Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

Consciousness are only really controversial if you only define or explain consciousness in philosophical or religious paradigms.

Not true, consciousness scientifically is puzzling and controversial. There is no agreed upon theory of consciousness. There is no clear understanding of what consciousness is, its place in nature and how it relates to other, nonconscious, aspects of reality.

The assumption that consciousness arises from a given physical state is only a hypothesis without any proof. In fact, the hypothesis itself is used as the proof. It’s a fallacious circular reasoning.

Religious concepts and religious concepts on consciousness are often ill-defined, and in the religious and spiritual side, include belief in the supernatural, some things that don’t exist in nature.

consciousness is not a physical phenomenon . a conscious state cannot be repeated or created from configuration of matter.

explainability (by specific natural law) establishes the boundary line that separates natural from supernatural.

The notion that the non-physical is unexplainable doesn’t establish a logical basis to dismiss its existence. Unexplained is not equal to non-existent.

Non-physical phenomena do exist. Its existence cannot be dismissed merely on the basis that its explanation is not attainable through a specific field of knowledge/natural law.

In sciences, there are two possible ways to understand consciousness, through:

• ...Natural Sciences, eg biology, neuroscience, etc...
• ...and Social Sciences, eg psychology, psychiatry, behavioral science,etc.

Social Sciences are fields concerning how humans think, feel, behave, and how they live their lives (eg cultures). Social Sciences don’t require to follow strict requirements of Scientific Method, because how humans think and behave varied too widely, and it allowed for anomalies such as people that have mental or behavioral disorders.

psychology, psychiatry, behavioral science, are all concerned with specific manifestations of consciousness but that by no means change the fact that consciousness itself is not physical.

However, there are some overlaps between psychology and biology. For instances, some physical (biological) or biochemical imbalances can explain for a patient who suffer from psychological or emotional illnesses, that might altered ones’ perceptions or consciousness. Example someone who may suffer from stroke, their behavior may become irrational, or they may suffer memory losses, etc,

On a purely biological basis, consciousness only exist and in evident when a person is still alive. Hence the brain must be still functioning. But if a person died, then if his brain ceased to function, then so does consciousness.

From a purely biological perspective, consciousness don’t exist beyond a human’s death. Only in some (wack job) philosophies and in some religions, does consciousnesses transcend the physical brains, and life itself.

you're talking about observations that we all witness. but again, observations are meaningless without a logic to identify the specific relationship that confirms or disconfirms a hypotheses. observations are the same for every one but the interpretation is what varies.

from a physicalism point of view, consciousness arises from a given physical state, a specific configuration of matter gives rise to a specific conscious state which in principle can be copied or possibly loaded to an AI system. In that sense, it can transcend life. Science makes the (unproven) assumption that configuration of matter can give rise to life and also can give rise to consciousness but physicalism in principle doesn’t necessitate interdependency between life and consciousness. Life can exist without consciousness nonetheless; life in its simplest form is a manifestation of intelligence (external conscious intelligence) similar to the example of a self-driving car.

If a person is in a coma or vegetative state, the body stays alive unconsciously (the biological functions continue with or without the assistance of life support equipment), if the connection with consciousness cannot be reestablished, then the person is considered dead (even if his body is alive) and the plug is pulled. In that sense, human death is the loss of connection with consciousness/awareness not merely the cessation of biological functions (as the case in other simpler life forms).

A damaged body or brain can’t regain the connection with consciousness. It’s like the example of a damaged car that can no longer take directions from a driver, but that doesn’t mean that the driver himself ceased to exist. (Even so being damaged is not the only means to lose this connection).

Consciousness is the driver of the physical body; the body is the vehicle through which consciousness can interact with the physical environment. Science doesn’t identify what consciousness is (or life for that matter) or its place in nature but without consciousness, the body is considered dead even if the biological functions continue to work properly with the assistance of life support equipment.

the fact is, we don't know what life is or what consciousness is. The claim that configurations of matter can give rise to life or consciousness is totally unproven. Not only we don’t know what life is but also we don’t know how it may emerge from nonliving matter other that wishful thinking/unproven hypothesis. Yet the hypothesis itself is used as the proof for its own validity (circular reasoning) simply because it’s considered as the only option on the table which makes it unfalsifiable.

In principle, any change (such as the emerge of life from nonliving matter) can be caused by two competing Hypothesis:

A) Intelligently Guided Change.

B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).

If the competing hypothesis is not considered, then the assumption that only one scenario is possible makes it unfalsifiable.

Regardless the manifestations of intelligence observed everywhere around us, but hypotheses "A" was never considered as a competing hypothesis thus hypothesis "B" became unfalsifiable. As the only option possible, it proved itself (circular reasoning), Hence all observations had be interpreted in light of the accepted assumption that "B" is correct. its not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"80% of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees”

That is correct. But Chimps are our closest "living" relatvies. Our closest relatives, Homo neanderthalensis, Denisovans, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc. have not survived; though we carry some of their genes.
"Most molecular clocks at the time, and many since, put the split between humans and chimpanzees at only around 5-6 million years ago."
Google search

A) Intelligently Guided Change.

