Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

ROFL

Yet science has no definition for consciousness and most scientists don't believe that birds have consciousness.

Even dictionaries have definitions of consciousness. Not yours I suspect however and science doesn't seem to have taken the concept into the blind alleys you seem to favor.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is an inability to see what I don't want to.

Like many things you say, there is no telling what it means to you and it means nothing to me.

We are homo circularis rationatio

You may consider this for yourself. But I reject it as an unrecognized, unexplained and meaningless. An insult to taxonomy has if it was merely the operation of making up whatever you want for personal, secret reasons.

and we are all so affected.

No. I only see the evidence that a limited number are affected. I consider you to reason in circles and from poor knowledge and thinking.

This is what experiment shows: we see what we expect.

No. The evidence indicates this for you and others like that don't want to accept what has been learned so far. Likely due to the conflict it creates with your personal belief system from the evidence of these threads.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes , we have human language and we use common language to communicate.
We are multilingual and not in every language words have the same meaning.
You should understand every language as you try to understand the common one or try to understand as many as it gets maybe.
I don't know why you say that there is no choice but one.I stopped reading when you wrote : "There is no choice but..."

Define that 'one language' that you are refering to , if you think otherwise.

I have found that getting a sound answer to a reasonable question is nearly impossible here. All that a person can do is point out the flaws with no expectation that those efforts will be understood and recognized.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you still can't find a single instance where I used a word and definition not found in the dictionary. ...not one single instance. Indeed, I tend to use the first listed definitions of words like "basis of science" for "metaphysics". Sometimes it's the parser not the parsee. Everyone on my lengthy ignore list got there by the refusal to accept ab definition even after i provided it multiple times and given them oppo opportunities to suggest another word.

I believe this is because believers in science don't accept there is such a thing as a basis of science. They think science works through magic, but it most assuredly does not it works through experiment

I am convinced by the evidence that the failure of communication here is largely the result of your actions. Ignoring others because they refuse to accept and use your personal, secret definitions fits with that conclusion.

Your claim that you ignore complete definitions and go with the one that best adds to continued confusion is further evidence in support of my view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ROFL

Yet science has no definition for consciousness

How is it that you with your seeming claims of expertise in this field appear to be completely unaware of what is studied, theorized and known using science? I've already refuted your claim, though I expect to see it raised numerous times in the future like some mythic vampire that cannot be killed. As your lack of awareness also will not go away until you kill it off.

and most scientists don't believe that birds have consciousness.

Thinking about this, and it is possible it is correct. But what would it really mean? What are you saying here and what do you mean by it? Allow me to parse this.

I believe you are trying to say that you see what science does not and even refuses to see because they are under the control of a vast conspiracy lead by a faceless group you call "Peers" with a capital "P". In effect, your lack of expertise trumps the experts. Again.

Most scientists are not ornithologists, avian ecologists or neuroscientists, so it could be that the rest have simply never considered it and it is outside of their areas of expertise. Or being people, and this being outside their area of expertise, and knowing that, have accepted a particular position tacitly without much thought or interest. Certainly, claiming that most geologists don't believe birds have consciousness has little meaning to the question.

So declaring that most scientist don't believe something, apart from being baseless conjecture, is meaningless as well.

 

[wellwisher]

How is it that you with your seeming claims of expertise in this field appear to be completely unaware of what is studied, theorized and known using science? I've already refuted your claim, though I expect to see it raised numerous times in the future like some mythic vampire that cannot be killed. As your lack of awareness also will not go away until you kill it off.

Thinking about this, and it is possible it is correct. But what would it really mean? What are you saying here and what do you mean by it? Allow me to parse this.

I believe you are trying to say that you see what science does not and even refuses to see because they are under the control of a vast conspiracy lead by a faceless group you call "Peers" with a capital "P". In effect, your lack of expertise trumps the experts. Again.

Most scientists are not ornithologists, avian ecologists or neuroscientists, so it could be that the rest have simply never considered it and it is outside of their areas of expertise. Or being people, and this being outside their area of expertise, and knowing that, have accepted a particular position tacitly without much thought or interest. Certainly, claiming that most geologists don't believe birds have consciousness has little meaning to the question.

