Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

If you read further, you would see that my opinion is supported. You’re not making a rational argument. I get you don’t want to read, others will do.

It is a global claim that is not supported.

You just demonstrated an example of jumping to illogical conclusion because of presuppositions that hinder the ability of logical reasoning. This example further proves my opinion at the beginning, which you claimed it to be unsupported.

What I don’t like is the dogmatic control of science that doesn’t allow healthy scientific inquiry.

My conclusion was logical and correct. I saw no evidence to consider it otherwise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you read further, you would see that my opinion is supported. You’re not making a rational argument. I get you don’t want to read, others will do.



You just demonstrated an example of jumping to illogical conclusion because of presuppositions that hinder the ability of logical reasoning. This example further proves my opinion at the beginning, which you claimed it to be unsupported.

What I don’t like is the dogmatic control of science that doesn’t allow healthy scientific inquiry.

I have seen no demonstration of this dogmatic control that constrains scientific inquiry. Saying it does not make it so.

 

[ppp]

Under dogmatic control, scientific findings are typically interpreted to fit the presuppositions.

If you read further, you would see that my opinion is supported. You’re not making a rational argument. I get you don’t want to read, others will do.

I read further. I don't see any sentence or groups of sentences in your post that even tries to demonstrate that statement. If you disagree, feel free to focus on the specific evidence for your claim that there is "dogmatic control"

 

[cladking]

And when I say “demonstrate”, using your logic, can you show consciousness of the above examples (plants, fungi, bacteria) in “experiments”, without observations?

And again I tell you for the 100th time that EVERY experiment ever performed supports the nature of "consciousness".

You and science simply ignore consciousness and haven't even invented a working definition for it. You think that so long as it isn't defined it is impossible to perform experiment on it so all your theories are safe. But this isn't the way reality works nor is it the way "experiment" works. All experiment must be interpreted to have any meaning at all and only individual consciousness can analyze or interpret the meaning of experiment within the given parameters.

I am merely providing a definition of "consciousness" so that one can better interpret all experiment.

I would love to mention some of the numerous experiments that show even the simplest life forms to be "sentient" but you will necessarily misinterpret them if you believe "evidence" underlies science and you have no definition for "consciousness". It is simply impossible to understand what you choose not to.

Really a better question might be "is homo omnnisciencis sentient?". Are any modern humans conscious? I'm sure we aren't "intelligent" but to what extent are we conscious? Most animals might take us for sleep walkers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder how science can demonstrate the nature of consciousness in every experiment and ignore it at the same time? It's baffling.

I wonder what the definition of consciousness is, since it has never been provided. Well, definitions have been provided by people that do understand and know science. But no one else. I know, I have the evidence of posts to support that conclusion.

I don't think that there are experiments that show sentience in bacteria, fungi, or plants. I bet evidence and experiments that demonstrate consciousness or sentience (also undefined so far) have not been provided, because there are none.

Made up species cannot, by virtue of being made up, have consciousness. They simply do not exist.

 

[ppp]

Made up species cannot, by virtue of being made up, have consciousness. They simply do not exist.

But but but... even Vulcans?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But but but... even Vulcans?

T'pol better be real. That's all I'm sayin'.

I hope she has consciousness. It would be a waste of my moves if she doesn't. If she isn't self aware, she won't recognize how great I am.

 

[cladking]

Most animals might take us for sleep walkers.

Mebbe this was the inspiration for Voyager's "Waking Moments". People who are conscious only when sleeping and vice versa.

 

[ppp]

T'pol better be real. That's all I'm sayin'.

I hope she has consciousness. It would be a waste of my moves if she doesn't. If she isn't self aware, she won't recognize how great I am.

Lol
T'Pau is real, so there is hope!

 

[cladking]

I wonder how science can demonstrate the nature of consciousness in every experiment and ignore it at the same time?

All scientists are conscious. Experiment has meaning only through interpretation which requires consciousness.

 

[cladking]

All scientists are conscious.

Well, not Peers of course. Their opinion holds sway long after they're dead right up until they are excommunicated or sentenced to hell.

 

[gnostic]

And again I tell you for the 100th time that EVERY experiment ever performed supports the nature of "consciousness".

