Was Primordial man conscious?

[kaylasdad99]

@Captain_Amazing

Not to say I’m agreeing with the op at all, but I think you misunderstand what “consciousness” means. In psychology/philosophy of mind, consciousness usually refers to what you would call self consciousness; in other words, a sense of self, that you exist as a distinct being. The claim isn’t that nonconscious beings are unaware of the physical world.

You may be right. I’ve canvassed the thread, though, and the OP has never once used the term “nonconscious”; OTOH, he seems pretty comfortable with “unconscious.”

[Smeghead]

@Mickiel

Oh I have evidence, its just too lengthy to list;

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/general-religious-discussions/53934-god-real-113.html

Horseshit.

[Czarcasm]

@Smeghead

Horseshit.

And it’s the same random-list horseshit that got one of his other threads locked down here.

[XT]

@Mickiel

I steer very clear of Jewish/Christian/ Islamic religious thought; I disagree with them all.

You were the one who brought up Adam. That’s pretty specific. But ok, then we are back to you arbitrarily defining what is or isn’t ‘conscious’ as some vague belief in ‘God’ as defined by…well, whatever arbitrary definition you ARE using.

So, your assertion that H.H. wasn’t ‘conscious’ is not based on anything, since we don’t really know what they did or didn’t believe in. Which is going to make answering your question or even debating it in any sort of rational way a bit difficult, don’t you think?

[dropzone]

@Mickiel

Was Primordial man conscious?

The General Questions answer? Yes. Hell, my cat’s conscious enough to be mad at me for not feeding her a whole can of food and for preventing her from going into the laundry room. The Great Debates answer? Still yes–I thought that was worked out with the GQ answer. You are allowed your own beliefs but not your own reality, as somebody undoubtedly mentioned pages back.

[Mickiel]

@Czarcasm

And it’s the same random-list horseshit that got one of his other threads locked down here.

Its a beautiful list, one of the finest I have constructed. A thing of beauty!

[Latro]

Did anyone say horseshit can’t be beautiful?

It doesn’t even smell that bad.

[Blake]

Man, there is some crazy horseshit in this thread.

[Mickiel]

What would be the differences between any modern day tribe that has been unexposed to civilization, and Primordial man? If you can see those differences, then you can begin to see consciousness.

[GIGObuster]

@andros

Yeah, I’m not reading another 1300 posts. Can you summarize at all?

I took one for the team, basically what Mickiel is doing there is to make pages of his posts with “evidence” of god and that science proves god.

One big argument the fallacious one that says that since scientists in the past believed in god, therefore god does exist.

The problem with that is that before scientists had to deal with huge gaps where a traditional god could be put, and as less gaps are found nowadays eminent scientists today are less likely to think what Mickiel proposes.

Eminent scientists reject the supernatural: a survey of the Fellows of the...

Conclusion

We set out to investigate whether or not preeminent British scientists share their American colleagues’ rejection of supernatural religion and found that they do. There are still many questions worth pursuing, not least the question of why biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists.

Whether we personally hold religious beliefs or not, it is important we understand the perceptions of scientists with regard to religion and how these differ in line with scientific ideas given that scientists hold so much sway in the marketplace of ideas.

The point here is that following Mickiel’s logic then we have to conclude that god died… Again.

Good thing I do not subscribe to that logic, As an Agnostic I have to say this line of evidence is a really silly one as the ones being used to support it are less likely to think like the eminent scientists of the past.

[Mickiel]

@Mickiel

What would be the differences between any modern day tribe that has been unexposed to civilization, and Primordial man? If you can see those differences, then you can begin to see consciousness.

Well the first major difference from then and now to help us track consciousness and lack of it is a " Working fully developed language"; or obvious signs of common communication that is intellectual; not childish grunts.

Also " Trade between tribes", there we can trace common commination and again language.

War between tribes; there we can trace weapons and planning and strategy.

Survival cannot be used, because anything alive can survive without consciousness. Like Roaches. But roaches do not trade with each other.

[Mickiel]

@GIGObuster

I took one for the team, basically what Mickiel is doing there is to make pages of his posts with “evidence” of god and that science proves god.

One big argument the fallacious one that says that since scientists in the past believed in god, therefore god does exist.

The problem with that is that before scientists had to deal with huge gaps where a traditional god could be put, and as less gaps are found nowadays eminent scientists today are less likely to think what Mickiel proposes.

Eminent scientists reject the supernatural: a survey of the Fellows of the Royal Society | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text
The point here is that following Mickiel’s logic then we have to conclude that god died… Again.

Good thing I do not subscribe to that logic, As an Agnostic I have to say this line of evidence is a really silly one as the ones being used to support it are less likely to think like the eminent scientists of the past.

Look, if I started a thread to prove God exist, it would be closed, because it would stomp on too many toes; I already know that from experience.

