Consciousness in Cavemen? A Debate.

[Mr Cheese]

They didnot have language, you assert that, but there is absolutely no evidence for language, simply produce it. The lack of it is the proof I needed to know they had no consciousness. You are speculating, they had no religion, and there is no proof of religion, yet another proof of no consciousness. They had no agriculture, yet more proof of no consciousness.

They had no schools, no educational system.

They had no modes of transportation.

They had no science.

They had no Maps, or anyother signs of advanced writting.

They had no buildings, nor anyother signs of construction.

They had no Medicines.

They had no signs of trade.

They had no civilization.

They had no sports.

They had no pets.

They had no signs whatsoever of any kind of monetary system.


They stayed in this mode, with no change, for over 200,000 years.

Quess why? They had no Consciousness.

Peace.

actually there are artifacts that some have pinted to as attributes of religion

but this thread is like teaching a puppy how to speak mandarin

You may like this:
http://www.awaretek.com/neanderthal.html

it uses no facts, no proof...it is just someone's ideas....
JUST like your posts

..........

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Anthropology-2291/neanderthal-religion.htm

Dear Lisa.
The evidence on Neandertal religion is equivocal. A lot of what was once considered evidence for this is now believed to be natural phenomena misinterpreted or over-interpreted by archaeologists.
Head Cult: some isolated finds of Neandertal skulls (e.g., Monte Circeo) were once thought to indicate a religious belief. Now we think these reflect the separation of skulls from the rest of the skeleton by geological processes or animal scavengers.
Cave Bear Cult: Now thought to reflect geological mixing of cave bear bones and human artifacts.
Burial: Many Neandertal bodies appear to have been buried, but this could as much be for hygenic reasons as for religious ones. Claims of "grave goods" usually involved animal bones and artifacts very similar to those in the surrounding sediments, which makes is possible that they were accidentally juxtaposed with the Neandertal skeletons during burial.
This is about it for >90% of the evidence. But, keep in mind that Neandertals were very intelligent, social creatures with brains as large as our own. Personally, I would be astonished if they lacked some form of religious belief. The problem is that there is no clear and convincing evidence for it.
Sincerely,
John Shea



We know they buried their dead. Shanadar IV & II both offer evidence of ritual burials.
They carved representative 'Venus' figures. Little faceless females with very fecund figures. This indicates an ability to understand representative forms, to extrapolate from the concept to the figurine.
http://donsmaps.com/venus.html
We know they cared for their invalids. At La Chapelle-aux Saints 1 there are remains showing severe arthritis and no teeth. This person would have required aid in eating to survive. Several sites have bones showing healed fractures with no infection indicating care for the injured individuals.
http://www.human-nature.com/darwin/books…

This leads to no final conclusion on personal beliefs but it does indicate a degree of interaction that included intelligent, caring acts.

 

[Breathe]

They didnot have language, you assert that, but there is absolutely no evidence for language, simply produce it.

The ability to make it means they would have most likely made it. Considering they are almost our twins biologically, to think they would not have been able to speak is toddle.

they had no religion, and there is no proof of religion,

Mr Cheese pointed out they did have religion above.

They had no agriculture, yet more proof of no consciousness.

They lived in an icy wasteland. No agriculture in an icy wasteland is to be expected.

They had no schools, no educational system.

Neither did many humans until fairly recently. We did not have these when we existed for the same amount of time as them (nb, when I say recently, I mean within the last 12,000 years or so). This is a pointless comparison. They would have learned things orally.

They had no modes of transportation.

Neither did many humans until fairly recently. We did not have these when we existed for the same amount of time as them. This is a pointless comparison.

They had no science.

Define science.

They had no Maps, or anyother signs of advanced writting.

Neither did many humans until fairly recently. We did not have these when we existed for the same amount of time as them.

They had no buildings, nor anyother signs of construction.

How would you know?
Besides, as has been explained, they lived in Europe during the ice age.

They had no Medicines.

