John_Mann

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,225 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John_Mann

• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  I think the bicameral mind appeared about 20,000 to 10,000BC. But was a gradual origin.
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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?
• 
  4

  a jw hell

  by carla in

  1. social
  2. humour

  a jw hell-.

  https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/smurfs-obsessed-woman-7000-smurf-items-worlds-largest-collection-190854430.html.

  i would like to see a video of jw attempting a bible study in her place!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  The Smurf paranoia in the 80's was very real here in Brazil.
• 
  58

  Just a quick Poll...Do you think the GB is sincere?

  by NikL in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been thinking about this the past few days and curious what the honest consensus is here just for fun.. show of hands,.

  is the governing body.... a: completely sincere.

  they really do believe what they teach.. b: somewhat sincere.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  D.

  This is a very difficult question. I think they know everything about TTATT but are true believers anyway.

  But the most difficult question is if there's somebody behind and above them regarding the money.

  If you think about it there's something very strange with this organization.

  Even former members can't grasp exactly the full mechanisms of the Watchtower.

  Carl Sagan said he could not understand how and why Watchtower existed after 1914.

  The very existence of the Watchtower can't be easily explained by former members and outsiders.
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
  
  
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Or are you arguing that self-recognition is separate and distinct from social cognition?

  That's exactly what Gallup said!

  He made a distinction between self-awareness/recognition and consciousness.

  That's why you will never find a scientific paper talking about consciousness in this experiment.

  And the article from NCBI says the primates only use the mirror instrumentally and not in an ontological way of the kind "I can see myself through the mirror therefore I'm".
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  I'm not entirely sure he understands anything other than how to copy and paste!
  John, you might want to go back and reread what I wrote, the basic premise that the experiment is meant to show is not in itself controversial.

  I don't speak English very well but I can swear you mentioned the lack of ANY PARTICULAR controversy about these scientific experiments.

  And the basic premise of the experiment is highly controversial. If you want I can show you more scientific information about that.

  Gallup himself made a distinction between self-awareness and consciousness. His experiment is not even about consciousness by his own definition. That's why no scientific paper talks about consciousness.

  The methodology used by some researchers was challenged and when the experiment was repeated with more rigorous methodology the results were the same.

  They changed the mark test by using chocolate cream as substance and this variation of the mark/spot test made many primates fail this very new variation.

  Failure it's not equal to "the same" (in other languages at least).

  Psychological tests have to be very carefully set up and interpreted to ensure that the results do not suffer from confirmation bias.

  Yes, especially when someone is highly biased toward scientism.
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  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.
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  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.