|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
hTx said:
Quote:
Icelander said: Humanity is the first observed life form in which consciousness evolution is easily observed to be happening in real-time by means of accelerating complexity.
I don't see it myself. I see human thinking becoming more complex with information but other than that I think humans have the same basic mental landscape as we have had in the distant past. I think humanity has been in an emotional cul-de-sac for a very long time. It's youthful folly thinking otherwise as I've often said.
Aw, yes well I figured I should have been a bit more specific..
the collective consciousness of the species, is what I was referencing...evolution meaning general trend towards greater complexity.
This happens on a microscale in the individual, but alas, the individual dies. The species lives on. in regards to our collecitve increasing awareness of things..consciousness is indeed evolving...and even has a secondary process of natural selection with regards to ideas surviving the individual that came up with them. (memetics).
The overall awareness of external objects in the average man 10,000 years ago is much less than now, and the overall complexity of his consciousness much more simple...due to the lack of information/complexity around him.
Yes I see that but it's not any kind of evolution that impresses me. If we stay emotionally stunted as we have then information evolution will likely still leave us in a cul-de-sac at best or extinct at worse.
Well I agree with you there, it could be that we become a species that behaves as a 'custom', like the virus, that we become more stable.. while something that is better able to deal with the novelty induced by huge complexity evolves physically in the form of AI.
Could be good or bad for humanity, hard to speculate beyond that.
It could go either way even without any form of AI..thats what makes our species so unstable and thus have an accelerated rate of evolution.
Technology should be viewed at a part of evolution, since due to it, we have mastered survival (proof is seen in sustained exponential growth of the species).. and since technology greatly increases the complexity of the world around us.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19214684 - 12/01/13 08:47 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
What this shows though, is that consciousness evolves and has evolved within in humanity and that since you are consciousness, we have influence over this as well.
Its not all cold-hearted and blind as Darwinism suggests, we have a say so.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19214689 - 12/01/13 08:49 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
That is beyond the scope of my understanding. I'm so unimpressed with humanity and nature at large that ultimately I don't give a shit anyway. Plus I'm nearing the end of my sentence here on this stunted rock.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx] 5
#19215446 - 12/02/13 12:27 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The most simple of organisms display the most simple consciousness
No. This is yet another made-up fact that conveniently fits your crackpot biology. Here's the real definition of consciousness from Merriam-Webster:
Quote:
the condition of being conscious : the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you
Bacteria, viruses, plants, nematodes, even human infants are not conscious. You can argue that these things are in some ways aware of their surroundings, and I would agree with that, but they are not conscious unless you're willing to stipulate that my iPad is also conscious because it's aware of when I press a button.
the·o·ry ˈTHēərē,ˈTHi(ə)rē/Submit noun...
This requires a facepalm: 
That is the conversational definition of a theory which laypeople misconstrue because they often hijack a rigorously-defined science word and start using it casually. It's the reason clueless morons with no understanding of science insist that evolution is "just a theory" as if science could somehow promote a theory into a fact at some point.
Your googled definition is only useful if you're discussing a "theory" about who the killer is in a mystery novel. It's not the definition of a scientific theory which is what we're discussing. It's astonishing that a biology major with passing grades could possibly confuse conversational theory with scientific theory.
Next time you look up the word theory, look it up in a science reference. You're at masters level science studies so it should be easy to find the right definition. To wit:
Quote:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. -- Wiki
a refined version of what I'm presenting here will be the basis of my masters thesis.
How can you be at masters level biology and not yet grasp that the foundation of science is doubt, not certainty as in you "can't possibly be wrong"? Or understand that a scientific theory is different than a conversational hunch or guess type of theory in everyday speech? What school are you attending anyway?
No such thing as dogma in science?
That's right. Scientists are human and humans can be dogmatic, but science is the absence of dogma by it's very definition. Dogma is not amenable to new information. Science is at its foundation amenable to new information. That is part of its definition.
Dogma is the opposite of science my friend. I can't believe I'm explaining this to a masters biology student.
in pre-graduate school anyways, they don't really encourage original thought but is more a presentation of established thought and observation
That's as it should be. You don't go around teaching pilots a better way to fly a 747 until you've first learned enough to walk without tripping over yourself. So why don't you sit down, STFU and learn the biology that has been established over hundreds of years of vetted debates, evidence, direct observation of evolution in-vitro and in-vivo by thousands of the smartest people who ever lived.
THEN, when you've learned enough to take off your diapers, come up with something better and turn the world of science on its head. But from the patently wrong crap you've been posting here and the apparent holes in your knowledge of basic science (like not understanding what a scientific theory is or your thinking that science can show something is true "without a doubt"), that's a long way off.