Prove it. They would have known herbs for cures, like many tribes know healing plants.

They had no signs of trade.

They've been dead almost 30 thousand years, what exactly are you after?

They had no civilization.

They lived in small groups. Define civilization.

They had no sports.

Oh, now we're getting somewhere.
I'd say hunting animals for survival is about enough exercise as needed.
And besides, sweating in a freezing landscape? Not a good idea.

They had no pets.

How do you know they did not partially have domesticated wolves, for example?

They had no signs whatsoever of any kind of monetary system.

Neither did humans until fairly recently.

 

[Humanistheart]

I'm surprised the word 'Debate' has not been take this thread. It's clearly inapropriate as mickeal does not understand the concept. I'm also rather tacken shocked that a thread using the title 'caveman' would get so many comments, as cavemen is an old concept no longer recognized by the scientific community. Owell.

 

[mickiel]

I'm surprised the word 'Debate' has not been take this thread. It's clearly inapropriate as mickeal does not understand the concept. I'm also rather tacken shocked that a thread using the title 'caveman' would get so many comments, as cavemen is an old concept no longer recognized by the scientific community. Owell.

So let me get this straight, are you suggesting that I am not debating, because I am not agreeing with everyone? Are you saying people don't reconize the simple term caveman? Are you saying that no one should communicate with me? I don't understand this. Why is it that everytime I post, and get so much response, that there are some who are either shocked at that, or irritated by it?

Peace.

 

[gnomon]

Ever stuck a metal object in an electrical outlet?

 

[Humanistheart]

So let me get this straight, are you suggesting that I am not debating, because I am not agreeing with everyone? Are you saying people don't reconize the simple term caveman? Are you saying that no one should communicate with me? I don't understand this. Why is it that everytime I post, and get so much response, that there are some who are either shocked at that, or irritated by it?

Peace.

It's arleady been pointed out to you, by many, that you do not debate. For example, you've been told, and shown links to various articles that show conclusively that neanderthals buried their dead with religious like cerimonies, had every capability to speak, had an even larger brain than we do, etc etc, and all you said was 'I don't accept that'. That is not a debate. And yes, the scientific community no longer recognizes the generalized concept of 'cave man'.

As for why people get irritated, you claimed to want to debate but you do not respond with facts, logic or reason when your arguments are shown to be false. You merely say something like 'fire hydrants prove god's existance' and move on.

 

[ericoh2]

Through my research I have come to the conclusion that cavemen still exist today and may be living in an underground city. One was actually on TV a while ago, Here's the proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=148dowDhkVY

Mickiel, could you please get into how this is possible?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So let me get this straight, are you suggesting that I am not debating, because I am not agreeing with everyone?

No. Your incapable of debating because you offer nothing to the debate. Your source of knowledge is from your mind or what you interpret from your bible thus you are unwilling to acknowledge the vast amounts of evidence that contradict your presupposition.

Are you saying people don't reconize the simple term caveman?

Of course they do but it's not a term that is widely used in the scientific community. Shucks, most of us here don't even use it. The term "caveman/cavemen" is ambiguous. It's so generic that it requires clarification.

Are you saying that no one should communicate with me?

Not if you continue to display ignorance and fail to post evidence for your assertions. What's the point in debating with you if you don't understand the subject that you have a problem with....?

Why is it that everytime I post, and get so much response, that there are some who are either shocked at that, or irritated by it?

Because we actually come here to debate. When you display an utter lack of knowledge for that which you don't understand we feel the need to display the evidence in a hope that the very thing(s) will be clear to you. Obviously that doesn't work on or for you. Regardless of the amount of evidence we present to you, you will not understand.....You refuse to.


And I want to go into that.....

 

[MountainHumanist]

This reminds me of a very Dudelike response when one is losing a debate.."Yeah, well that's just like ... your opinion, man."

 

[MountainHumanist]

And the Chinaman is NOT the issue...(Dude, Asian-American, please).

