Was Primordial man conscious?

[Czarcasm]

@Mickiel

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.

1. Do you realize that “spirit” in the context that you seem to be using it is a religious term, and not a scientific term?
2. Could you please give us the definition of “consciousness” that you are using in this thread?
3. Could you please tell us why you think animals can never reach “consciousness” as you define it in question #2?

[Mickiel]

@Czarcasm

1. Do you realize that “spirit” in the context that you seem to be using it is a religious term, and not a scientific term?
2. Could you please give us the definition of “consciousness” that you are using in this thread?
3. Could you please tell us why you think animals can never reach “consciousness” as you define it in question #2?

1.Spirit is a term that religious people use, it is not a religious term. It is an original term that existed before religion did. Now you want to use a term that came along after Spirit, to define Spirit.

2.The definition of Consciousness is its the Image of God firstly, secondly it is a Spirit in man, thirdly it is the governor of our behavior. That is three definitions, if you need more simply request more.

3. Animals can never reach consciousness because they were not designed to be conscious, and they don’t " Need" consciousness. They are fixed existence; habitual instincts; preprogramed and cannot go outside of that fixed program.

[Czarcasm]

@Mickiel

2.The definition of Consciousness is its the Image of God firstly, secondly it is a Spirit in man, thirdly it is the governor of our behavior. That is three definitions, if you need more simply request more.

None of these definitions are in the dictionary.

[Mickiel]

@Czarcasm

None of these definitions are in the dictionary.

That’s because I think outside of the box!

Will you think with me?

[Czarcasm]

@Mickiel

That’s because I think outside of the box!

Will you think with me?

If you wish to talk with other people, it helps if you speak the same language, using the same definitions to facilitate communication. What you are doing is not “thinking outside the box”-it is “making it up as you go along.”

[Mickiel]

@Czarcasm

If you wish to talk with other people, it helps if you speak the same language, using the same definitions to facilitate communication. What you are doing is not “thinking outside the box”-it is “making it up as you go along.”

You have already expressed that you do not want to hear from me, yet you continue to talk with me, which is contradiction. Which means I must look past some of the things you say, and your way forces me to try and understand why you say things; and why you contradict yourself. In your serious need to correct me, you are in contradiction yourself, but yourself cannot see this, as you keep trying to make this about me.

You are transparent, and I see through you.

And this is one way we can understand Primordial man; by examining what they did, and did not do; and understand why.

[Smeghead]

@Mickiel

I have something for you. And I will always have something.

Just not, you know, evidence. Or logic.

[Mickiel]

@Smeghead

Just not, you know, evidence. Or logic.

Evidence and logic is not limited, only our end of it is. The common slogan of those who are faced with things beyond them, is to discredit what is in front of them, and deny it is what it is.

[Czarcasm]

@Mickiel

You have already expressed that you do not want to hear from me, yet you continue to talk with me, which is contradiction. Which means I must look past some of the things you say, and your way forces me to try and understand why you say things; and why you contradict yourself. In your serious need to correct me, you are in contradiction yourself, but yourself cannot see this, as you keep trying to make this about me.

You are transparent, and I see through you.

And this is one way we can understand Primordial man; by examining what they did, and did not do; and understand why.

Doubletalk that adds nothing of substance to the conversation. My request is that you

1. Stick to common definitions of words or
2. If you feel you must introduce a new definition to a common word, you tell us this new definition beforehand to reduce confusion.

Fair enough?

[Mickiel]

@Czarcasm

Doubletalk that adds nothing of substance to the conversation. My request is that you

1. Stick to common definitions of words or
2. If you feel you must introduce a new definition to a common word, you tell us this new definition beforehand to reduce confusion.

Fair enough?

I will go one further, I will only use elementary terms from now on, so this unusual snag cannot be used as a shield; In example;

I think cave men were not able to use their brain as complex as we use ours.

Fair enough?

[DingoelGringo]

@Mickiel

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.

You gonna show us a spirit to look at to understand her?

[Mickiel]

@DingoelGringo

You gonna show us a spirit to look at to understand her?

Well I can show you a Spirit if you really want to see one. Here at Straight Dope there is a Spirit between Atheist and Theist which works to stifle unity and cohesion; a Spirit that does not want them to dance together.

