The evolving human consciousness

[YoursTrue]

Are you confusing consciousness with intelligence?

We've been through the tool argument before. The difference between a termite stick kit and a rocket going to the moon is one of quantity, not quality.

You said that chimpanzees have hundreds of different verbal signals. I am not denying this because I don't know that, but even if it's true, again... there's a vast difference between building a printing press, developing an X-ray machine and squeals and grunts differing from one another. By the way, bees have fantastic qualities as I see it, but they can't do what chimpanzees or humans do.

 

[shunyadragon]

You said that chimpanzees have hundreds of different verbal signals. I am not denying this because I don't know that, but even if it's true, again... there's a vast difference between building a printing press, developing an X-ray machine and squeals and grunts differing from one another. By the way, bees have fantastic qualities as I see it, but they can't do what chimpanzees or humans do.

True, we cannot do what whales and the octopus do. So what?!?Q? Millions of years of evolution causes life to adapt to different environments.

 

[Madsaac]

Evolution cannot explain consciousness. No evolutionary biologist or paleontologist could give you an answer on where consciousness came from the same way how they cannot tell you how two opposite sexes came about. It's most likely from God though which makes plenty of sense.

I think human evolution is the reason why we have consciousness. There have been MANY scientific studies done to show our this is highly possible.

I ask you, can you show me ONE study or piece of evidence to say that god gave us consciousness. Yes just ONE.

Where are you getting your views from?

 

[Madsaac]

Hello. I have been saying for a while now that the differences between those considered as apes are pretty wide from chimpanzees, let's say, to humans. In terms of consciousness. Or thinking ability. Humans have developed things like radios, printing presses, and the like, whereas chimpanzees and gorillas have not. As a result, I have been called ignorant and a science denier. Yet the difference remains.

Yeah so, different creatures have evolved in their own different ways. There have been MANY scientific studies done to show our this is highly possible.

Can you show me ONE study or piece of evidence to say that this happened any other way? (Apart from the bible )

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah so, different creatures have evolved in their own different ways. There have been MANY scientific studies done to show our this is highly possible.

Can you show me ONE study or piece of evidence to say that this happened any other way? (Apart from the bible )

Actually the Bible only speaks in classifications like fish, plants, flying creatures and things like that. It does say, however, that God is the creator.

 

[Comradio251]

I believe that science has no problem objectively describing consciousness arises from the brain despite some of the issues and unknowns concerning the details. You can begin with the objective observation consciousness ends at death, and the unversality of consciousness in animals with a complex nervous system.

I gave a reference that lists over 10 google pages of research the relationship of consciousness and the brain in post #130, and a specific reference in #135.
on
It is a fallacy to argue that "there is no science of conscious" based on what remains unknown. There is definitely a science of consciousness as referenced.

All you peddle is confirmation bias to promote your own viewpoint and absolutely does not show that science "understands" consciousness. For the millionth time, please choose an unbiased source for your answer and not "If I believe in evolution let me look for things that corroborate any topic for my viewpoint on evolution" nonsense. I quoted your last source and you've failed to even notice that it didn't completely agree with your own bias.

 

[shunyadragon]

All you peddle is confirmation bias to promote your own viewpoint and absolutely does not show that science "understands" consciousness. For the millionth time, please choose an unbiased source for your answer and not "If I believe in evolution let me look for things that corroborate any topic for evolution" nonsense.

It is a given you reject science based on an ancient tribal agenda, but nonetheless your accusation that scientist do not research and study the relationship between consciousness and the brain is false big time.

I believe that science has no problem objectively describing consciousness arises from the brain despite some of the issues and unknowns concerning the details. You can begin with the objective observation consciousness ends at death, and the universal nature of consciousness in animals with a complex nervous system. NOT my viewpoint, but the science accepted by every major university and academic institution of the world.

I gave a reference that lists over 10 google pages of research the relationship of consciousness and the brain in post #130, and a specific reference in #135.

It is a fallacy to argue that "there is no science of conscious" based on what remains unknown. There is definitely a science of consciousness as referenced.

 

[Comradio251]

I believe that science has no problem objectively describing consciousness arises from the brain despite some of the issues and unknowns concerning the details...

From the unbiased AI on the question of consciousness for your sake because you haven't got a clue:


According to www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Questions Search Engine:

Answer:

Can Science Explain Consciousness?

No, science has not been able to fully explain consciousness and where it comes from. The mystery of consciousness, often referred to as the “hard problem of consciousness,” remains a significant challenge for scientific inquiry. While there have been advancements in understanding brain activity and its relationship to human behavior, the emergence of subjective experiences such as feelings, emotions, and thoughts from neural processes is still not fully understood.