I graduate next semester
Then you should slap your teacher and demand a refund. Seriously.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Diploid]
#19215631 - 12/02/13 01:34 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The most simple of organisms display the most simple consciousness
No. This is yet another made-up fact that conveniently fits your crackpot biology. Here's the real definition of consciousness from Merriam-Webster:
Quote:
the condition of being conscious : the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you
the real definition of consciousness huh..Here are quite a few alternative definitions from Merriam Webster, the same source you cherry picked that definition from.
a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual 4 : the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness> 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes
Quote:
Bacteria, viruses, plants, nematodes, even human infants are not conscious. You can argue that these things are in some ways aware of their surroundings, and I would agree with that, but they are not conscious unless you're willing to stipulate that my iPad is also conscious because it's aware of when I press a button.
And I would say awareness evolved with accelerating complexity to the point of self-awareness. All you are doing is whining about how I use the word consciousness and say nothing in regards to evolution by means of accelerating complexity. 
Quote:
the·o·ry ˈTHēərē,ˈTHi(ə)rē/Submit noun...
This requires a facepalm: 
That is the conversational definition of a theory which laypeople misconstrue because they often hijack a rigorously-defined science word and start using is casually. It's the reason clueless morons with no understanding of science insist that evolution is "just a theory" as if science could somehow promote a theory into a fact at some point.
Your googled definition is only useful if you're discussing a "theory" about who the killer is in a mystery novel. It's not the definition of a scientific theory which is what we're discussing. It's astonishing that a biology major with passing grades could possibly confuse conversational theory with scientific theory.
here again, you are confused..your the only one who brought up scientific theory, I've already mentioned that this whole thread isn't a scientific theory in and of itself, but the ideas i am theorizing and explaining serve as alternative explanations which make perfect sense and i've provided the evidence which leads me to these explanations.
conversational theory leads to scientific theory. Your doing nothing but grasping at terms and completely ignoring the ideas presented here.
I'm top of my class, btw.
Quote:
a refined version of what I'm presenting here will be the basis of my masters thesis.
How can you be at masters level biology and not yet grasp that the foundation of science is doubt, not certainty as in you "can't possibly be wrong"? Or understand that a scientific theory is different than a conversational hunch or guess type of theory in everyday speech? What school are you attending anyway?
Caught up and confused on terms, or trolling I cannot decide. Probably both. Like I said earlier, if you actually read what I wrote its not just conversational hunch or 'guess' type theory (nice phrase invention). I have provided evidence which supports evolution by means of accelerating complexity. and have more-or-less described this mechanism with regards to life. Its unorganized and raw, sure. This doesn't mean it doesn't have value for future refinement. Your continuing to avoid the actual topic at hand and showing signs of OCD.
Either that or you seem more interested in trolling now more than discussing ideas or furthering debate, as is obvious with your subtle attempts to insult and your attempts to claim that I haven't 'yet grasped' the foundation of science.
When it is this very doubt that made me seek an alternative explanation to begin with. How can you preach about doubt..and not doubt yourself?
I go to UH, go coogs.
Quote:
No such thing as dogma in science?
That's right. Scientists are human and humans can be dogmatic, but science is the absence of dogma by it's very definition. Dogma is not amenable to new information. Science is at its foundation amenable to new information. That is part of its definition.
Dogma is the opposite of science my friend. I can't believe I'm explaining this to a masters biology student.
they don't really encourage original thought but is more a presentation of established thought and observation
That's as it should be. You don't teach pilots a better way to fly a 747 until you've first learned enough to walk without tripping over yourself. So why don't you sit down, STFU and learn the biology that has been established over hundreds of years of vetted debates, evidence, direct observation of evolution in-vitro and in-vivo by thousands of the smartest people who ever lived.
THEN, when you've learned enough to take off your diapers, see if you can improve on what is currently known.
Dogma influences science more than you obviously know. I take it you pretty much ignored psychology in school. There are beliefs of science which most definitely need to be challenged..and to not see this is to have a pretty naive understanding of science, imo, especially since you just earlier made such a big deal about doubt being the foundation of science.
Perhaps the most important belief of modern science worthy of further examination is the idea that nature is mechanical and constant, and that the universe was created out of nothing at the moment of the Big Bang, then instantly imbued with all of the laws and behaviors it would need ever more. In this paradigm, the habits of nature do not evolve, nor do the forces of nature. These remain constant, and that which cannot be explained is relegated to hallucination or cultural programming.
