What's new
By:

Evolution - A serious question.

Red said:
I majored in History a lifetime ago. In graduate school, I concentrated on the History of Science. My thesis was an examination of the collaboration between Nobel prize winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli, and noted psychoanalyst Carl Jung. Jung's essay "Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle in Nature" was a seminal work, and Pauli recognized that understanding the place of consciousness in nature was a frontier of science that would certainly bear fruit in time. I was a bit ahead of my time. Noted historian of science Arthur Koestler recognized the importance of this collaboration of psychologist and physicist,and took much the same stance I did in his seminal study of Jung and Pauli's collaboration, in his book The Roots of Coincidence.

What you evidently consider nonsense, understanding the place of consciousness in nature, is one of the most important of scientific frontiers. It is people like Richard Dawkins who are destined for the dustbin of history. A failed paradigm called Scientism will join him there....
Click to expand...

Consciousness is a physical phenomenon no different than any other. It resides in the brain and can be altered and/or removed when the brain is damaged or changed in some ways. The study of the nature of consciousness and other aspects of subjective experience are indeed at the frontier of neuroscience. And why shouldn't they be? Quantum consciousness is at the frontier of talk show hosting and drug-fueled conversation of non-scientist college students. The history of how you read the works of others who agree with you is of no concern.

One of the bottom lines here is quantum physics is revealing a universe that more closely resembles a giant mind, which is in sharp contrast to the "universe as giant machine" that emerges from Newtonian physics. In view of Bronco70's question, I believe my reply to him was somewhat relevant to his inquiry. It bears no relation to the subject of evolution. But it certainly bears a relation to the questions he asked and the observations he was suggesting. If consciousness is something fundamental to creation, that pretty much changes everything as far as how we interpret reality. It is in this realm of study that the most fundamental paradigm shifts will occur. And as Thomas Kuhn observed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, we can expect the old guard, protectors of the dogma of scientific materialism, to go out kicking and screaming all the way.
Click to expand...

The universe as a giant mind? What does that mean? How is the probabilistic nature QM resemble what you see as the workings of the brain (or mind...)? I wouldn't want to challenge mystics talking out of their ***, but it would be nice to give magical context to my thousands of hours actually studying the subject. I'm a big fan of fantasy novels after all!

Seems like every generation thinks their paradigms are the final ones, nothing new to learn. Meteorite studies a good example of that. In the 18th century, French scientists dismissed reports by peasants that stones had been seen to fall from the sky as the rantings of "uneducated dolts". Science did not have to pay attention to French peasants. Yet, in that instance, the science that said stones cannot fall from a clear sky was very, very wrong. The old guard fights new ideas tooth and nail. Even just 20 years ago, you had better have tenure to suggest people were in the Americas before about 13,000 years ago. Careers ruined for suggesting there were people here before the Clovis hunters. Careers ruined for believing in the truth and suggesting better interpretations of the data. Should not work that way, but, in fact, human nature sees to it that that is exactly how progress is attained: by pitched battles in obscure journals between the New and the Old guard.....
Click to expand...

There we go again with "you don't know everything, so I must be right" argument. I never get tired of hearing that from people who are very clearly wrong.

In conclusion a lot of words that say nothing. Let's hear an actual, rational, argument on how our understanding of QM necessitates that consciousness is causing the collapse of the wave function.
 
Siro said:
I was thinking the same thing. Do you have a link? My gut feeling that it's a bit of both. A self-reinforcing feedback mechanism.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's a bit of both. The adaptation with our hands meant we did not need as much strength. My guess would be that our relative weakness was an effect that came in concert with other changes that were advantages, perhaps simply being able to walk upright at length.

I have not compared our common ancestor's putative strength (much of which is dependent on muscle attachment points, to my understanding), and I could easily be wrong. I was making what I thought was a reasoned guess based on the lineage (it seems more likely that one species would be less strong than that four separate groups would all get much stronger in basically the same fashion), but reasoned guesses can still be wrong.

I have more trouble seeing how a strong tool-user has no survival advantage over a weak tool-user. If nothing else, it gives him a better pool of mates, all other things being equal.
 
One Brow said:
I'm sure it's a bit of both. The adaptation with our hands meant we did not need as much strength. My guess would be that our relative weakness was an effect that came in concert with other changes that were advantages, perhaps simply being able to walk upright at length.

I have not compared our common ancestor's putative strength (much of which is dependent on muscle attachment points, to my understanding), and I could easily be wrong. I was making what I thought was a reasoned guess based on the lineage (it seems more likely that one species would be less strong than that four separate groups would all get much stronger in basically the same fashion), but reasoned guesses can still be wrong.

I have more trouble seeing how a strong tool-user has no survival advantage over a weak tool-user. If nothing else, it gives him a better pool of mates, all other things being equal.
Click to expand...

Welcome back!!!
 
babe said:
Ever just sit and watch animals?

Cows are the true Gods. It might take science a thousand years to catch up with our earliest and most successful human religion, but catch up it will.

Apes are idiots uttering unintelligible "white noise", cackles, hoots, hollers, and grunts.

Cows speak clearly, and with purpose.

Moooooo. . . . .

I rest my case.
Click to expand...
Plus they're tasty.
 
carolinajazz said:
50,000 years ago? Who told you this...the evolution "fairy?"

Truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in The Fate of the Earth we read: “Only six or seven thousand years ago .... civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.”

The Last Two Million Years states: “In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC.” It also says: “Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.”

The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.

Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W.F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: “The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. ... You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.

