This word appears to be at the centre of many discussions on this forum. It also appears to mean different things to different people and, therein lies the root of our miscommunication. What range and definement do you attribute to, ' consciousness ' ?
Is there an external consciousness in the world?. Can I tune into a shared consciousness. I am listening to Prime Minister's Question Time, ....is Boris tuned into a universal human consciousness as he delivers his address. Is his brain working ,simultaneously and in tandem with my own consciousness and with that of others?
What is ' consciousness ' ?
Moderator: Moderators
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #131[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #124]
So their capacity for intelligence may have been very similar to our own, but they had no writing, presumably very limited languages, only oral transmission of knowledge, etc. We've become a lot "smarter" since the "great lead forward" some 50-70K years ago, and development of more complex and useful languages probably had a lot to do with that. I'm speculating on some of these things of course, but the point is that "smartness" is not just the size and construction of the brain ... it is the ability to accumulate knowledge and pass it down through generations where it grows exponentially. The Homo sapiens of 300K years ago where probably closer to the knowledge level of a chimp than to a modern human, despite having a far more capable brain (that was eventually put to better use as more knowledge was obtained).
Well, for one thing our brains are about 80% neocortex compared to (for example) a chimp's roughly 50%. Since the human brain is around 1300 cc compared to a chimp at 350 cc, we have 6x more neocortex volume than a chimp. But that is just one detail, and you still seem to be equating intelligence and consciousness as if they are the same thing. When Homo sapiens first appeared around 300,000 years ago (Morrocco find reported in Nature in 2017) or more, they had about the same physical brains we do but remained hunter gatherers for nearly that same period until the Neolithic some 10-12K years ago.You say that the human brain is more developed, but you do not say what about the human brain is more developed.
So their capacity for intelligence may have been very similar to our own, but they had no writing, presumably very limited languages, only oral transmission of knowledge, etc. We've become a lot "smarter" since the "great lead forward" some 50-70K years ago, and development of more complex and useful languages probably had a lot to do with that. I'm speculating on some of these things of course, but the point is that "smartness" is not just the size and construction of the brain ... it is the ability to accumulate knowledge and pass it down through generations where it grows exponentially. The Homo sapiens of 300K years ago where probably closer to the knowledge level of a chimp than to a modern human, despite having a far more capable brain (that was eventually put to better use as more knowledge was obtained).
Aristotle died 2344 years ago in 322 BC. He also thought the brain was a radiator to cool blood and that the seat of mind was the heart. Smart guy to be sure, but not sure I'd quote him to support theories of the brain.Aristotle explained like this.
See above ... sperm whales apparently do not have the brain functions necessary to do complex mathematics in their heads. Neither did the Homo sapiens of 300K years ago apparently, although certainly more likely than a sperm whale.Why is it that bigger brains do not lead to more intelligence? Why is it that sperm whale cannot do complex mathematics in there head?
And what does that have to do with the evolution of the human brain and accumulation of intelligence?You say that man evolved this ability. In many ways my dog is more trainable and intelligent than a chimpanzee would be.
Compare the intelligence levels of the earliest members of the genus Homo (habilis) with a modern human, or start with the 300K old Homo sapiens found in Morocco, or the Omo remains from Africa some 200K years ago. Look at the progression of brain size and archeaological information on what these creatures had the capacity to do. Habilis developed rock tools that required more intelligence than previously, but they looked much like chimps or bonobos. As you continue forward in time with Homo, they become more human like in appearance (ergaster, erectus, etc.), brain size increased, and things were developed like bows and arrows, cooking food, etc. Eventually sapiens appeared and we have anatomically modern humans, agrculture, writing, and all the technoligical advances during the last few thousand years (and especially the last 500). Who knows what we'll evolve into in another few million years if we're here at all. The proof of all of this is in the fossil record, and in the archeological records. We can see clearly the progression, even it we don't yet have every gap in the timeline filled.You seem to believe that this difference in consciences is because of evolution but you have no proof this is the case. Why is there such a gulf between man and primate? If your thesis of evolution is correct the we should see species whose vocal ability and thought pattern are just a little lower than humans. But that thought in the past led to racism.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #132Humans are primates so it's hard to know what gulf you're referring to.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #133Or it could be one of the many ways in which the Earth shows Herself to being mindful - paying attention rather than imagining something which isn't really happening.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:25 am [Replying to William in post #119]
NO, you can't. That would be ones imagination.If one slows down and smells the roses one can even detect signs of self-consciousness in the insects.
But you won't know until you pay attention...slow down and smell the roses...
Don't squash the spider - find a way to gently pick it up and place it somewhere outside - observe it - interact with it - appreciate that it has a mind and is self conscious.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #134None have ever mentioned it to me.2ndRateMind wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 6:26 am
And do you think dolphins are even aware of the threat?
