Consciousness in Cavemen? A Debate.

[Humanistheart]

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

Come again?

 

[mickiel]

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

This one looks primordal. But the way the artist drew the eye gives this away, too much talent in my view.

Peace.

Peace.

 

[Kerr]

This one looks primordal. But the way the artist drew the eye gives this away, too much talent in my view.

Peace.

Peace.

How do you know it was not just a talented caveman?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This one looks primordal. But the way the artist drew the eye gives this away, too much talent in my view.

Peace.

Peace.

:biglaugh:....too funny....


No, it's just too much evidence for you to handle.....

You're forced to deny it or else you'd have to abandon this ridiculous notion of consciousness....

 

[ericoh2]

How do you know it was not just a talented caveman?

I'd like to make a prediciton as to how Mickiel will answer this.


"Because cavemen don't have consciousness. How could something unconscious have this much talent? Use your common sense man."

Lets get into that.

Peace

 

[Humanistheart]

How do you know it was not just a talented caveman?

I'll admit I was surprised at the eyes too. They look, I don't know, some how more than I expected? I can't draw that good I know that, lol. Where was that drawing found?

 

[JMorris]

I'll admit I was surprised at the eyes too. They look, I don't know, some how more than I expected? I can't draw that good I know that, lol. Where was that drawing found?

you cant draw that well? then you must be an unconscious, unaware caveman thingy. because ALL conscious human, Adam descendants are master artists. yet somehow you figured out how to use a computer, or are you just very luckily hitting keys at random that just happen to make sentences? curious

 

[Humanistheart]

you cant draw that well? then you must be an unconscious, unaware caveman thingy. because ALL conscious human, Adam descendants are master artists. yet somehow you figured out how to use a computer, or are you just very luckily hitting keys at random that just happen to make sentences? curious

It must be luck then!:yes: *goes back to spiradically hitting the keyboard*

 

[mickiel]

I'll admit I was surprised at the eyes too. They look, I don't know, some how more than I expected? I can't draw that good I know that, lol. Where was that drawing found?

They look like a professional did it, trying to mask his talent. These drawings are too good, their not on a canvas, their on brick, and look better than any of us could do on paper. Which brings up another point, what kind of ink, found back then, could last all this time, drawn on rock and not deteriate?

Peace.

 

[JMorris]

They look like a professional did it, trying to mask his talent. These drawings are too good, their not on a canvas, their on brick, and look better than any of us could do on paper. Which brings up another point, what kind of ink, found back then, could last all this time, drawn on rock and not deteriate?

Peace.

these sort of things might be adorable if they were coming from a 4 year old

 

[kai]

They look like a professional did it, trying to mask his talent. These drawings are too good, their not on a canvas,

their on brick

, and look better than any of us could do on paper. Which brings up another point, what kind of ink, found back then, could last all this time, drawn on rock and not deteriate?

Peace.

please tell me you are joking? they had bricklayers?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

They look like a professional did it, trying to mask his talent. These drawings are too good, their not on a canvas, their on brick, and look better than any of us could do on paper.

Well viewing art is subjective. The dating of the paintings put them as early as 32,000 years ago so we know our ancestors were responsible for painting them. Was it the Neanderthals? Most likely not rather it was their cousins...what scientist classify as (Homo Sapiens). While it is true they didn't have canvas back then, seeing as though it wasn't invented yet, they used other areas to display their work. NO they didn't have "brick" back then either. They used cave walls.

​

Which brings up another point, what kind of ink, found back then, could last all this time, drawn on rock and not deteriate?
Peace.

Well think about it. If it's inside of a cave protected from the elements, in the dark and cool it's most likely going to last a long time. Here's an article that gives you more detail.

History of PAINTING
"The walls and ceilings of these caves are covered in paintings, with shades of red, brown, yellow and black created from powdered minerals, probably mixed with animal blood and fat. The subjects are mainly the animals of the chase - bison, wild cattle, horses and deer. Many of the paintings are deep in the caves, in dark recesses.

The painters do their work by the light of saucer-like stone lamps, burning animal fat. The charcoal wick of one of the lamps at Lascaux has been carbon-dated to about 17,000 years ago. The same process has dated objects found at Altamira to some 13,000 years ago. Around this period cave art in other European sites also reaches its peak."

 

[Mr Cheese]

I'll admit I was surprised at the eyes too. They look, I don't know, some how more than I expected? I can't draw that good I know that, lol. Where was that drawing found?

Picassso saw some cave painting during his life time....

he famously proclaimed that everything he had ever done, was not new (or some similar sentiment).

