggest to read his books for a better understanding of how unconscious men were able to develop language and primitive civilizations.
His theory is centered in the origin of consciousness as being a natural phenomenon, but he tries to keep an open mind view and mention several possibilities including the metaphysical one (my view).
He says the Book of Amos in OT was written by a bicameral (unconscious) man. And points out the difference between Amos and Ecclesiastes for instance.