Challenges in Explaining Consciousness:

The hard problem of consciousness arises from the difficulty in bridging the gap between physical processes in the brain and the subjective experiences that individuals have. While neuroscience has made progress in identifying correlations between brain activity and conscious states, there is a fundamental disconnect between neural patterns and the actual conscious experience itself.

Alternative Approaches:

One alternative approach proposed by researchers like Dr. Nir Lahav and Dr. Zakaria Neemeh involves rethinking consciousness as a relativistic phenomenon. By shifting assumptions about consciousness and developing new conceptual frameworks, they aim to address the hard problem of consciousness through a physical lens.

In summary, while traditional scientific methods have struggled to fully explain consciousness, ongoing research and alternative perspectives offer new avenues for exploring this complex phenomenon.

Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:

1. Bar-Ilan University: The source provided insights into a novel study on the dynamics of consciousness and proposed a new conceptual framework for understanding consciousness.
2. Frontiers in Psychology: The journal where Dr. Lahav and Dr. Neemeh published their physical theory addressing the hard problem of consciousness.
3. Philosophy Department at the University of Memphis: Insights from Dr. Zakaria Neemeh’s perspective on consciousness as discussed in academic philosophy circles.

These sources contributed valuable information to address the question regarding science’s ability to explain consciousness comprehensively.

 

[Comradio251]

It is a given you reject science based on an ancient tribal agenda, but nonetheless your accusation that scientist do not research and study the relationship between consciousness and the brain is false big time.

I merely pointed out that they never answered your own bias opinion the way you hoped they would. Do you really think that science can physically observe dreams, thoughts, feelings and my conscious experiences at first hand? They haven't. Or you're lying otherwise.

 

[shunyadragon]

From the unbiased AI on the question of consciousness for your sake because you haven't got a clue:


According to www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Questions Search Engine:

Answer:

Can Science Explain Consciousness?

No, science has not been able to fully explain consciousness and where it comes from. The mystery of consciousness, often referred to as the “hard problem of consciousness,” remains a significant challenge for scientific inquiry. While there have been advancements in understanding brain activity and its relationship to human behavior, the emergence of subjective experiences such as feelings, emotions, and thoughts from neural processes is still not fully understood.

Challenges in Explaining Consciousness:

The hard problem of consciousness arises from the difficulty in bridging the gap between physical processes in the brain and the subjective experiences that individuals have. While neuroscience has made progress in identifying correlations between brain activity and conscious states, there is a fundamental disconnect between neural patterns and the actual conscious experience itself.

Alternative Approaches:

One alternative approach proposed by researchers like Dr. Nir Lahav and Dr. Zakaria Neemeh involves rethinking consciousness as a relativistic phenomenon. By shifting assumptions about consciousness and developing new conceptual frameworks, they aim to address the hard problem of consciousness through a physical lens.

In summary, while traditional scientific methods have struggled to fully explain consciousness, ongoing research and alternative perspectives offer new avenues for exploring this complex phenomenon.

Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:

1. Bar-Ilan University: The source provided insights into a novel study on the dynamics of consciousness and proposed a new conceptual framework for understanding consciousness.
2. Frontiers in Psychology: The journal where Dr. Lahav and Dr. Neemeh published their physical theory addressing the hard problem of consciousness.
3. Philosophy Department at the University of Memphis: Insights from Dr. Zakaria Neemeh’s perspective on consciousness as discussed in academic philosophy circles.

These sources contributed valuable information to address the question regarding science’s ability to explain consciousness comprehensively.

The above is not research articles itself, but expresses an opinion as to the progress of science on the relationship between the brain and consciousness, I provided a reference with ten pages of references on the research and cited on specific article describing that realtionshship.

I provided a reference with 10 pages of research articles on the relationship between consciousness and the brain and you chose to ignore it based on an ancient tribal agenda. The above references states that science has not been yet been able to 'fully explain the relationship between consciousness and the brain. This is a given in all sciences, and b=negates the fact of the references I provided that reference ten pages of research articles explaining this relationship.

Remember you made the assertion that no scientist supported or researched the relationship between the brain and consciousness.
AI intelligence research in and of itself has no relationship concerning the research between the b=rain and consciousness and the brain,

 

[YoursTrue]

So aw.z

It is a given you reject science based on an ancient tribal agenda, but nonetheless your accusation that scientist do not research and study the relationship between consciousness and the brain is false big time.

I believe that science has no problem objectively describing consciousness arises from the brain despite some of the issues and unknowns concerning the details. You can begin with the objective observation consciousness ends at death, and the universal nature of consciousness in animals with a complex nervous system. NOT my viewpoint, but the science accepted by every major university and academic institution of the world.

I gave a reference that lists over 10 google pages of research the relationship of consciousness and the brain in post #130, and a specific reference in #135.