So declaring that most scientist don't believe something, apart from being baseless conjecture, is meaningless as well.

Even dictionaries have definitions of consciousness. Not yours I suspect however and science doesn't seem to have taken the concept into the blind alleys you seem to favor.

The question is how do you study consciousness? All humans have consciousness, so does one study consciousness from the inside or the outside; self reflection, or observed outside yourself? The inside approach makes more sense, since each of us have the "conscious phenomena" at our disposal to observe. We should know our expression of consciousness the best. The personality firmware define our collective human propensities; for consciousness, so it we know ourself we knows all the others.

From the outside, examining consciousness is essentially black box, where input and output, does not fully tell us what is going on inside the person; motivation. A con Artist can output what he wants us to see, thereby making such external data less than useful. If we could read his mind, that would be better data. Since you cannot read what is being hidden in his mind, then the only reliable source is from inside yourself, with you trying to be honest with yourself, since the science goal is to define consciousness based on hard data. But this is not allowed by science philosophy. They only allow external data and the risk of the con artist mask. Then make a definition to memorize. Being able to recite an externally gained definition of consciousness, is not the same as learning it from the inside out.

When I started to examine consciousness, through may own consciousness, I came up with the analogy of someone having a toothache. If you never had a toothache before, and you only could examine the subject from the outside, can you truly empathize their pain? In other words, would having your own toothache, add any extra in terms of consciousness data of pain, you cannot see from the outside? Inside observations will also see the irrationality that the pain causes, and the compelling need to alleviate the pain, as well as how hard it is to focus on anything else. From the outside, we miss this data, while an observant subject who tells these things, may still not make it easy to fully empathize, if this is new to you.

A Scientist with a political position, is not remaining fully rational, since politics is subjective. Obviously, his consciousness is no longer calibrated for objectivity or else he would be critical of everything and thereby black balled. What Lefty Scientist would dare question Kamala? Science does not step in and become the truth detector for all politics, like I would hope and expect. But Why? Science, like in any group, it is easier to get along by going along. Since people cannot read my mind, I can still doubt in secret, but pretend in public, so I can be seen as a card carrying member; use some acting.

I would need to psychoanalyze myself, to figure out why I do such a things, or why my brain is more calibrated for social self preservation in the group politics, even beyond the need for science truth. Most people are less conscious than they think, with the lack of calibration, due to unconsciousness. Plus there is no science reason to approach the subject of consciousness in the most useful way; honest internal data.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The question is how do you study consciousness? All humans have consciousness, so does one study consciousness from the inside or the outside; self reflection, or observed outside yourself? The inside approach makes more sense, since each of us have the "conscious phenomena" at our disposal to observe. We should know our expression of consciousness the best. The personality firmware define our collective human propensities; for consciousness, so it we know ourself we knows all the others.

From the outside, examining consciousness is essentially black box, where input and output, does not fully tell us what is going on inside the person; motivation. A con Artist can output what he wants us to see, thereby making such external data less than useful. If we could read his mind, that would be better data. Since you cannot read what is being hidden in his mind, then the only reliable source is from inside yourself, with you trying to be honest with yourself, since the science goal is to define consciousness based on hard data. But this is not allowed by science philosophy. They only allow external data and the risk of the con artist mask. Then make a definition to memorize. Being able to recite an externally gained definition of consciousness, is not the same as learning it from the inside out.

When I started to examine consciousness, through may own consciousness, I came up with the analogy of someone having a toothache. If you never had a toothache before, and you only could examine the subject from the outside, can you truly empathize their pain? In other words, would having your own toothache, add any extra in terms of consciousness data of pain, you cannot see from the outside? Inside observations will also see the irrationality that the pain causes, and the compelling need to alleviate the pain, as well as how hard it is to focus on anything else. From the outside, we miss this data, while an observant subject who tells these things, may still not make it easy to fully empathize, if this is new to you.

A Scientist with a political position, is not remaining fully rational, since politics is subjective. Obviously, his consciousness is no longer calibrated for objectivity or else he would be critical of everything and thereby black balled. What Lefty Scientist would dare question Kamala? Science does not step in and become the truth detector for all politics, like I would hope and expect. But Why? Science, like in any group, it is easier to get along by going along. Since people cannot read my mind, I can still doubt in secret, but pretend in public, so I can be seen as a card carrying member; use some acting.