Excuse me, but what experiments?

You haven't cited any scientific reports, you are just making empty assertions.

Where are scientific reports of experiments that demonstrate plants are "conscious"?

You cannot answer the questions. You just claims some imaginary "number" of experiment, without showing one that demonstrate your claim?

Can you even demonstrate that consciousness is possible for organisms that have no brains (eg plants, fungi)?

You haven't presented any experiment.You are just making senseless noises about experiments that you haven't even cited one of those "many".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All scientists are conscious. Experiment has meaning only through interpretation which requires consciousness.

That is true, but also not what you have been trying to pass off for ever so long.

Interpretation is not just any random thing someone wants to claim either. It has to be logical, valid and based on the facts. It isn't beavers speak some mythical ancient language and Neanderthals used some mythical ancient science or anyone of dozens of other unsupported claims that I have read from you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, not Peers of course. Their opinion holds sway long after they're dead right up until they are excommunicated or sentenced to hell.

I get nothing meaningful from this and it looks like gibberish to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Excuse me, but what experiments?

You haven't cited any scientific reports, you are just making empty assertions.

Where are scientific reports of experiments that demonstrate plants are "conscious"?

You cannot answer the questions. You just claims some imaginary "number" of experiment, without showing one that demonstrate your claim?

Can you even demonstrate that consciousness is possible for organisms that have no brains (eg plants, fungi)?

You haven't presented any experiment.You are just making senseless noises about experiments that you haven't even cited one of those "many".

And he never will.

 

[gnostic]

All scientists are conscious. Experiment has meaning only through interpretation which requires consciousness.

You are talking about people, humans. Of course, they have consciousness...

...unless someone have serious brain trauma and left in vegetated state...or someone who have died.

I know that many animals have consciousness, but not all, for instance, do corals have "consciousness"?

That's a question I cannot answer, because I don't know enough about corals. But corals are animals, they are marine invertebrates, and I don't think they even have brains.

Perhaps someone with better knowledge in marine biology than that I possessed, can correct me if I wrong.

Would you be able to demonstrate corals are "conscious" organisms?

 

[Bill Starr]

I wonder how science can demonstrate the nature of consciousness in every experiment and ignore it at the same time? It's baffling.

I wonder what the definition of consciousness is, since it has never been provided. Well, definitions have been provided by people that do understand and know science. But no one else. I know, I have the evidence of posts to support that conclusion.

I don't think that there are experiments that show sentience in bacteria, fungi, or plants. I bet evidence and experiments that demonstrate consciousness or sentience (also undefined so far) have not been provided, because there are none.

Made up species cannot, by virtue of being made up, have consciousness. They simply do not exist.

No there is no evidence because there is no consciousness going on at a animals level its not required because its a plant and it reacts to the world in a different way, which is still not understood. A small plant will process a massive amount of information over its life time All scientist will agree experience is happening at even the smallest level. The world was put together so all life works together we all can't be the same they all have a job to do and we will die without them. So grade them as lesser life they don't need the capability of a human being to do their Job and we rely on them all to survive on this planet. They should be respected.Your looking for human consciousness where it doesn't exist nor is it required. Every life form has its place and job to do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No there is no evidence because there is no consciousness going on at a animals level its not required because its a plant and it reacts to the world in a different way, which is still not understood. A small plant will process a massive amount of information over its life time All scientist will agree experience is happening at even the smallest level. The world was put together so all life works together we all can't be the same they all have a job to do and we will die without them. So grade them as lesser life they don't need the capability of a human being to do their Job and we rely on them all to survive on this planet. They should be respected.Your looking for human consciousness where it doesn't exist nor is it required. Every life form has its place and job to do.

I'm not claiming that all life possesses consciousness or consciousness equivalent to humans. That is the claim of the person I was addressing. Neither am I disqualifying plants as having low value. I love plants. They're often delicious and that oxygen thing is awesome too.

 

[Bill Starr]

The possess the consciousness or awareness required to live their life and do what they are here for.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The possess the consciousness or awareness required to live their life and do what they are here for.

I have no idea what that means. Bacteria, for instance, do not show any indication of consciousness. Yet they function. Their behavior is guided by response to the environment without consciousness.