I’m going to slide this over to Great Debates. since it’s seemed to take that turn awhile ago.
So based upon those criteria, can you tell me whether Tasmanian Aborigines in 1700 were conscious or not?
This was a group of people with no agriculture, no science, no transportation (aside from feet), no mathematics (couldn’t even count), no building abilities beyond weaving branches together, no weapons beyond spears and wooden clubs, no ability to write, no government in the conventional sense, no technology beyond wooden clubs and spears, not even an ability to make fire.
So, were these people conscious in 1700? Are they conscious now? If so, when did they become conscious?
In my view A God, who gives consciousness to a first set of human couple, then determines that it will be passed on to their generate; that consciousness is " A Spirit in man"; and that is how I view the beginning of consciousness in humans. The things they acquired after that is a result of being given consciousness; those things did not generate consciousness. If physical things generated consciousness, then Primordial man would have had it.
Society does not create consciousness in my view, neither could chemicals, time, luck, or nature. Science believes that because most of them cannot accept that a God exist. So then science must try to explain physically, what is a spiritual matter. And they can’t do that yet; but I think they are destined too. Because science is a search for truth; and they then will find this truth; eventually; its academic.
Yes they were conscious, because God had already given consciousness, which depends on none of those things being present; those things are only gauges of consciousness, not the givers of it. I think Adam came about some 40,000 years ago; I am not sure, that is just a guess. Any humans after him were conscious.
So you were asked how you would determine if a group of humans were conscious and how you would determine if an ancestral group was not conscious.
And you answered that you would look at a long list of attributes of the groups.
And now you say that none of those attributes have to be present for a group to be conscious.
So how the fuck can you use those attributes to determine that a group of humans were conscious and determine that an ancestral group was not conscious.
Never mind the science. You are now contradicting yourself.
No you think I am contradicting myself; I was asked how would I know people were not conscious, if I were back in those times, and how would I determine that, by what signs. Those signs I gave are attributes of consciousness in my view, signs of consciousness; but none of those things determine consciousness. None of them create consciousness. And none of them need to be present in a conscious person now.
Why would they have needed to be present in Adam’s great-great-great- (however many “greats” you think are needed) -grandfather, Joe Caveman, such that their absence would have caused you to deem Joe “not conscious,” then?
This is absolute madness. Attributes of consciousness that do not determine consciousness that need not be present in a conscious person now? The only things correct with your statement are that it starts with a capital letter and ends with a period.
Clearly another case of simple witnessing. I doubt any rational debate is possible.
Any evidence for this remarkable claim, in the face of counterexamples like the Tasmanian Aborigines or feral children?
Good move. Just so that every knows, this guy is WITNESSING, and witnessing belongs in GD. Don’t expect any debate.
Perhaps consciousness is asymptomatic.
We cannot easily know where consciousness resides and where it doesn’t.
I would say that I can safely assert that consciousness itself does exist. My consciousness cannot be an illusion (since to be an illusion it would have to be an illusion to someone or something, hence to a conscious someone or something, thus putting us back to the original assertion).
Your consciousness could be an illusion to me, although I’m inclined on the basis of evidence to operate from the premise that you are indeed conscious.
Then there’s the question of identity: I can assert that my consciousness isn’t illusory but I can’t with the same confidence assert that what I experience as “me” is located exclusively in the individual AHunter3, and in fact I strongly suspect that only a small fragment of it is. (i.e., that we are far more of a collective-hive consciousness, us humanfolk, than we tend to think we are; that as individuals the majority what passes for thoughts in our heads are actually thoughts that the species in general is mulling over, notions and ideas we’ve absorbed from communication with each other and so on). Given the latter, it becomes very difficult, as I said to begin with, to claim that primordial man or my kitty cat or yon boulder are not places where consciousness resides.
Bull! Witnessing is when a religious persons is trying to persuade someone to be a believer, I couldcareless what people believe about God or not. Such is their right. I am not religious, but I do believe in God and have absolutely no problem talking about the things of God.
I think God created Primordial man; I don’t know why; but he did it for a reason; and kept them unconscious for a reason. And all historical signs point to this.
Please list five historical signs that point to that conclusion.
I’ll accept three, though.
P.S. Witnessing, if it’s being done right, isn’t about persuading anybody of anything. It’s about DEMONSTRATING how the witnesser has benefitted from his/her acceptance of whatever received truth is being witnessed to. The truly faithful will be confident that some who observe the witnessing will be intriqued enough to take the received truth out for a spin, but the witnessing itself is really just an expression of gratitude.
I wager this will take a redefining of the term “historical”.
Maybe of “sign” as well.
And “point”. And “this”.
-
Primordial man never became civilized
-
They never progressed in technology
-
They never had wars, war is a historical sign of consciousness
4.They never wrote books
-
Hey, they didn’t know how to write
-
They never developed a working verbal language
7.They never could build any shelter that could help them survive the ice age
- They never had any agriculture of significance
9.They never historically developed transportation
10.They never even developed religion
- They never did or accomplished anything significant
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
:smack:
Well such idio’s are the way of this website, they put the microscope under the microscope, because they are constantly on the offensive
but they have no defense, which makes it easy to advance my points.