[Mickiel]

@dropzone

The General Questions answer? Yes. Hell, my cat’s conscious enough to be mad at me for not feeding her a whole can of food and for preventing her from going into the laundry room. The Great Debates answer? Still yes–I thought that was worked out with the GQ answer. You are allowed your own beliefs but not your own reality, as somebody undoubtedly mentioned pages back.

Getting mad is not of consciousness.

[Mickiel]

@XT

You were the one who brought up Adam. That’s pretty specific. But ok, then we are back to you arbitrarily defining what is or isn’t ‘conscious’ as some vague belief in ‘God’ as defined by…well, whatever arbitrary definition you ARE using.

So, your assertion that H.H. wasn’t ‘conscious’ is not based on anything, since we don’t really know what they did or didn’t believe in. Which is going to make answering your question or even debating it in any sort of rational way a bit difficult, don’t you think?

Listen, " Not Knowing" IS a sign that helps us know they were not conscious. I maintain, that IF a human race was conscious and lived millions of years, they WOULD leave clear signs of it; H.H. did NOT, THATS a sign!

[Mickiel]

@Blake

Man, there is some crazy horseshit in this thread.

Why are you reading it???

[Mickiel]

@Trinopus

Nope. Bad argument, bad rhetorical essay, bad reasoning, and bad SDMB performance. Ad hominem is not admired in these here parts.

These parts don’t hold a monopoly on admiration.

[Mickiel]

@Smeghead

I have broken this paragraph out into separate claims to point out that each and every one of them is completely without support. There is no evidence for any of them. They are just simply YOUR assertions, and as such, carry exactly as much weight as if I were to say that the entire universe was sneezed yesterday out of the nose of a giant invisible goat.

THIS is why you are not discussing science in any way, shape, or form. THIS is why you are just witnessing. I will put this is big, simple letters for you:

SCIENCE
REQUIRES
EVIDENCE

But many in the Atheist camp think exactly like that; this giant universe was just sneezed out of an invisible nothing, which many in the Theist camp view as completely absurd!

[GIGObuster]

@Mickiel

Look, if I started a thread to prove God exist, it would be closed, because it would stomp on too many toes; I already know that from experience.

And, that shows that you are trying to go around what it is allowed in the forum, remember: it was you who linked to that, so stop dealing with very silly and irrelevant “evidence”.

[GIGObuster]

@Mickiel

But many in the Atheist camp think exactly like that; this giant universe was just sneezed out of an invisible nothing, which many in the Theist camp view as completely absurd!

Not accurate at all.

Lawrence Krauss On 'A Universe From Nothing'

Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can’t even measure them. Now, that sounds of course like counting angels on the head of a pin; if you can’t measure them, then it doesn’t sound like it’s science, but in fact you can’t measure them directly.

But we can measure their effects indirectly. These particles that are popping in and out of existence actually affect the properties of atoms and nuclei and actually are responsible for most of the mass inside your body. And in fact, really one of the things that motivated this book was the most profound discovery in recent times, and you even alluded to it in the last segment, the discovery that most of the energy of the universe actually resides in empty space.

You take space, get rid of all the particles, all the radiation, and it actually carries energy, and that notion that in fact empty space - once you allow gravity into the game, what seems impossible is possible. It sounds like it would violate the conservation of energy for you to start with nothing and end up with lots of stuff, but the great thing about gravity is it’s a little trickier.

Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. And in fact when we look out at the universe and try and measure its total energy, we come up with zero.

I like to think of it as the difference between, say, a savvy stockbroker and an embezzler. The savvy stockbroker will buy stocks on margin with more money than they have, and as long as they get that money back in there before anyone notices, and in fact if the stocks go up, they end with money where they didn’t have any before, whereas the embezzler, of course, is discovered.

Well, the universe is a savvy stockbroker. It can borrow energy, and if there’s no gravity, it gets rid of it back before anyone notices. But if gravity is there, it can actually create stuff where there was none before. And you can actually create enough stuff to account for everything we see in the universe.

But, you know, it’s more than that because some people would say, and I’ve had this discussion with theologians and others, well, you know, just empty space isn’t nothing. You know, there’s space. How did the space get there? But the amazing thing is, once you apply in fact quantum mechanics to gravity, as you were beginning to allude again in the last segment, then it’s possible, in fact it’s implied, that space itself can be created where there was nothing before, that literally whole universes can pop out of nothing by the laws of quantum mechanics.

And in fact the question why is there something rather than nothing then becomes sort of trite because nothing is unstable. It will always produce something. The more interesting or surprising question might be why is there nothing. But of course if we ask that question, well, we wouldn’t be here if that was true.

[John_Mace]

@Mickiel

But many in the Atheist camp think exactly like that; this giant universe was just sneezed out of an invisible nothing, which many in the Theist camp view as completely absurd!

Eh. Those of us who look to science to explain things admit that we don’t really know how the universe began. Saying “God did it” doesn’t do anything more than push the question back one level to “How did God come into being”? It adds more complexity than is needed since the universe could have come into being the same way God did. Putting “God” in the process does nothing but add an unnecessary step to the process.