The supreme paradox in my thought, is we got the term supreme from something greater than ourselves; but when self views itself as supreme, the term is naturally watered down, in the age that looks to water down the supreme.
Chew on that.
I like doing both, and see no problem with either.
Not going to argue about the thesis, although it’s not what I believe (animal consciousness is abundantly evident). But I will point out the above shows a common misunderstanding of genes.
In many cases, a suite of genes combine to have an effect – no one gene can be identified as causing the effect. Also timing is a factor – genes turn on and turn off, and “rate” of development can make a huge difference in the final results.
So bear in mind that many effects that come from genetics do not have “a gene” responsible for them.
Neither animal consciousness , nor Primordial consciousness is evident to me; an animal does not even know its an animal; consciousness is self awareness , if nothingelse. Primordial man, did not know it was a human, did not know what they were or where they were at. I have seen no evidence of any self awareness in neither.
Which species of the homo genus are you referring to when you say primordial?
For the third time; the first species that existed. The very first humans.
The first humans that walked this earth.
No, those were examples of people not being able to convert me to Atheistic reasoning; that does not work. However, I am open to reasoning with others, I am not open to joining your group.
They were conscious. They were reproducing, which is not something you can do when you’re unconscious.
They were also obtaining food and eating it, two more things you can’t do in your sleep.
Also, avoiding predators.
Are you looking for the word sentient, or possibly intelligent?
In that case, the first of the homo family was homo habilis, which lived from approximately 2.33 to 1.44 million years ago, during the Gelasian Pleistocene period.
Speaking as someone who’s spent the last decade and a half or so studying genetics full-time, this is just absolute nonsense. It is perfectly possible, and indeed extremely common, for a trait X to emerge from the interplay of genes, and to be affected by those genes, without there being a specific “X gene”. There is absolutely no difficulty from the biology side of things in human consciousness being the result of our genetics.
I have no horse in this race; I just can’t stand seeing someone be wrong on the internet.
Life must be hell for you.
I was taking it as a suite of meanings, but mostly “aware of our own awareness.”
Someone (the first philosopher?) first realized, “Wow, I’m sitting here thinking about what I’m thinking.”
How far back does that go?
I have some sympathy for Mickiel, because the “Define your terms exactly” game is one that is too often used as a way of derailing the discussion. It really doesn’t matter exactly which genus and species is meant by “primordial man.”
As long as one accepts the general notion of an evolutionary path to human awareness (as opposed to a sudden miraculous appearance) then (by a sort of “intermediate value theorem”) there will be some first population that exhibits this kind of awareness.
To demand that anyone identify exactly which species is putting an unfair burden on the debate position.
Personally, I think Julian Jaynes was jack full of hoss-poop. He may have meant well, but the rise and fall of his meaningful influence parallels Carlos Castaneda’s.
I disagree; people can walk in their sleep, go to the fridge and eat, go back to bed, and never be conscious of doing it.
Obtaining food and avoiding predators can be done by instinct.
I don’t believe in hell.
Reguardless of what you can’t stand, you can’t prove consciousness was created by human genes. If so, I would like to see it ; of course coming from one as studied as you.
this I got to see!
Ahhh, a breath of fresh air. It really does not matter, only to those interested in finding fault, searching and probing for weakness, and extinguishing any thoughts that does not parallel theirs.
That’s nonsense. The accepted biological view is that consciousness appears to be an emergent property of the very complex system of human neurons. This system is, of course, ultimately governed by the relevant genetic networks. Experiments have been done in model organisms that show how behavior and cognition can be affected by genetic changes. Similarly, there are genetic disorders in humans that result in predictable, reproducible changes in human intelligence and cognition, demonstrating beyond doubt the link between genetics and human thought.
Anyone who wishes to claim an alternative hypothesis is welcome to do so, but without evidence to back it up, such alternatives are nothing but hot air. The religious point of view simply boils down to “I don’t like that notion, so therefore there’s magic going on because that makes me special”. There’s not a shred of evidence to back that up.
I don’t think so. Obviously (to anyone with a passing understanding of biology), there is a chain of development from unthinking, nonconscious organisms to modern human. Logically, there must have been some point along that chain where consciousness emerged. That’s indisputible. The only interesting question remaining is exactly where along that chain we can pinpoint its emergence.
The OP here has asked a very vague question. With a general wave toward this line, he asked “Did it start here?” The many responses asking him to explain exactly what he means by “primordial human” are simply asking him to narrow down what part of the line he’s talking about so that we can attempt an answer.
It may " Appear" that way to you’re constuiants, but not mine; we think consciousness came from consciousness and emerged as a result of it being “Embedded within humanity.” It was put there. No evidence for Consciousness exist in the physical world; because its a spiritual thing;
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness
Sure, in civilized environs, they can, but only to a limited extent. Inside your home, you were the one who put the food in the fridge; it’s not a great feat to find it again. Outside in the wilderness, food that you were never aware of the existence of? No.
But not during REM sleep, for any significant period of time. That’s why complex organisms find a sheltered spot to sleep in.
When I use the word “conscious,” I mean “wakeful,” that is, not unconscious/sleeping/comatose.