...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] But I noticed you (interestingly) avoided this question. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: You've argued against the universe driving evolution at the cellular level. But then the next moment you say that human consciousness is a reflection of the intelligence of the universe. So is human consciousness purely a result of cumulative adaptations over time (emergent complexity, as you called it), or are humans incubators for the universe's intelligence to develop in? [/QUOTE]I see what you did there. So I'm going to keep this post nice and simple, so as to not give you an excuse to not answer the question. Can you answer the question? Thanks. [/qb][/QUOTE]I argued [b]FOR[/b] the universe driving evolution at the cellular level..... You are still making up absurd talking points as strawmen to argue against. And human intelligence is one example of the fact that the Universe can produce consciousness through natural processes without the need for divine interaction. Given that we don't know the size and history of the universe we have to assume that if it happened on earth then it can happen in other places as well. In fact we know that there are other forms of conscious life on earth along with humans. So we see that humans are not the sole incubators for consciousness in the universe. [QUOTE] Every now and again I receive an email message I ignore after reading the subject line. I know I'm not alone in following this rule of thumb, but today I broke down and opened a message the subject line of which read "Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious". I honestly thought it was a joke, likely from one of my favorite newspapers, The Onion. However, it wasn't. My colleague Michael Mountain published a summary of a recent meeting held in Cambridge, England at which "Science leaders have reached a critical consensus: Humans are not the only conscious beings; other animals, specifically mammals and birds, are indeed conscious, too." At this gathering, called The Francis Crick Memorial Conference, a number of scientists presented evidence that led to this self-obvious conclusion. It's difficult to believe that those who have shared their homes with companion animals didn't already know this. And, of course, many renowned and award-winning field researchers had reached the same conclusion years ago (see also). Michael Mountain was as incredulous as I and many others about something we already knew. It's interesting to note that of the 15 notables who spoke at this conference only one has actually done studies of wild animals. It would have been nice to hear from researchers who have conducted long-term studies of wild animals, including great apes, other nonhuman primates, social carnivores, cetaceans, rodents, and birds, for example, to add to the database. Be that as it may, I applaud their not so surprising conclusion and now I hope it will be used to protect animals from being treated abusively and inhumanely. Some might say we didn't really know that other animals were conscious but this is an incredibly naive view given what we know about the neurobiology and cognitive and emotional lives of other animals. Indeed, it was appeals to these very data that led to the conclusions of this group of scientists. But did we really need a group of internationally recognized scientists to tell us that the data are really okay? Yes and no, but let's thank them for doing this.[/QUOTE] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201208/scientists-conclude-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious-beings [QUOTE] [b]Questions about animal consciousness in particular, which animals have consciousness and what (if anything) that consciousness might be like are both scientific and philosophical. They are scientific because answering them will require gathering information using scientific techniques no amount of arm-chair pondering, conceptual analysis, logic, a priori theory-building, transcendental inference or introspection will tell us whether a platypus, an iguana, or a squid (to take a few examples) enjoy a life of subjective experience at some point we'll have to learn something about the animals.[/b] Just what sort(s) of science can bear on these questions is a live question, but at the least this will include investigations of the behavior and neurophysiology of a wide taxonomic range of animals, as well as the phylogenetic relationships among taxa. [b]But these questions are deeply philosophical as well, with epistemological, metaphysical, and phenomenological dimensions. Progress will therefore ultimately require interdisciplinary work by philosophers willing to engage with the empirical details of animal biology, as well as scientists who are sensitive to the philosophical complexities of the issue.[/b] [/QUOTE] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/ [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3