When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said: “The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.”

Muggeridge concluded: “Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.”
Click to expand...

I'm just bustin your chops. I haven't forgotten the fact that you jumped into three of my threads with a level of unprovoked hostility and anger, the likes of which I have never seen before, and that's saying a lot, given how much time I waste on forums. So I just figured I'd have some fun pointing out how out of whack your Dino/bird theory was in relation to the facts of the matter. As far as who told me at least 4 groups of humans existed 50,000 years ago, it would be fossils and DNA analysis. I'm not responsible for either, and you can dismiss all of it. I do respect your right to support Creationism.
 
Last edited:
Siro wrote:

"Consciousness is a physical phenomenon no different than any other. It resides in the brain and can be altered and/or removed when the brain is damaged or changed in some ways. The study of the nature of consciousness and other aspects of subjective experience are indeed at the frontier of neuroscience. And why shouldn't they be? Quantum consciousness is at the frontier of talk show hosting and drug-fueled conversation of non-scientist college students. The history of how you read the works of others who agree with you is of no concern."

The frontier of talk show hosting:

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/panel-exploring-non-local-consciousness/

Drug fueled conversation:

DMT: The Spirit Molecule:

https://vimeo.com/134182983

Yes, I do believe consciousness is non local. No, I cannot prove it, nor has true veriidical perception been proven. My own "subjective" experiences have demonstrated that it is non local, but those carry no weight beyond myself.
I have been willing to use my own body as a lab. Shamans have been so inclined for thousands of years. It's not the way of the West or it's science, but it's been valid within those cultures, around the globe, for centuries. I learned long ago not to dismiss them just because I was born and raised in the West.
And I have joined them at times to explore their "universe" on their terms.


https://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
 
"Seems like every generation thinks their paradigms are the final ones, nothing new to learn. Meteorite studies a good example of that. In the 18th century, French scientists dismissed reports by peasants that stones had been seen to fall from the sky as the rantings of "uneducated dolts". Science did not have to pay attention to French peasants. Yet, in that instance, the science that said stones cannot fall from a clear sky was very, very wrong. The old guard fights new ideas tooth and nail. Even just 20 years ago, you had better have tenure to suggest people were in the Americas before about 13,000 years ago. Careers ruined for suggesting there were people here before the Clovis hunters. Careers ruined for believing in the truth and suggesting better interpretations of the data. Should not work that way, but, in fact, human nature sees to it that that is exactly how progress is attained: by pitched battles in obscure journals between the New and the Old guard....."


There we go again with "you don't know everything, so I must be right" argument. I never get tired of hearing that from people who are very clearly wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, you're right. No point in that argument. But it was not an "I must be right" argument at all. I just happen to see the debate over local and non local as an example of old guard vs. new guard. But, since what I see is in fact based on my assumption that consciousness is non local, it can come across the way you interpret it. And since it proves nothing regarding non local vs. local, then you're right, no point going there. I'm wrong most every day of my life, and I could be wrong in my beliefs here. I do believe the battle I see between materialist/reductionists and those who think NDE's demonstrate non-locality is an example of old guard vs. new guard in the sense Kuhn described when describing how change occurs in science. But that's because I've come down on the side of the NDE studies that suggest the non local nature of consciousness. So I'm making a call on how I think things will unfold going forward.
 
One Brow said:
Consciousness is a brain phenomenon in a similar way that Microsoft Word is a hardware phenomenon.
Click to expand...

He disagrees. I forgot what his opinion was, but something along the lines that the brain's role in cognition is over-rated.
 
Siro said:
He disagrees. I forgot what his opinion was, but something along the lines that the brain's role in cognition is over-rated.
Click to expand...

Well, Word works about the same way on vastly different hardware platforms. I'll be interested in reading his disagreement.
 
One Brow said:
Well, Word works about the same way on vastly different hardware platforms. I'll be interested in reading his disagreement.
Click to expand...

I don't think the hardware/software distinction works that well for the brain. The "software" is encoded through changing the hardware. They are basically one and the same.
 
Red said:
Even just 20 years ago, you had better have tenure to suggest people were in the Americas before about 13,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

How is it possible for people to be in the Americas 13,000 years ago....when men and writing history only can ACCURATELY be dated back 6,000 years ago? Can you explain that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Siro said:
I don't think the hardware/software distinction works that well for the brain. The "software" is encoded through changing the hardware. They are basically one and the same.
Click to expand...

If you take an intact copy of Word on a hard drive, and change a couple of bits, you wind up changing the software. If Word is in RAM and you change the current flows, you change the running version of the software.

I agree the analogy breaks down for several reasons, but I am not sure your example is one. I agree that there is nothing to the code (mind/Word) beyond what is loaded in the platform (brain/hardware), but that does not mean you can successfully analyze the code just by studying it at the level of the platform.
 
carolinajazz said:
How is it possible for people to be in the Americas 13,000 years ago....when men and writing history only can ACCURATELY be dated back 6,000 years ago? Can you explain that?
Click to expand...

We have examples of proto-writing going back 10,000 years, and it can be accurately dated using the assumption that the physical universe has behaved consistently. If you drop that assumption, you invite Last Thursdayism and the Trickster God.
 
One Brow said:
We have examples of proto-writing going back 10,000 years, and it can be accurately dated using the assumption that the physical universe has behaved consistently. If you drop that assumption, you invite Last Thursdayism and the Trickster God.
Click to expand...

so you are a "religion vs science" guy.
they cant coexist in your limited brain?
make room in your mind and see the similarities
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top