By “First Man” he means “Adam” from the Bible, so I guess “primordial man” is some sort of proto-human the Bible doesn’t talk about. He is trying to shoehorn science into the Bible and vice-versa.
Again, what makes your reality better than mine? What gives you the determining factor to label my reality as imagination?
I would look at their language, and their;
Agriculture
Education
Science
Transportation
Mathmatics
Building abilities
Their relations with other groups present
Their beliefs
Their weapons
Their ability to write
Their governments
Their recreation
Their technology
Their mental state of being.
The fact that you think that a people would have to reach some arbitrary level in each and every one of these categories before you would consider them to be “conscious” shows that you are totally unqualified to even be discussing the subject. You’ve seemed to have created a personal definition of the word to suit a personal religious idea you have about some divinity inspiring a mythological “first man”.
So are you suggesting that you are qualified to tell me I am not qualified? Why do you always speak in terms that put me down and lift yourself up? Why do you seem to want conversations to involve " Only Professionals", as if you are one yourself? Do I need a degree in a subject to start a thread on that subject?
You seem to have created this " Professional world all of your own."
Or is it just a smoke screen that you use to fight something that you sense is a threat?
If you read the thread, you’ll see it’s complete circular reasoning. “Primordial Man” is defined as man prior to consciousness. And as if it happened all at once. Boom! Consciousness. But that’s no problem because consciousness is “given”. It can’t be created out of nothing, so it has to be given by another consciousness. How the first consciousness came into being is magic. None of this is religious, although it’s based on The Bible.
We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.
Ok, so you’ve identified a lot of categories. How are you establishing baselines for these in terms of consciousness? Would a hypothetical primordial man need to tick every box or is there a percentage we’re looking for? Take language for example. What about a language determines consciousness? Function words? Tenses and aspects? Identification of abstract concepts?
And the fact that the first conscious dude was named “Adam” was just a coincidence.
BTW, I see now that he has credited me with creating the whole “Professional Field”, but I couldn’t have done it without you, John Mace, so from now on we’ll share the credit(my name first, of course).
All of those aspects of language, and the ability to have them all at once, is a sign of consciousness. The more concepts being incorporated, the more conscious they are; the less being used, the less conscious they would be.
That religious chip you got on your shoulder, has now worked its way into your unconscious being; and become a serious part of you. Almost borderlines a hatred, you are so against the bible and spirituality, that you go after it with a fever; as if your fever can help the situation;
Reminds me of a bully who fights when the fight is over; just because its habitual.
What evidence do you have for the idea that consciousness exists on a continuum rather than in a binary state? Does this mean that as a child acquires their first language they move from a state of nonconsciousness to full consciousness?
Civilized humans are evidence enough; a current constant evidence; you yourself are evidence. I am evidence, we need no scientific paper work or professional opinion. Children learn language, as they do everythingelse. Consciousness is like a new computer program , and life experiences download the information. The child is already conscious when born, but it becomes more aware as it processes its experiences. It learns as it grows; Primordial humans did not show this kind of progressive graph. They were obviously muted; slow; instinctual; give me 10 babies from any town in any civilized nations; and duplicate the atmosphere and all things during the primordial times, and they would progress in years what it took them millions of years to " Not even obtain."
The difference; Consciousness!
Amazingly, there are groups of people alive today who are not “conscious”. What luck!! We can study them to understand why they lack consciousness. Of course, that will be a huge surprise to them, but they are fortunate they have us around to tell them of their unfortunate circumstances.
So consciousness is possible without language? If so, how can you determine whether a languageless society is conscious or not?
This is just classic Nutcase Pretending To Be Discussing Rationally. At some point, after pressing and pressing, they have to confront the simple, obvious fact that they cannot live up to the standards of evidence required for real science. Then we get to the real point - “It’s just OBVIOUS!! You HAVE to agree with me! Just because I REALLY REALLY WANT IT TO BE TRUE!!!” sprinkled with a heaping helping of “evidence doesn’t matter when I’m so obviously RIGHT!!” This is often followed up with either insults or complaints about free speech.
How do you define him? How do we distinguish him from his father or his son?
Species aren’t sets with razor-sharp mathematical boundaries. Species evolve over large periods of time, incorporating large numbers of very small genetic changes.
In mathematics, you could say, yes, there has to have been “the first man.” But in biology, the term doesn’t have any meaning.
Well, you’re obviously not taking magic into account.
“All at once?” The list of achievements and attainments you wrote all occurred over a period of several thousand years. They were not all invented by “the first man.”
You go by the other things on the list.
How many things must a society have acquired in order to be determined conscious and how did you come to that figure?