Gravitational force, for example, is an empirical physical constant that is difficult to measure accurately. Known as ‘Newton’s Constant,’ or ‘Big G’, this number is used in measuring the gravitational force between two bodies, and is taken from averages measured around the world. In recent years, ‘Big G’, has varied by more than 1.3%, a rather dramatic fluctuation.
Is it possible that the force of gravity affecting planet earth could be naturally fluctuating throughout the day, or that it changes in relation to other celestial bodies or events? Under the current scientific paradigm, we may never know if gravity does in fact fluctuate because it is considered a ‘constant,’ and therefore no further investigation is warranted, thus demonstrating how, as a belief system, science contradicts its primary purpose as a method of inquiry.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx] 1
#19215702 - 12/02/13 02:05 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Oh fuck it keeps degenerating. Maybe the mutants are taking over.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx] 4
#19216327 - 12/02/13 08:31 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
All you are doing is whining about how I use the word consciousness and say nothing in regards to evolution by means of accelerating complexity.
Actually, I'm pointing out your sloppy use of language which is antithesis to the precision communication used in science. I also pointed out that the links you have been googling don't even contain the word consciousness. And you misconstrue the word theory when you apply it to your random, unevidenced ramblings.
As for saying nothing about your silly notions about biology, that's because there's nothing to say. You've already been told by several people that your posts suggest you haven't learned basic biology yet even as you try to rewrite the textbooks that you should be learning from.
And I would say awareness evolved with accelerating complexity to the point of self-awareness.
But you have zero evidence for this. You just pulled it out of your ass and think that telling us about it is the same thing as providing evidence for it. Then you insist that everyone should summarily dump hundreds of years of established science on which the huge edifices of biology, medicine, biochemistry, even agriculture and food science is based, again, just because you say so.
your the only one who brought up scientific theory, I've already mentioned that this whole thread isn't a scientific theory
Well, you finally got one right. 
Evolution is actually a theory. Your nonsense posts are more like drug-fueled gibberish rants.
i've provided the evidence which leads me to these explanations.
Nope. You've provided a weird, twisted, convoluted, alternative explanation that is trivially falsifiable and you've backed it up with bare proclamations that it's the right explanation because you say it is.
conversational theory leads to scientific theory
Nope. Do you make this shit up as you go along?
Hypothesis, observations, and experimental tests of the hypothesis and its predictions are what lead to scientific theories. Go slap your teacher again. Your school has done you a great disservice. 
Dogma influences science more than you obviously know.
What part of the scientific method applies dogma? Can't tell me? Right, that's because it's not there.
There are beliefs of science
OMG, you're killing me. Science is a method; a way of modeling the world in the same way that a recipe is a method of preparing food. Science has no beliefs just like recipes have no beliefs. It is a method, not a creature with beliefs.
There's just no way a graduate biology student can be posting such patently silly crap. I'm starting to think you're tolling.
I'm top of my class
I don't believe you.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Diploid] 2
#19216721 - 12/02/13 11:02 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
and neither do I
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Diploid]
#19220536 - 12/03/13 02:33 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: All you are doing is whining about how I use the word consciousness and say nothing in regards to evolution by means of accelerating complexity.
Actually, I'm pointing out your sloppy use of language which is antithesis to the precision communication used in science. I also pointed out that the links you have been googling don't even contain the word consciousness. And you misconstrue the word theory when you apply it to your random, unevidenced ramblings.
As for saying nothing about your silly notions about biology, that's because there's nothing to say. You've already been told by several people that your posts suggest you haven't learned basic biology yet even as you try to rewrite the textbooks that you should be learning from.
And I would say awareness evolved with accelerating complexity to the point of self-awareness.
But you have zero evidence for this. You just pulled it out of your ass and think that telling us about it is the same thing as providing evidence for it. Then you insist that everyone should summarily dump hundreds of years of established science on which the huge edifices of biology, medicine, biochemistry, even agriculture and food science is based, again, just because you say so.
your the only one who brought up scientific theory, I've already mentioned that this whole thread isn't a scientific theory
Well, you finally got one right. 
Evolution is actually a theory. Your nonsense posts are more like drug-fueled gibberish rants.
i've provided the evidence which leads me to these explanations.
Nope. You've provided a weird, twisted, convoluted, alternative explanation that is trivially falsifiable and you've backed it up with bare proclamations that it's the right explanation because you say it is.
conversational theory leads to scientific theory
Nope. Do you make this shit up as you go along?