 

[mickiel]

If understanding a thing is arriving at a familiarizing metaphor for it, then I can see why there always will be a difficulty in understanding Consciousness. Cavemen is the simplest metaphor I came up with. Understanding a thing is to arrive at a metaphor for that thing by substituting something more familiar and easy to our attention. I can compilcate things by using more complex terms, but I choose not to. For it should be immediately apparent that there is not and cannot be anything in our immediate experience that is like anything the cavemen experienced, or if they were conscious of anything.

There is therefore a sense in which we shall never be able to understand consciousness in the same way that we can understand things we are conscious of. Most of the errors I see in this, is that we have been studying have been errors of attempted metaphors, such as Homo sapiens. Consciousness does not copy experience, it has no location inside of the body, and it is built up with vocabulary in language, I have tried to show this in simplicity. It is a lexical field whose terms are all metaphors or analogs of behavior in the physical world. The cavemen showed, by their behavior, that they had no consciousness. Like mathmatics, they do not add up to equate consciousness.

Consider the language we use to describe conscious processes. The most prominent group of words used to describe mental events are visual. We " See" solutions to problems, the best of which may be " Brillant", and the person " Brighter" and " Clear headed", as opposed to " Dull", " Fuzzy minded", or " Obscure" solutions. These words are all metaphors and the mind-space to which they apply is a metaphor of actual space. And we approach our view of the past exactly like this.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

 

[rojse]

They didnot have language, you assert that, but there is absolutely no evidence for language, simply produce it. The lack of it is the proof I needed to know they had no consciousness. You are speculating, they had no religion, and there is no proof of religion, yet another proof of no consciousness. They had no agriculture, yet more proof of no consciousness.

They had no schools, no educational system.

They had no modes of transportation.

They had no science.

They had no Maps, or anyother signs of advanced writting.

They had no buildings, nor anyother signs of construction.

They had no Medicines.

They had no signs of trade.

They had no civilization.

They had no sports.

They had no pets.

They had no signs whatsoever of any kind of monetary system.


They stayed in this mode, with no change, for over 200,000 years.

Quess why? They had no Consciousness.

Peace.

Is art an indication of consciousness, Mickiel?

 

[rojse]

Ever stuck a metal object in an electrical outlet?

No, but it's been on my "hundred things to do before I die" list.

 

[rojse]

Through my research I have come to the conclusion that cavemen still exist today and may be living in an underground city. One was actually on TV a while ago, Here's the proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=148dowDhkVY

Mickiel, could you please get into how this is possible?

I'd prefer if Quagmire did.

 

[rojse]

Although Mickiel seems to have no concept of what the word "debate" actually means (or "logic", or that there is more than one definition for the word "argument") I have found the factual arguments against Mickiel quite enlightening. And I've also enjoyed the humour.

Having to read Mickiel's posts in exchange is almost a fair deal.

 

[mickiel]

Is art an indication of consciousness, Mickiel?

Yes, I think Art is an indication of Consciousness. Not stick figures or elemental art, I mean real talented Art.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Although Mickiel seems to have no concept of what the word "debate" actually means (or "logic", or that there is more than one definition for the word "argument") I have found the factual arguments against Mickiel quite enlightening. And I've also enjoyed the humour.

Having to read Mickiel's posts in exchange is almost a fair deal.

Well thank you, I think somewhere in that is a compliment.

Peace.

 

[rojse]

Yes, I think Art is an indication of Consciousness. Not stick figures or elemental art, I mean real talented Art.

Peace.

How do you define "talented art", Mickiel?

 

[rojse]

Yes, I think Art is an indication of Consciousness. Not stick figures or elemental art, I mean real talented Art.

Peace.

Given these examples of cave art, and given that you say that "good" art (whatever good means) indicates consciousness, would you say that cave men are or are not conscious, Mickiel?

 

[Valjean]

A visit to any decent art museum would have you wondering just how "good" art is defined.