Yeah, I know. Your book, which the word of Allah, says:
"Wa laqad khalaqnal insaana min salsaalim min hama im masnoon"
Assuredly We have created humankind from dried, sounding clay, from molded dark mud. - Al-Quran ul-Kareem 15.26
It definitely cannot be otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In principle, any change (such as the emerge of life from nonliving matter) can be caused by two competing Hypothesis:

A) Intelligently Guided Change.

B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).

If the competing hypothesis is not considered, then the assumption that only one scenario is possible makes it unfalsifiable.

Regardless the manifestations of intelligence observed everywhere around us, but hypotheses "A" was never considered as a competing hypothesis thus hypothesis "B" became unfalsifiable. As the only option possible, it proved itself (circular reasoning), Hence all observations had be interpreted in light of the accepted assumption that "B" is correct. its not.

Sorry. If you insist on using strawman arguments you lose. It would be incorrect to call Non ID change random change. Just because you or even possibly everyone does not know the cause of change does not make it random. Also you really need to consider your unfalsifiable claim. I have as yet to see a falsifiable version of ID. In fact by your standards we should be trashing ID.

 

[gnostic]

No, physical/natural phenomena, that are being observed may or may not be considered as evidence only after logical evaluation of the observation.

Good grief.

Everything you've just said that’s backwards.

You understand neither science, nor logic. And you certainly don’t understand what evidence is.

Is that what being taught to you in Islam?

Logic is completely “man-made”, LIIA', and logic isn’t inerrant, nor infallible. People can make mistakes when using logic.

The ultimate expression of man’s logics, are mathematics, but mathematics aren’t “absolute”, nor they aren’t “fool-proof”. And if look at the history of sciences, the reality of nature don’t always agree the maths.

The physical or natural phenomena are the reality, and the evidence are parts of the phenomena. And it is evidence that determine if the explanation-parts, predictive-parts and maths/logic-parts of theory or hypothesis is true or false, probable or improbable, verified or refuted.

Take the theoretical physics, like String Theory and Superstring Theory for instances, each of these relied heavily on mathematical equations (hence logic), and yet there have been no evidence, nor experiments, to verify them to be true, hence they haven’t the testing requirements of Scientific Method, hence both String Theory and Superstring Theory are not “scientific theory”.

Logic without evidence, isn’t science. Logics are only good, in science, if the evidence back up and verify the logics, and not the other way around, as you have claimed.

Excuse me, LIIA, but you really need to go beyond 9th-11th centuries Islamic Natural Philosophy.

 

[gnostic]

Older civilizations assumed that the Earth's apparent lack of motion as evidence that Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars revolved around it. This view was based on observations that appeared as sufficient evidence to warrant that conclusion but it was not and the conclusion was false.

Islamic empires (before Galileo’s discoveries) all supported the Earth flat like disk or coin (flat Earth model), and stationary (geocentric model, sun, stars and planets orbiting around Earth), because the Quran alluded to both concepts.

Only one 11th century Persian philosopher , Al-Biruni, had started to propose heliocentric model (Earth orbiting the Sun), but only to change his mind in 1031, because his concept wasn’t popular, reverting back to geocentric model.

The oldest proposal for heliocentric model, come from 3rd century BCE, Hellenistic Greek astronomer and mathematician, Aristarchus of Samos, but his work was lost, but a later 3rd century bce polymath & inventor Archimedes, who had summarized Aristarchus’ works in his The Sand Reckoner.

Of course, Aristarchus was never able to verify the heliocentric model, but at least, Aristarchus had never back down as Al-Biruni did, and Aristarchus had never mixed astronomy with astrology, aa Al-Biruni did.

 

[gnostic]

In fact by your standards we should be trashing ID.

That’s where Intelligent Design belongs.

Or people should compost it...at least you can use it as a fertilizer.

 

[cladking]

Simply saying all experiments conveys no information.

Remarkable!!!

I say every single experiment ever done supports my theory and you ask me to be more specific.

Meanwhile Gnostic claims to understand consciousness while insisting that it is defined by science.

I'd love to hear about the experiments that show consciousness isn't involved in speciation and how it compares to random processes. I'd like to hear this definition so I can see if all plants and animals possess it. Is there a minimum IQ requirement and how do you measure IQ in a turnip or cricket?

It seems a lot of people don't really know what science is at all which can only mean they don't know what they know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Remarkable!!!

I say every single experiment ever done supports my theory and you ask me to be more specific.

Meanwhile Gnostic claims to understand consciousness while insisting that it is defined by science.

I'd love to hear about the experiments that show consciousness isn't involved in speciation and how it compares to random processes. I'd like to hear this definition so I can see if all plants and animals possess it. Is there a minimum IQ requirement and how do you measure IQ in a turnip or cricket?

It seems a lot of people don't really know what science is at all which can only mean they don't know what they know.

