This is a personal statement about the limitations of your own awareness. It has nothing to do with the capability of other animals or humans (who are, of course, animals,) for self-awareness.
It’s also a misuse of the word “neither”, but well, really, what should we expect?
You are confusing consciousness with knowledge. (and all your other posts in this thread with reality)
If a field mouse saw which box you put a treat inside and Albert Einstein didn’t, the field mouse would outperform Einstein in a game of find the treat all day long. The mouse doesn’t need to understand the physics of the box, he just needs to see which one the treat goes in. In this test, both are conscious but one has knowledge the other doesn’t. If you change the game to who can drive a car Einstein would be the clear favorite. That doesn’t mean the mouse doesn’t have consciousness.
The things that define consciousness as you seem to be using the term though have been studied quite extensively by many. They are things like self-awareness, theory of mind and impulse control, to name a few.
Countless studies performed over decades suggest that many non-human animals have this level of consciousness. It is undeniable.
This has nothing to do with your original question about when humans developed them, but is just an answer to this one branch of your uninformed musings on the subject.
I dunno; sounds kinda Lamarckian to me. Human reproduction simply does not pass along externally acquired characteristics. :dubious:
She’s certainly sentient, just not sapient.
Time traveler to base: “Adam’s…shorter and hairier than I thought he’d be. Oh, and it was a Banana of Knowledge, not an apple. Eve? She was a dolphin. No, I don’t know how that works.”
Straight Dope needs to provide a dictionary on site, I never seen so many people requesting the definitions of simple terms.
Hey, guys, I just picked a load of fresh blueberries, and could use some good recipes to use them up. Suggestions?
This is actually a valid good point, which I agree with. Yet consciousness is passed on; which in my view proves that consciousness is a given; it is provided by an outside source. Which I think again points to a God, or a Spirit being who gives part of himself to humans, that part being life and Spirit; both of which result in consciousness. What some refer to as " A soul"; others call it " A Ghost." Some science may refer to it as " Being." Or intelligence.
There is an effort underway to define those things in physical terms, which I think is diversion; we need to look at Spirit to understand spirit. We don’t need religion to examine spirit, that is just another traditional diversion. A scientific study of consciousness would be of interest, that would no doubt point to things that would exclude physical definitions to a Spiritual examination; consciousness is a study in the spiritual; then the most important reference tool would be the bible; in my humble opinion.
These are the types of research that I think would put science in the right direction to examine what they may indeed fear, or just don’t want to discover;
http://hayehwathainstitute.org/blog/gary-schwartz-on-spirit-research/
No other books from other religions qualify?
Any source of information in this area would qualify; even this one;
http://www.quietatheist.com/index.php/2009/05/spiritual-science-research-foundation/
Even the Toledot Yeshu offers keys;
I would say especially this one. Quoting your link:
and(here is advice you should really take to heart)
When you fish, you catch many differing things; the search for knowledge is not confined to things which just suite your taste; its a banquet out there; a feast, and science needs to eat more spirit; fish in that spot.
Are you just throwing up random links that have nothing to do with the topic, just like you did with your last thread? What exactly does the Toledot Yeshu have to do with what the topic of this thread is about??
I’ve already got a quote book at home.
Livers are also passed on from generation to generation. By your logic, then, livers cannot come from genetics; they must be magically bestowed by an outside source.
Its a book written by people who were not Christians, but they validated the life of Jesus; which validates the bible, from which I surmise my theory on Primordial man and consciousness. You requested " Other books", I gave some. Now you question why. Its as if you argue just for the sake of argument.
Science can reveal spirit, IF they choose to; but they fear the answers. Which is why I got into the topic on another thread;
Can science reveal God? Well if science is a search for truth, then eventually it will reveal God. Its academic.
Is this the actual topic of this thread?
The topic of thread is as plainly stated, but I will answer all questions and entertain the different direction of others as they participate;
but concerning you; its obvious that no matter what I discuss, or how I discuss it, you will be against it. Your going to rail against whatever I say, or however I say it. And that’s fine, you have not changed; its your way. And I am not against that way; I understand its how you are primed.
Eventually you will discover, it does not matter how you respond or what you say; I have something for you. And I will always have something.
You do realize, don’t you, that people are NOT asking “what do the terms conventionally mean,” but are questioning the highly idiosyncratic meanings you seem to be imputing to the terms you are using.
I think you are a nice* person.
*I reserve the right to redefine “nice” to my own idiosyncratic definition and not tell anyone else in this thread.