It is a fallacy to argue that "there is no science of conscious" based on what remains unknown. There is definitely a science of consciousness as referenced.

Hmm, fungi has consciousness* I suppose. Oh, but it doesn't have a brain, does it.
*in your viewpoint.

 

[shunyadragon]

So aw.z

Hmm, fungi has consciousness* I suppose. Oh, but it doesn't have a brain, does it.
*in your viewpoint.

I made no such claim. animals with a complex nervous system have been objectively observed and determined to experience consciousness, Fungi as far as I know lack that physical ability,

 

[Madsaac]

Actually the Bible only speaks in classifications like fish, plants, flying creatures and things like that. It does say, however, that God is the creator.

You have referred to the bible, I asked apart from the bible?

Or do your beliefs come from what the bible says? If so, that is a huge leap of faith?

 

[YoursTrue]

You have referred to the bible, I asked apart from the bible?

Or do your beliefs come from what the bible says? If so, that is a huge leap of faith?

You're correct in your analysis, since my beliefs before and after I believed have changed. Therefore, it's a before-and-after summary. I would have a Bible in the house but did not understand it until someone explained it to me, and it took time. But before I accepted a Bible study I prayed and without realizing it, although I argued with them, some people came to my door. But the main reason I accepted a Bible study with them is because I realized they would give up their lives for following Christ, so I knew these were what I considered as true Christians. Remember, I sang in church for years as a paid singer, and loved the music, but had no faith until I studied the Bible with those I trusted.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think human evolution is the reason why we have consciousness. There have been MANY scientific studies done to show our this is highly possible.

I ask you, can you show me ONE study or piece of evidence to say that god gave us consciousness. Yes just ONE.

Where are you getting your views from?

Can you show us a scientific theory that explains consciousness? I’m not talking about mapping the correlates between aspects of consciousness and areas of the brain, but a theory that explains how and why organisms have qualitative subjective experiences?

 

[Madsaac]

Can you show us a scientific theory that explains consciousness? I’m not talking about mapping the correlates between aspects of consciousness and areas of the brain, but a theory that explains how and why organisms have qualitative subjective experiences?

Here's two. Now your turn. Show me evidence of your theory that consciousness comes from 'god', the bible or whatever else you think.

Subjectivity “Demystified”: Neurobiology, Evolution, and the Explanatory Gap

While life in general can be explained by the mechanisms of physics, chemistry, and biology, to many scientists and philosophers, it appears that when it comes to explaining consciousness, there is what the philosopher Joseph Levine called an “explanatory ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421005820#sec0095

 

[Comradio251]

What's hypocritical about this thread is not only does science not understand consciousness, this is the general consensus, but this thread asserts that science understands consciousness by stating consciousness evolved over time... which is a belief. How can you make a scientific claim that consciousness evolved when the general consensus as of now is that science doesn't understand consciousness?

This thread doesn't deserve to be up unless you're just exposing evolution as a belief system which it clearly is. unfortunately, you're not thinking straight and need to reassess your understanding of this.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What's hypocritical about this thread is not only does science not understand consciousness, this is the general consensus, but this thread asserts that science understands consciousness by stating consciousness evolved over time... which is a belief. How can you make a scientific claim that consciousness evolved when the general consensus as of now is that science doesn't understand consciousness?

This thread doesn't deserve to be up unless you're just exposing evolution as a belief system which it clearly is. unfortunately, you're not thinking straight and need to reassess your understanding of this.

Well, science still apparently hasn't solved the issue of consciousness, like so many things, so why would we be surprised - given it is not so easily solved? The fact that science tends to support evolution might be a good indicator as to consciousness also evolving, just as so much else has - unless one wants to disagree and place event points into life - as per some religious text perhaps - and which makes a lot less sense.

 

[Madsaac]

What's hypocritical about this thread is not only does science not understand consciousness, this is the general consensus, but this thread asserts that science understands consciousness by stating consciousness evolved over time... which is a belief. How can you make a scientific claim that consciousness evolved when the general consensus as of now is that science doesn't understand consciousness?

This thread doesn't deserve to be up unless you're just exposing evolution as a belief system which it clearly is. unfortunately, you're not thinking straight and need to reassess your understanding of this.

No science doesn't understand consciousness but it's the closest thing we have to understanding it.

Do you know of a better way?

Although, it's not hard to understand that humans did not have consciousness once but do now.

How did that happen?

 

[RestlessSoul]

No science doesn't understand consciousness but it's the closest thing we have to understanding it.

Do you know of a better way?

Although, it's not hard to understand that humans did not have consciousness once but do now, because we evolved to have consciousness.

Does science have a definition of consciousness on which all who study it can agree?

And at what point in human evolution do you think consciousness might have emerged?