Now, I can see that Spirit, can you?

Its influence; its power; its attitude; its methods; all evidence to me it is there.

[Mrs.Cake]

“Cave man” is a meaningless term. We have populations who live in caves now, and plenty of humans who lived in dwellings made of skins or bark or any number of materials tens of thousands of years ago. Do you mean anatomically modern people prior to the establishment of major settled agricultural commmunities? Say 10,000 years or so ago?

[Mickiel]

@Mrs.Cake

“Cave man” is a meaningless term. We have populations who live in caves now, and plenty of humans who lived in dwellings made of skins or bark or any number of materials tens of thousands of years ago. Do you mean anatomically modern people prior to the establishment of major settled agricultural commmunities? Say 10,000 years or so ago?

Ok Primordial man is out; cave man is out; how about " The first humans?"

Does anyone; anyone object to " The First humans?"

[Czarcasm]

@Mickiel

Ok Primordial man is out; cave man is out; how about " The first humans?"

Does anyone; anyone object to " The First humans?"

No problem, since I already came up with that one, didn’t I?

@Czarcasm

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.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Mickiel

Does anyone; anyone object to " The First humans?"

Do you mean people Homo Sapiens prior to the invention of agriculture? Neanderthals? Homo Erectus? Something earlier? “The first humans” is an ambiguous term and it would be easier if you’d just say which species you’re talking about.

Homo Sapiens have probably always been conscious, although certainly the mental landscape of a hunter/gatherer living 50,000 years ago would be very different than what most of us experience today.

Homo Erectus, maybe, maybe not. One telling thing about them is that they didn’t *organize *things. They’d make tools but then just leave them scattered around their campsites. It suggests that life for them was more of a “constant now”. They could see immediate problems and solve them, but weren’t capable of long-range planning.

As for, “Why didn’t primitive Homo Sapiens advance faster?” Inventing agriculture is HARD. It requires thousands of years of accidentally selecting wild grains to breed a plant that’s worthwhile as a crop. The same is true for domesticating animals. Even a genius couldn’t invent agriculture in a single lifetime.

[John_Mace]

@The_Hamster_King

Homo Erectus, maybe, maybe not. One telling thing about them is that they didn’t *organize *things. They’d make tools but then just leave them scattered around their campsites. It suggests that life for them was more of a “constant now”. They could see immediate problems and solve them, but weren’t capable of long-range planning.

Almost certainly not true, as even extant apes are capable of some long range planning. Plus, in order to make the signature tool of H. erectus (the hand ax), one had to be able to “see the tool within the core.” That is not something done by instinct or rote learning.

[Smeghead]

@Mickiel

Ok Primordial man is out; cave man is out; how about " The first humans?"

Does anyone; anyone object to " The First humans?"

You are as difficult to pin down as a creationist wrestling a greased pig.

[Mickiel]

@The_Hamster_King

Do you mean people Homo Sapiens prior to the invention of agriculture? Neanderthals? Homo Erectus? Something earlier? “The first humans” is an ambiguous term and it would be easier if you’d just say which species you’re talking about.

Homo Sapiens have probably always been conscious, although certainly the mental landscape of a hunter/gatherer living 50,000 years ago would be very different than what most of us experience today.

Homo Erectus, maybe, maybe not. One telling thing about them is that they didn’t *organize *things. They’d make tools but then just leave them scattered around their campsites. It suggests that life for them was more of a “constant now”. They could see immediate problems and solve them, but weren’t capable of long-range planning.

As for, “Why didn’t primitive Homo Sapiens advance faster?” Inventing agriculture is HARD. It requires thousands of years of accidentally selecting wild grains to breed a plant that’s worthwhile as a crop. The same is true for domesticating animals. Even a genius couldn’t invent agriculture in a single lifetime.

Okay, how about the very first man? The first man to walk this earth. Does anyone misunderstand that? Can we say that " The first man" is a clear statement; no tricks, no confusion; no other possible definitions; just the very first human.

Will that pass this unusual scrutiny?

[Mickiel]

@Smeghead

You are as difficult to pin down as a creationist wrestling a greased pig.

No, its just that some people here are so definition minded, they are over defining the definitions, and over looking the simplicity in the definitions.

So a molehill becomes a mountain.