Since you continually make that claim but never seem to be able to support it we have to draw the conclusion that it is false.

Meanwhile many of your false claims have been refuted and for some strange reason you ignore those refutations. You are likely only fooling yourself here.

Now as to consciousness being involved in speciation that would be your claim and your burden of proof. Most people just look at such a claim and go "What?" It appears to be rather nonsensical so they neither support it nor refute it. By the way, just a friendly reminder. There is no need to refute a claim that is made without any evidence supporting it. You in effect have refuted your own claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Remarkable!!!

I say every single experiment ever done supports my theory and you ask me to be more specific.

Meanwhile Gnostic claims to understand consciousness while insisting that it is defined by science.

I'd love to hear about the experiments that show consciousness isn't involved in speciation and how it compares to random processes. I'd like to hear this definition so I can see if all plants and animals possess it. Is there a minimum IQ requirement and how do you measure IQ in a turnip or cricket?

It seems a lot of people don't really know what science is at all which can only mean they don't know what they know.

One wonders how you are knowledgeable of all experiments ever done and one wonders more about this mysterious theory.

I would love to see one experiment that supports that consciousness is involved in speciation.

What is a random process?

I find it amusing that you are asking for a definition.

It does seem like someone doesn't know what science is, speciation, or evolution, or...

 

[cladking]

Meanwhile many of your false claims have been refuted and for some strange reason you ignore those refutations.

You should point it out when you refute something I say.

It appears to me I make a reasoned argument and then someone just says nuh-uh. Gainsaying isn't even an argument much less a refutation.

 

[cladking]

I would love to see one experiment that supports that consciousness is involved in speciation.

Every experiment ever done for several centuries supports my theory. This is highly specific; every single one of them.

I find it amusing that you are asking for a definition.

Incredible. I've provided my definition of consciousness numerous times (remember consciousness is life) and have elaborated on this definition numerous times. I'd like to hear this remarkable definition of it that has been devised by science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Every experiment ever done for several centuries supports my theory. This is highly specific; every single one of them.

Humans have consciousness and they are involved in the experiments. But that is not what you have been claiming.

Incredible. I've provided my definition of consciousness numerous times (remember consciousness is life) and have elaborated on this definition numerous times. I'd like to hear this remarkable definition of it that has been devised by science.

No you have not.

I guess it is incredible that you think anyone believes that you have provided definitions for anything.

Consciousness is life is a claim that has little value in describing something. It isn't a definition. I gave my definition of consciousness. It wasn't great or perfect, but it opened up valid discussion. Yours just hangs there useless and empty.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You should point it out when you refute something I say.

It appears to me I make a reasoned argument and then someone just says nuh-uh. Gainsaying isn't even an argument much less a refutation.

Is there a minimum number of people you need this from? Einstein said it only took one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should point it out when you refute something I say.

It appears to me I make a reasoned argument and then someone just says nuh-uh. Gainsaying isn't even an argument much less a refutation.

Been there, done that, bought the tshirt. It did not do any good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there a minimum number of people you need this from? Einstein said it only took one.

And it has happened multiple times with a slew of posters. I am not convinced by what appears to be a fake "Who me?" act.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And it has happened multiple times with a slew of posters. I am not convinced by what appears to be a fake "Who me?" act.

It has gotten old. I made a serious effort and had it spit back in my face. I'm done.

 

[ppp]

Remarkable!!!

I say every single experiment ever done supports my theory and you ask me to be more specific.

All your statement demonstrates is that you are capable of stringing those words together in a sentence. At present they are merely hollow boasts. You have yet to demonstrated that you know even a single specific experiment; let alone that even one supports your so-called "theory".

 

[gnostic]

Incredible. I've provided my definition of consciousness numerous times (remember consciousness is life) and have elaborated on this definition numerous times. I'd like to hear this remarkable definition of it that has been devised by science.

No, you haven’t provided a definition to consciousness.

You keep saying science don’t have definition for consciousness but all you could come up is this...

“consciousness is life”​

...that isn’t a definition.

And it explains nothing about consciousness..

Try again, but try better.

 

[cladking]

Since you continually make that claim but never seem to be able to support it we have to draw the conclusion that it is false.

Why don't you name one that doesn't support it and prove me wrong?

Now as to consciousness being involved in speciation that would be your claim and your burden of proof. Most people just look at such a claim and go "What?" It appears to be rather nonsensical...

Yes. It does.

But that's because everyone is using a flawed paradigm that excludes all living things from their belief in "Evolution" and "survival of the fittest". Once you add the nature of life (consciousness) to the equation there is no more "fitness". Once you see all change in all life is sudden there is no need to postulate gradual change. "Evolution" is a very bad paradigm o explain change in species and Darwin blew it because he ASSUMED there were no bottlenecks. Once you make such an ASSUMPTION then "Evolution" evolves from it.

The paradigm is founded on 19th century nonsense. Just give it up.

 

[cladking]

Is there a minimum number of people you need this from? Einstein said it only took one.

Well... ...let's see one!