Hypothesis, observations, and experimental tests of the hypothesis and its predictions are what lead to scientific theories. Go slap your teacher again. Your school has done you a great disservice. 
Dogma influences science more than you obviously know.
What part of the scientific method applies dogma? Can't tell me? Right, that's because it's not there.
There are beliefs of science
OMG, you're killing me. Science is a method; a way of modeling the world in the same way that a recipe is a method of preparing food. Science has no beliefs just like recipes have no beliefs. It is a method, not a creature with beliefs.
There's just no way a graduate biology student can be posting such patently silly crap. I'm starting to think you're tolling.
I'm top of my class
I don't believe you. 
I give up.

Already proved my point several times.
Evolution Dogma.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx] 1
#19220852 - 12/03/13 06:56 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Already proved my point several times.
Nope.
You declared the foundation of modern biology and medicine invalid, then you insisted that you can't possibly be wrong.
Evolution Dogma
Man I love irony.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19221177 - 12/03/13 09:11 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: The overall awareness of external objects in the average man 10,000 years ago is much less than now, and the overall complexity of his consciousness much more simple...due to the lack of information/complexity around him.
Substantiation for this claim?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Diploid]
#19221210 - 12/03/13 09:25 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: Already proved my point several times.
Nope.
You declared the foundation of modern biology and medicine invalid, then you insisted that you can't possibly be wrong.
Evolution Dogma
Man I love irony.

Since when is Darwinism the foundation of modern biology and medicine? 
I also never said that Darwin was invalid, he made an apt observation.
The mistake lies in thinking that observation as being primary to evolution, rather than secondary.
You pick out the most useless pieces of my posts to try and discredit the entire idea. I said I can't possibly be wrong because how does consciousness get completely ignored in evolutionary theory, when its consciousness that came up with evolutionary theory to begin with..
Your ideas on evolutionary theory are obviously and utterly dogmatic, since they are not your ideas.
Its obvious you hardly read anything I posted in this thread.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
hTx said: The overall awareness of external objects in the average man 10,000 years ago is much less than now, and the overall complexity of his consciousness much more simple...due to the lack of information/complexity around him.
Substantiation for this claim? 
The invention of the telescope.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
hTx said: The overall awareness of external objects in the average man 10,000 years ago is much less than now, and the overall complexity of his consciousness much more simple...due to the lack of information/complexity around him.
Substantiation for this claim? 
I find this claim very suspect myself. From what I know of early man their awareness of their very complex environment was far and away more than ours. Even though we have access to more information in total we make use of very little of it usually.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx] 1
#19221309 - 12/03/13 09:49 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said:
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
hTx said: The overall awareness of external objects in the average man 10,000 years ago is much less than now, and the overall complexity of his consciousness much more simple...due to the lack of information/complexity around him.
Substantiation for this claim? 
The invention of the telescope.
Can you tell me what is edible and inedible in your local woods? How many of the plants can you positively identify?
How many modern humans can do anything more than look through a telescope? If you asked them what the scopes aperture was or its FOV or if it had much chromatic aberration you'd get a blank stare.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19221310 - 12/03/13 09:49 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: The invention of the telescope.
The invention of the telescope substantiates the notion that humans, through utilizing the telescope, increased the degree to which they were capable of visualizing objects in space, and, subsequently, were able to collectively take note of a greater number of these objects.
This, however, does not act as substantiation for either the claim that the overall awareness of external objects in the average man of 10,000 years ago was much less than it is now, nor the claim that the overall complexity of his consciousness was much more simple.
Do you have substantiation for these two claims?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: I find this claim very suspect myself. From what I know of early man their awareness of their very complex environment was far and away more than ours. Even though we have access to more information in total we make use of very little of it usually.
You raise a good point, one separate from the speculation of how early man's awareness or consciousness manifested itself. The amount of information and its complexity present within any aspect of reality is likely unfathomable. There's an insane amount of detail within any aspect of reality, and the manners in which that set of details interrelate certainly isn't simple.
As human prerogatives shift with time, so does our focus on the types of information we concern ourselves with, and the manners in which we process and utilize that information change as well.
Quantifying the degree to which the average exemplar of humanity from one period of time vs. another had a more complex consciousness or was aware of external objects requires substantiation.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
I raised a good point? Really? All right! 
(it was likely an accident)
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
As science uninhibited by dogma progresses we will see more evidence come from research supporting the theory that consciousness, lifes awareness, is primary to evolution.
The important thing is zero evidence against such an idea exists.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19345113 - 12/30/13 05:58 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
never underestimate elves and fairies
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
|