Them stupid cave men...some were really good artists

sadly for mickiel, this is just one tiny bit of evidence to show, that anceint people we're all walking around eating ants, sticking mud in their nostrils and listenign to Barbera streisand records....

mainly because they only had four tracks...:clap

 

[mickiel]

Picassso saw some cave painting during his life time....

he famously proclaimed that everything he had ever done, was not new (or some similar sentiment).

Them stupid cave men...some were really good artists

sadly for mickiel, this is just one tiny bit of evidence to show, that anceint people we're all walking around eating ants, sticking mud in their nostrils and listenign to Barbera streisand records....

mainly because they only had four tracks...:clap

Goodness Cheese, wouldn't you like as much evidence for there being a God as you can get in order to believe? Well, I am no different than you. Once I believe something, somethingelse more profound than what I believe has to knock me off of my first belief. With this subject, I am dealing with high stakes belief, profound assumption and things hardly easy to accept. If I find out I am wrong, I will adjust and change my views. These excercises in debate are good for that. I have seen little to change my mind, but I need more to have a solid convincing about this. I lean toward I am right, but stand ready to be wrong.

As I have already stated, the art shown, is to me a sign of Consciousness, if it is true, then I am wrong, but I see discrepencys in the art itself, that is not enough to change my mind, but as I said, if I knew they were not forgerys, I would be forced to seriously reconsider my premise.

Peace.

 

[Amill]

They had all that, yet still had no consciousness. Without consciousness, you cannot have language. They had all those things you mentioned, but yet didnot have language. Why, because they had no consciousness. Consciousness is God given, it cannot evolve, we cannot take it from anywhere, it cannot be created by humans or animals, it didnot come from Algae.

Peace.

So you're saying god gave them everything they needed to verbally communicate in ways far more complex than grunts and shrugs, yet he didn't give them the consciousness to be able to do so? Why would he give them the physical capabilities if he didn't make it so they would use them? Do you believe in a deceptive god?

Your argument that they couldn't speak is quite circular
"They couldn't speak because they didn't have consciousness, we know they didn't have consciousness because they couldn't speak."

Or with the art stuff
"They weren't conscious because they couldn't produce things like religion, art, ect." (someone shows him cavemen art) "there's no way they could have been responsible for those paintings because they weren't conscious".

Seriously, it's getting old.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Goodness Cheese, wouldn't you like as much evidence for there being a God as you can get in order to believe? Well, I am no different than you. Once I believe something, somethingelse more profound than what I believe has to knock me off of my first belief. With this subject, I am dealing with high stakes belief, profound assumption and things hardly easy to accept. If I find out I am wrong, I will adjust and change my views. These excercises in debate are good for that. I have seen little to change my mind, but I need more to have a solid convincing about this. I lean toward I am right, but stand ready to be wrong.

As I have already stated, the art shown, is to me a sign of Consciousness, if it is true, then I am wrong, but I see discrepencys in the art itself, that is not enough to change my mind, but as I said, if I knew they were not forgerys, I would be forced to seriously reconsider my premise.

Peace.

well since you are only willing to use the bible and your own mind
you'll stay resident in the quagmire of stupidity and ignorace

forgerys............(give me strength)

 

[Mr Cheese]

Your argument that they couldn't speak is quite circular
"They couldn't speak because they didn't have consciousness, we know they didn't have consciousness because they couldn't speak."

:sarcastic stupidity knows no bounds....or maybe stupidity is extremely confined...:clap

 

[JMorris]

well since you are only willing to use the bible and your own mind
you'll stay resident in the quagmire of stupidity and ignorace

forgerys............(give me strength)

:badger:: hamster ::woohoo::danana:

 

[mickiel]

So you're saying god gave them everything they needed to verbally communicate in ways far more complex than grunts and shrugs, yet he didn't give them the consciousness to be able to do so? Why would he give them the physical capabilities if he didn't make it so they would use them? Do you believe in a deceptive god?

quote]

I really don't know why, yet. I believe they had the same capability to speak that we have, same physical componants, but the fact that they never developed language, verbal or written, only explains to me something was missing, and I believe that missing link was Consciousness. I see no other alternitive. If you have language in a culture, your going to have written language, one demands the other. They go hand in hand, unless you are uncivilized.

Peace.

 

[Amill]

I really don't know why, yet. I believe they had the same capability to speak that we have, same physical componants, but the fact that they never developed language, verbal or written, only explains to me something was missing, and I believe that missing link was Consciousness. I see no other alternitive. If you have language in a culture, your going to have written language, one demands the other. They go hand in hand, unless you are uncivilized.

Peace.

Kids have no problem learning how to verbally communicate before learning how to read and write. Why must complex verbal communication demand written form? Why is that a necessity? And what do you mean by uncivilized?