Consciousness in Cavemen? A Debate.

[Kerr]

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?

I would like to point out that they paint better then me.

 

[mickiel]

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?

I would say that if cavemen drew these, then yes, they are conscious. I see consciousness in these drawings, thats why I do not believe cavemen drew them. I was shown these on another site, which I was discussing the same topic. I don't believe it.

I just do not believe primordal man, could draw like modern man. These just look too Good.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

I would say that if cavemen drew these, then yes, they are conscious. I see consciousness in these drawings, thats why I do not believe cavemen drew them. I was shown these on another site, which I was discussing the same topic. I don't believe it.

I just do not believe primordal man, could draw like modern man. These just look too Good.

Peace.

I forgot to mention that also the animals pictured. Look closely at them. They don't look like primordal animals to me, they look more like modernday animals. I think this is a fraud.

Peace.

 

[Kerr]

You know, when I googled their paintings even the bad ones look better then mine. Does this mean I am not conscious?

 

[mickiel]

You know, when I googled their paintings even the bad ones look better then mine. Does this mean I am not conscious?

No, it means that if you think a primordal man could draw better than you, then you are nieive enough to fall for this fruad.

I see Horses and what seems to be a bison. Do you think these animals were there with them then, and looked like that? Come on man, use common sense.

Peace.

 

[Valjean]

What, exactly, is a primordial animal?

 

[Kerr]

No, it means that if you think a primordal man could draw better than you, then you are nieive enough to fall for this fruad.

I see Horses and what seems to be a bison. Do you think these animals were there with them then, and looked like that? Come on man, use common sense.

Peace.

Actually it is possible you are right, I am just not interested enough to actually dig into it, but tell me this... do you know how bad I paint? Have you ever seen anything I have drawn? Anything? How can you then say cavemen don´t paint better then I do?

 

[mickiel]

Actually it is possible you are right, I am just not interested enough to actually dig into it, but tell me this... do you know how bad I paint? Have you ever seen anything I have drawn? Anything? How can you then say cavemen don´t paint better then I do?

Well I do not know how you draw, but I would put my money on a conscious artist, as opposed to an unconscious artist anyday.

Peace.

 

[Kerr]

Well I do not know how you draw, but I would put my money on a conscious artist, as opposed to an unconscious artist anyday.

Peace.

What do you mean by "unconscious" here? We humans are always "conscious" in the sense you have talked about in this thread. And you know you can have all talent in the world, but if you are sleeping you aren´t doing much painting... unless you are like that girl I know of who paints in her sleep . Well, she claims to anyway, never saw her works.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I would like to point out that they paint better then me.

Maybe...

But one thing I did notice in their art was the ability to paint in three dimensional.

Now that's consciousness....

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

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Actually the paintings in those caves, IMO, look better than this;

http://christeas.com/abstract-art-paintings-7.jpg

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Want to know how hold some of those paintings are?....Here ya go;

Cave painting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Humanistheart]

What do you mean by "unconscious" here? We humans are always "conscious" in the sense you have talked about in this thread. And you know you can have all talent in the world, but if you are sleeping you aren´t doing much painting... unless you are like that girl I know of who paints in her sleep . Well, she claims to anyway, never saw her works.

I think he's using concsious as many today would use sentient or aware.

 

[rojse]

I would say that if cavemen drew these, then yes, they are conscious. I see consciousness in these drawings, thats why I do not believe cavemen drew them. I was shown these on another site, which I was discussing the same topic. I don't believe it.

I just do not believe primordal man, could draw like modern man. These just look too Good.

Peace.

They are drawn in caves. I think it safe to presume by people who either lived in caves, since there are plenty of easier places to do artistic work available to ancient people, such as on heated clay, or on buildings.

 

[Kerr]

I think he's using concsious as many today would use sentient or aware.

Ok. So basically better put money on someone who is worse then the other, because the other happen to be a caveman?

 

[Humanistheart]

I would say that if cavemen drew these, then yes, they are conscious. I see consciousness in these drawings, thats why I do not believe cavemen drew them. I was shown these on another site, which I was discussing the same topic. I don't believe it.

I just do not believe primordal man, could draw like modern man. These just look too Good.

Peace.

Let me help you out mickiel. The above statement is one of the reason's every poster on here has told you you are not debating. Simply saying 'I don't believe it' is not a debate. Now if you could offer justification for this, prefferably with descent sources being cited, that would be different. Can you offer anything that supports your position of daubt? Anything tangeable?

 

[mickiel]

Let me help you out mickiel. The above statement is one of the reason's every poster on here has told you you are not debating. Simply saying 'I don't believe it' is not a debate. Now if you could offer justification for this, prefferably with descent sources being cited, that would be different. Can you offer anything that supports your position of daubt? Anything tangeable?

Yes, they look too dog gone good! These paintings are too good, and the animals do not look ancient to me, they look more modern, and this is just my observation, which I value, but you do not. I value my senses, my discernment, and my senses tell me these are a fruad! My own eyes tell me they are fraudulent. My common sense tells me they look way to good. Any professional artist can see what I am talking about. The way the pictures were drawn, " With a Backround" and as stated, a kind of three dimensional look to it, now come on, such 3-d concepts were not even nowhere near in effect by artist until a few hundred years ago.

Peace.

 

[Humanistheart]

Yes, they look too dog gone good! These paintings are too good, and the animals do not look ancient to me, they look more modern, and this is just my observation, which I value, but you do not. I value my senses, my discernment, and my senses tell me these are a fruad! My own eyes tell me they are fraudulent. My common sense tells me they look way to good. Any professional artist can see what I am talking about. The way the pictures were drawn, " With a Backround" and as stated, a kind of three dimensional look to it, now come on, such 3-d concepts were not even nowhere near in effect by artist until a few hundred years ago.

Peace.

You're talking about 'cavemen'. Ignoring the rather generalized and improper usuage of the phrase, the fact is the people you reffur to as such would have seen most of the same animals we see today (minus the ones that died off of course). As for 'ancient', well, that rather depends on your definition, but has no bearing here either way.

Anyway, I explained what constitues a proper debate, which included legitamate evidence. Do you have any evidence to support your position at all?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You're talking about 'cavemen'. Ignoring the rather generalized and improper usuage of the phrase, the fact is the people you reffur to as such would have seen most of the same animals we see today (minus the ones that died off of course). As for 'ancient', well, that rather depends on your definition, but has no bearing here either way.

Anyway, I explained what constitues a proper debate, which included legitamate evidence. Do you have any evidence to support your position at all?

Right...as you have pointed out...It was Mickiel that's been using this ambiguous term "cavemen".....Now when the proof is right there he reverts back to...."Well, I don't think it is...".....blah, blah, blah.....:ignore:

As the wiki link showed...these paintings to be as old as 32,000 years old.....

 

[rojse]

I forgot to mention that also the animals pictured. Look closely at them. They don't look like primordal animals to me, they look more like modernday animals. I think this is a fraud.

Peace.

Do you consider a wooly mammoth a modern-day animal, Mickiel?