I would need to psychoanalyze myself, to figure out why I do such a things, or why my brain is more calibrated for social self preservation in the group politics, even beyond the need for science truth. Most people are less conscious than they think, with the lack of calibration, due to unconsciousness. Plus there is no science reason to approach the subject of consciousness in the most useful way; honest internal data.

If I were seriously interested in a greater understanding of consciousness and the study of it, I would see what has been done in the field and what is currently understood by reviewing the available literature to find out.

Introspection may help form questions, but I have doubts about the soundness of individual findings to wider application. Observation of others might also lead down the same path and subject to the same sort of bias. I see that too as a tool for raising questions to ask or seek answers for.

To me, some bloke (and I'm not referring to you, by the way) on this forum making claims about consciousness without any clear indication of expertise isn't providing or looking for answers, but they too could stimulate an interest to find what is known.

We have at our fingertips, access to information that has not been previously available to such a wide and diverse audience. Use that access. Learn the basics. Expand into more complex information and research as you learn. Perhaps start with review articles that seek to distill down what is known.

I don't see that happening much with the lay public that seems to go more with what they believe and much less with what is demonstrated knowledge.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The question is how do you study consciousness? All humans have consciousness, so does one study consciousness from the inside or the outside; self reflection, or observed outside yourself? The inside approach makes more sense, since each of us have the "conscious phenomena" at our disposal to observe. We should know our expression of consciousness the best. The personality firmware define our collective human propensities; for consciousness, so it we know ourself we knows all the others.

From the outside, examining consciousness is essentially black box, where input and output, does not fully tell us what is going on inside the person; motivation. A con Artist can output what he wants us to see, thereby making such external data less than useful. If we could read his mind, that would be better data. Since you cannot read what is being hidden in his mind, then the only reliable source is from inside yourself, with you trying to be honest with yourself, since the science goal is to define consciousness based on hard data. But this is not allowed by science philosophy. They only allow external data and the risk of the con artist mask. Then make a definition to memorize. Being able to recite an externally gained definition of consciousness, is not the same as learning it from the inside out.

When I started to examine consciousness, through may own consciousness, I came up with the analogy of someone having a toothache. If you never had a toothache before, and you only could examine the subject from the outside, can you truly empathize their pain? In other words, would having your own toothache, add any extra in terms of consciousness data of pain, you cannot see from the outside? Inside observations will also see the irrationality that the pain causes, and the compelling need to alleviate the pain, as well as how hard it is to focus on anything else. From the outside, we miss this data, while an observant subject who tells these things, may still not make it easy to fully empathize, if this is new to you.

A Scientist with a political position, is not remaining fully rational, since politics is subjective. Obviously, his consciousness is no longer calibrated for objectivity or else he would be critical of everything and thereby black balled. What Lefty Scientist would dare question Kamala? Science does not step in and become the truth detector for all politics, like I would hope and expect. But Why? Science, like in any group, it is easier to get along by going along. Since people cannot read my mind, I can still doubt in secret, but pretend in public, so I can be seen as a card carrying member; use some acting.

I would need to psychoanalyze myself, to figure out why I do such a things, or why my brain is more calibrated for social self preservation in the group politics, even beyond the need for science truth. Most people are less conscious than they think, with the lack of calibration, due to unconsciousness. Plus there is no science reason to approach the subject of consciousness in the most useful way; honest internal data.

Not that I think there is anything wrong with introspection. Just that a person be aware of what it is good for and where it is limited.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what does useful mean itself..?

For me, it refers to that which can be used to effect desired outcomes, such as a recipe or a labor-saving device.

How is that usefull?

I had written, "Seeking comfort drives behavior. We run from the rain and bask in the sun. When thirsty, we drink. When bored, we seek stimulation"

How is seeking comfort useful? As I implied, it's a psychological imperative even in the beasts, but limited to short-term comforts, like lying in the shade rather than the sun because it's more comfortable. That's only part of it regarding a well-lived human life. We can learn to shelve our immediate comforts in exchange for more long-term comforts (defer gratification), such as getting an education or saving for retirement, but the goal remains to optimize the experience of life (the pursuit of happiness).

If intelligence is the ability to identify and solve problems to accomplish immediate goals, wisdom is the knowledge of what brings lasting contentment (long-term goals) and which short-term goals facilitate that.

Perhaps words like pleasure and comfort as goals are a bit misleading. They are if they mean only immediate pleasures. Wisdom seeks something more lasting and less intense as a baseline state of mind - kind of freedom from anxiety, loneliness, boredom and other states of mind that induce one to seek a remedy to reduce those bad feelings, and freedom from feelings like guilt, shame, and regret, which generally can't be easily remedied. Equanimity and ataraxia are roughly synonymous words for this baseline state.

Equanimity - "mental calmness, composure, and evenness of temper"
Ataraxia - "a state of serene calmness"

Aren't Buddhism and Hinduism also about finding similar states, although not necessarily during this life? Isn't that what talk about suppressing dualistic thought or attaining eternal bliss following a cycle of rebirths? We could call bliss comfort or pleasure or peace of mind, or we could call it equanimity or ataraxia. It's all about the same thing: attaining a state of maximal euphorias (pleasant experiences, or comforts) and minimal dysphorias (unpleasant experiences, or discomforts).

Don't you find what you know to be usefull?

Yes, I do.

Also I don't find exactly my comfort in it when i look at my life. It could have been much easier , but it was not.

Do you mean that you suffered hardships imposed on you by circumstances or that you could have worked less hard? If the former, I'm sorry to read that. If the latter, well-played assuming that your extra efforts were rewarded.

The road to succes is to learn and win.

OK. The trick is to identify what success looks like (wisdom) and to develop the habits and traits that facilitate that.

Many Christians worldwide are also comfortable living without a god belief or a religion.

You can't mean what the words there say. That's my definition of an atheist. Add a god belief and you have a theist. Christians are theists, although I suppose there are probably people that identify as Christian culturally without actually being theists, a quality found in many Jews, some f which even enjoy synagogue for the culture and community, but don't believe in the god of Abraham.

My critic on this forum was and will be the same as always, "Not many here know about the study of the entire New Testament and yet have the courage to talk about it."

Why is that a problem for you? I'm sure that you know more about it than I do, but I don't think that that extra learning has much value. I was a zealous Christian for a decade and read the Christian Bible through three times, but all I remember today are the myths, the supernaturalism, the Ten Commandments, and the Golden Rule. I am aware that it also contains some history, 603 more commandments, genealogies, psalms, proverbs, and prophecies, but I can't tell you much about the specifics any of those anymore.

I can provide the necessary information, but do you have the time for it? It will take me some time but i think i can menage it in 20 long posts. And that is just basics.

If you're referring to religious instruction, thanks, but I'm quite content with life (comfortable), and therefore not looking for a different worldview or way of living.

You(3rd person) say it like it's some bad thing or something like that.

That was a response to, "A theist is somebody who has some need met by those, and who would feel a void without it, which is a kind of discomfort."

I consider it less desirable to need or benefit from a religion than not. It's great for you if it makes you feel more complete or connected or watched over or whatever need would resurface if you experienced a crisis of faith, but I think it's great for me that I have no such unfulfilled needs living outside of religion. My atheistic humanist worldview does that without a religion, which makes my life just that much less complicated.

Why do you think that you can reject the facts surrounding the New Testaments? These events are considered History, didn't you know that?

I don't reject any facts, but we might have different ideas regarding what is a fact. My guideline for that is empiricism, not faith.

I am interested to know why did you said this: "What's a lazier answer than "God did it"?

It's not an answer if by answer we mean a demonstrably correct explanation. Instead, it's an unfalsifiable guess that has insufficient supporting evidence to believe, offers no mechanism, makes no useful predictions, and thus has no practical value.

Moreover, it removes the incentive to discover how something actually occurred, such as the advent of life. If we say, "God did it," there's no incentive to look to see how nature might have done it without a god. "God did it" is lazier than research.

 

[YoursTrue]

We have only one language and one vocabulary and this vocabulary is massive with each word having multiple definitions. There is no choice but to use the one language we have.