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #135This is where we enter another level of understanding.Tcg wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:38 pmGiven that no other mammals (that I am aware of) systematically destroy their own and other's environments, there is plenty of reason to think that, at least of some ways, other mammals are more intelligent than us. Of course, perhaps it could be argued that other mammals haven't yet developed the intelligence to do so. That would leave us in the position to contemplate the value of intelligence. I personally think that dolphins got it goin' on. Smart enough to develop and maintain family bonds. Smart enough to introduce themselves with their name. "Dumb" enough to not know how to destroy the oceans.
Tcg
Self consciousness is one thing and intelligence another thing related to that.
There is no reason to think that dolphins might be too dumb to know 'how to destroy oceans'.
The difference is not in brains or intelligence - but in form.
Humans are not consciously involved with a project on procuring knowledge and implementing plans based on that knowledge, as to how to destroy the ocean.
For a long time humans lived in harmony with the oceans and it is only in more recent times that human societies have changed and those changes have resulted in the continuing destruction of the ecosystem.
That cannot simply be put down to either a lack of intelligence or a purposeful misuse of intelligence.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #136You must have missed the sarcasm in that statement. But, if you think it is faulty, please explain how dolphins could go about destroying the oceans.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #137What makes you think that is what I was saying?
I was saying that it isn't about consciously being involved with a project on procuring knowledge and implementing plans based on that knowledge, as to how to destroy the ocean.
For a long time humans lived in harmony with the oceans and it is only in more recent times that human societies have changed and those changes have resulted in the continuing destruction of the ecosystem.
eta
The source of these more recent changes can be traced to the science of materialism.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #138[Replying to William in post #137]
The problem isn't the "science of materialism" per se, but the inability of humans to curb an exponential population explosion and the resulting need for more resources worldwide to support and feed them all, and deal with their personal and industrial waste. World population has grown something like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates ... population):
Year Population (billions)
1800 1.0
1900 1.5
1930 2.0
1960 3.0
1974 4.0
1987 5.0
1999 6.0
2012 7.0
We're adding roughly a billion new humans every 13 years since 1960. Plotted against history it looks like this on a linear time (x) axis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates ... _curve.svg
This is the biggest threat to Earth's resources and if we don't do something about it eventually (long after I'm dead and gone, but eventually) I expect Mother Nature will if we're still restricted to living on this particular rock.
I think more likely the "science of materialism" is the by product of the desire of humans to travel faster, have more conveniences, eat better (and with less work), etc. Humans have always made efforts towards a more comfortable life by improving hunting methods, building shelters, developing clothing, mastering fire, and the like. But until the industrial revolution we didn't really have the mechanisms to cause as much destruction to ecosysystems as we do now with the ability to belch gases from industrial operations at massive scales, destroy forests and jungles at massive scales, mine metal ores for building at massive scales, etc.The source of these more recent changes can be traced to the science of materialism.
The problem isn't the "science of materialism" per se, but the inability of humans to curb an exponential population explosion and the resulting need for more resources worldwide to support and feed them all, and deal with their personal and industrial waste. World population has grown something like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates ... population):
Year Population (billions)
1800 1.0
1900 1.5
1930 2.0
1960 3.0
1974 4.0
1987 5.0
1999 6.0
2012 7.0
We're adding roughly a billion new humans every 13 years since 1960. Plotted against history it looks like this on a linear time (x) axis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates ... _curve.svg
This is the biggest threat to Earth's resources and if we don't do something about it eventually (long after I'm dead and gone, but eventually) I expect Mother Nature will if we're still restricted to living on this particular rock.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #139[Replying to DrNoGods in post #138]
Humans having babies is the cause the continuing destruction of the ecosystem , not the science of materialism?
Maybe the one helped the success of the other, and the lack of foresight made it what it is.
The way you worded that, it appears to be a veiled way to say "If only humans didn't breed so much, the science of materialism wouldn't have been as damaging as it has been."
Humans having babies is the cause the continuing destruction of the ecosystem , not the science of materialism?
Maybe the one helped the success of the other, and the lack of foresight made it what it is.
The way you worded that, it appears to be a veiled way to say "If only humans didn't breed so much, the science of materialism wouldn't have been as damaging as it has been."
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #140The "science of materialism" isn't a thing. There is but science. Whatever science has wrought, it is the result of human's use or misuse of it. Given the small percentage of materialists in the world, the blame for its misuse has to lie mostly at the hands of those who aren't materialists. It's not like some group of humans uses science and some other group doesn't. Well, maybe the Amish, but even they use the science of buttons just not the science of zippers... Oh, and wheels, their cool with wheels.William wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 1:39 am [Replying to DrNoGods in post #138]
Humans having babies is the cause the continuing destruction of the ecosystem , not the science of materialism?
Maybe the one helped the success of the other, and the lack of foresight made it what it is.
The way you worded that, it appears to be a veiled way to say "If only humans didn't breed so much, the science of materialism wouldn't have been as damaging as it has been."
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom