Was Primordial man Conscious?

mickiel · Post by **mickiel** » Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:18 pm

I often wonder if Primordial man even was conscious as we are conscious? I keep coming up with no! Is it possible for a whole race of humans to exist and not be conscious? I think so. Primordial man certainly had very high instincts and that is why they survived for so long; but why did they stay stagnate for so long? Never became civilized. I think because they were not conscious, as we are conscious.

They certainly were not civilized.

The signs of consciousness and civilization, ( and I think consciousness is what led to civilization), are as follows;

Education
Transportation
Language
Math
War
Religion
Agriculture
Building
Sports
technology
culture
And so on. Primordial man never displayed any of these in advanced stages; they were more animal like than I think is reported. They really did not evolve much at all in any of those areas.

And not being conscious beings would explain why.

mickiel · Post by **mickiel** » Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:12 pm

Danmark wrote:
mickiel wrote:
Danmark wrote:
mickiel wrote: [Replying to dio9]

I think so yes. Consciousness defines us.
That's another thing you have not defined properly. Without operational definitions about what it is you are promoting, this entire discussion becomes meaningless.

"Science leaders have reached a critical consensus: Humans are not the only conscious beings; other animals, specifically mammals and birds, are indeed conscious, too."
http://tinyurl.com/pkw2o6k from Psychology Today

Since your entire claim is that only modern humans are conscious, your thesis fails miserably.

Its not a thesis, its a theory; and this thread has been quite successful , in my view; it has grown at an incredible rate. It draws much interest, just not in your view. If I, I mean me personally, thought a thread was a waste of time, I would not bother posting on it. So when people post on this thread, and call it a waste of time, I always wonder why then are they posting on it?? So its transparent, and I see through it ; I don't know why this is attempted; some people just like to call things a failure. Things that are obviously unique. The theory I have is unique, as is this thread.
This is at least the second time you've tried to justify your absurd contention which has undefined terms and zero evidence to support it, by citing the many posts which have refuted it. Numbers of responses means nothing except that you continue to repeat your line and others continue to refute it with actual evidence.
It would be more effective to actually cite evidence for your claim, rather than point to the number of posts.

I gave attention to the number of views, over 20,000, not replies, although that number is high as well. There are two things here; you are trying to discredit the thread, and I support the thread; two obvious different points of view. I have given my evidence over and over again, and will continue to do so; and you will continue to ignore it, because it does not suit your purpose.

My theory is that primordial humans were not conscious, as we are conscious, and it explains why the bible calls Adam the first man, when he was not the first man; he was the first man given full consciousness. And this has been nothing short of eye opening to me and my learning.

mickiel · Post by **mickiel** » Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:50 pm

I doubt that humans survived the Ice Age:

http://www.andhranews.net/Technology/20 ... -26918.asp

So the biblical narrative begins after the Ice Age and explains how man came to be conscious. A conscious creator gave us consciousness , and I doubt he did that for Neanderthals, they could not make warm enough clothing to survive such a torrent of cold.

mickiel · Post by **mickiel** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:36 pm

I think its possible that Primordial man had an " Unconscious mind"; an unconscious mind can influence conscious action; its like having awareness in the form of dreams, this is discussed by Sigmon Freud, some of it here:

http://psychology.about.com/od/cindex/g ... scious.htm.

An interesting theory Freud gave. If the link does not work, click on the letter C at the site and look under Consciousness.

mickiel · Post by **mickiel** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:26 pm

Meet Goswami;

http://www.amitgoswami.org/

Neatras · Post by **Neatras** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:15 pm

This is a debate forum, not a center for monologues. In the worst case scenario, I suggest you try and pick out some choice claims in the bodies of text you link to, and proceed to try and rally up some kind of discussion-based questions.

mickiel · Post by **mickiel** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:21 pm

Neatras wrote: This is a debate forum, not a center for monologues. In the worst case scenario, I suggest you try and pick out some choice claims in the bodies of text you link to, and proceed to try and rally up some kind of discussion-based questions.

This is illusion, I have been debating this on thread for a year and a half almost; discussing it almost everyday; look at the replies, I am not doing a monologue. Come on man , at least be honest.

Neatras · Post by **Neatras** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:23 pm

[Replying to post 446 by mickiel]

It's been a week, and you've done little more than making one-line posts and linking to outside sources.

What's more, you repeat claims that HAVE been contested, as if ignoring the conversations relating to consciousness prior. Your constructed idea of what consciousness is likely won't be adjusted unless you are willing to challenge your own ideas rather than repeat them to thin air over the course of a week. We call those echo chambers.

mickiel · Post by **mickiel** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:39 pm

Neatras wrote: [Replying to post 446 by mickiel]

It's been a week, and you've done little more than making one-line posts and linking to outside sources.

What's more, you repeat claims that HAVE been contested, as if ignoring the conversations relating to consciousness prior. Your constructed idea of what consciousness is likely won't be adjusted unless you are willing to challenge your own ideas rather than repeat them to thin air over the course of a week. We call those echo chambers.

You call a year and a half, the course of a week; I have contested every line given to me; what is your beef? Come out with it, or belittle the thread, the choice is yours. I STAND READY TO DEFEND. I challenge my ideas every day. I link to outside sources to show whats out there; show me why I should not do that.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:02 am

mickiel wrote: My theory is that primordial humans were not conscious, as we are conscious, and it explains why the bible calls Adam the first man, when he was not the first man; he was the first man given full consciousness.

That says it all. The Bible was wrong in saying Adam was the first man. On that we agree. But just making up a theory, an unfounded one at that, does not rescue the Bible from its false statement. Additionally, the Bible does not say there were men before Adam, even those with less than what you call "full consciousness."

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:17 pm

mickiel wrote: Meet Goswami;

http://www.amitgoswami.org/

Moderator Comment

A little more comment with your link, and you would have avoided this comment. As it stands, this is little more than a "one-liner" and does not really advance the debate.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.