That's interesting, and scientists say that some animals call each other by name or sound, I suppose. In any case, however, they do not have treatises as to whether the gospel accounts were real or not. And they don't argue over religion. But as for languge -- very interesting, because if there is a funnel, which I believe there is, the words will have their meaning and not be clashing with definitions. Meantime since some languages are so different from others it makes one wonder how it all started. It also makes it reasonable for me to believe that somehow miraculously different languages in their substance started at the Tower of Babel, where the language was confused so they could not understand the other.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ah, the big question of moral responsibility.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science changes its conclusions. Here today one aspect, could be gone tomorrow.

 

[McBell]

Science changes its conclusions. Here today one aspect, could be gone tomorrow.

Are you saying that an execution should continue on even though new information proved the accused innocent?

I mean, you keep harping on science altering its stance after gaining new/more information and strongly implying that doing so is a bad thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you saying that an execution should continue on even though new information proved the accused innocent?

I mean, you keep harping on science altering its stance after gaining new/more information and strongly implying that doing so is a bad thing.

Here's what I'm saying and I'll say it again, just in case you do not follow. What is taught as true today can change with new conclusions by scientists tomorrow. Also, to reiterate. Many of us depend on science such as polio vaccines.

Are you saying that an execution should continue on even though new information proved the accused innocent?

I mean, you keep harping on science altering its stance after gaining new/more information and strongly implying that doing so is a bad thing.

I have already said that I would not be on a jury, especially when a man's life is at stake. Why? Because the experts may be w-r-o-n-g, among other reasons.

 

[McBell]

Here's what I'm saying and I'll say it again, just in case you do not follow. What is taught as true today can change with new conclusions by scientists tomorrow. Also, to reiterate. Many of us depend on science such as polio vaccines.

I have already said that I would not be on a jury, especially when a man's life is at stake. Why? Because the experts may be w-r-o-n-g, among other reasons.

so why do you present the fact that science changes its position as new information is discovered as though it is a bad thing?

 

[cladking]

That's interesting, and scientists say that some animals call each other by name or sound, I suppose. In any case, however, they do not have treatises as to whether the gospel accounts were real or not. And they don't argue over religion. But as for languge -- very interesting, because if there is a funnel, which I believe there is, the words will have their meaning and not be clashing with definitions. Meantime since some languages are so different from others it makes one wonder how it all started. It also makes it reasonable for me to believe that somehow miraculously different languages in their substance started at the Tower of Babel, where the language was confused so they could not understand the other.

Humans mistake thought for intelligence, knowledge for intelligence, and language for intelligence.

Without language and the ability to use it to climb onto the shoulders of giants we are no smarter than the squirrels and no more capable than pigs.

Without complex language humans invented fire and spears but these have more to do with need since we are hairless and and much slower than our food. They had to do with opposable thumbs rather than genius or some big mental advantage over animals. It wasn't until complex language 40,000 years ago that man got so "smart".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Humans mistake thought for intelligence, knowledge for intelligence, and language for intelligence.

Really? What do you base this on? Is it a fact or just something you thought up? I think this is just something you thought up.

Without language and the ability to use it to climb onto the shoulders of giants we are no smarter than the squirrels and no more capable than pigs.

I would be happy if you used the proper words in the context without secret definitions.

Without complex language humans invented fire and spears but these have more to do with need since we are hairless and and much slower than our food.

How do you know that humans didn't have language when these things were invented? Were you there?

They had to do with opposable thumbs rather than genius or some big mental advantage over animals. It wasn't until complex language 40,000 years ago that man got so "smart".

How do you know that complex language started 40,000 years ago? Do you have a copy of a local paper dated from that time. Video? A lot of anti-science supporters always demand video. I know, brain scans of 40,000 year old brains showing before and after shots and wallet sizes.

 

[YoursTrue]

so why do you present the fact that science changes its position as new information is discovered as though it is a bad thing?

I don't trust many things touted as science. It's as simple as that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists have their ideas as to when human language started. But they don't really know.

 

[YoursTrue]

The complexities of wording and difference of language poses real questions for science. And the more they conjecture about how and when language started the less realistic it becomes to ME as to their estimates. But that's me and I'm pretty certain not everyone will agree with me.