To Atheists & Agnostics: When did consciousness first appear?

[Kilgore Trout]

All gradients when examined closely consist of quantum jumps.

Indeed - it all comes down to extremely small (quantum) changes over periods of time. Anybody with common sense can see that minute changes, over time, add up to drastic changes.

Thanks for the relevant point.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Indeed - it all comes down to extremely small (quantum) changes over periods of time. Anybody with common sense can see that minute changes, over time, add up to drastic changes.

Thanks for the relevant point.

So do you think that Amoeba have the tiniest quantum of consciousness?
How about viruses?

Hmmm
quantum consciousness, now there is a novel concept.

 

[metis]

Frankly, I do not think that some sort of cosmic or godly consciousness necessarily had to formulate life or consciousness. It/they may have but I don't see any logic in that there had to be such an entity/entities.

 

[HonestJoe]

Ever heard the phrase
'miracle of birth' before?

Have you ever heard the phrase “It’s a metaphor you idiot!” before?

Do you have any serious responses to the points and questions I offered?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So do you think that Amoeba have the tiniest quantum of consciousness?
How about viruses?

No, I don't. They aren't nearly complex enough for any level of consciousness to emerge. Seems like an odd question, really.

 

[YmirGF]

I was looking for a place to put this question.

Because the notion of abiogenisis (life originating from inanimate matter)
seems to me to be neither scientifically proven nor even reasonable,
I have placed this in the paranormal section.

After all, what could be more paranormal than a bunch of atoms
somehow achieving consciousness?

But besides all of that, I am mostly interested in hearing
when materialists think that consciousness first comes about in
their model of nature.

If you decide it is at the advent of being 'human' could you be specific
about whether it is Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Australopithecus or any other type
of creature? (...that I was taught in Anthro 101 should actually be termed 'hominid'.)

Do you think dogs have consciousness?
What about fish?
Where do you draw the line?

I realize that the likely answer you will give is that we cannot know,
but in that case, I am asking you to make an educated guess.
After all, you are claiming that you know that abiogenisis occured
based on an educated guess.

Beats me, then again I'm quite skeptical of anyone's "authoritative" answer to your question. I highly doubt we will ever know for sure.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You two might want to get to know each other.

If an argument from complexity is a god of the gaps argument,
then it seems that jonathan180iq has to be arguing from either
god, or perhaps a 'science of the gaps'

The only thing they have in common is they both contain the word 'complexity.'
A god of the gaps argument is an appeal to ignorance. The former in the OP is an example, the latter isn't, any more than saying 'the most successful sight-based hunters will have the most complex eye mechamisms.'
Meanwhile your OP is saying 'I don't know how consciousness arose through gradualism therefore it can't have come about without outside interference.'

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

No, I don't. They aren't nearly complex enough for any level of consciousness to emerge. Seems like an odd question, really.

Probably not plants either then?
Insects?
The queen bee perhaps?
She seems to have an organizational influence (at least) which seems quite advanced.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Beats me, then again I'm quite skeptical of anyone's "authoritative" answer to your question. I highly doubt we will ever know for sure.

Well I have often found that using pure logic as a method we can understand much more than at first seems possible.
We can only begin to try and know anything by attempting vague answers to begin with.
But I must totally agree that we have to first eliminate those "authoritative" answers as lacking method and consisting of sheer blind dogma.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The only thing they have in common is they both contain the word 'complexity.'
A god of the gaps argument is an appeal to ignorance. The former in the OP is an example, the latter isn't, any more than saying 'the most successful sight-based hunters will have the most complex eye mechamisms.'
Meanwhile your OP is saying 'I don't know how consciousness arose through gradualism therefore it can't have come about without outside interference.'

You seem not to have observed the point that a gradient on closer inspection always reduces to a series of quantum jumps.
That is why Planck gave us quantum-energy and quantum-time.
What is being attempted is to locate the first quantum of consciousness.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Plants even have a simple level of "consciousness" in that they somehow know which way to grow. Of course if that is the correct word to use is going to largely be based on how they define the term.

Been thinking about this all week.

Lyall Watson did some fascinating empirical experiments
depicted in his book 'Supernature'.

If one harms a plant, then nearby plants 'sense' this, and react by emitting toxins.
Clearly quite different to rocks which do not change their structure if nearby rocks are damaged.
(Or do they?)

 

[metis]

Been thinking about this all week.

Lyall Watson did some fascinating empirical experiments
depicted in his book 'Supernature'.

If one harms a plant, then nearby plants 'sense' this, and react by emitting toxins.
Clearly quite different to rocks which do not change their structure if nearby rocks are damaged.
(Or do they?)

And if you cut them, they let out a "scream" of sorts that can actually be measured (not sound but electrical-type impulses).

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

And if you cut them, they let out a "scream" of sorts that can actually be measured (not sound but electrical-type impulses).

I remember reading about the method some American Indians use when they need to chop down a tree.
They all rush at one with their axes whilst screaming; then don't chop it down.
They chop down the tree next to it.

They theorize that just as they get charged, the trees all feint from fear.
So the one who thought he was going to do is happy he did not die after he wakes up;
and the one who did die, never realized it, and so cannot mind it.

 

[Kirran]

Life =/= consciousness.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Life =/= consciousness.

Are viruses alive?

 

[George-ananda]

If one harms a plant, then nearby plants 'sense' this, and react by emitting toxins.
Clearly quite different to rocks which do not change their structure if nearby rocks are damaged.
(Or do they?)

No, I do not think rocks would so respond. My considered opinion is that plants (living things) have a dimension to them beyond the three-dimensional physical plane. 'Life' is more than physical complexity.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You seem not to have observed the point that a gradient on closer inspection always reduces to a series of quantum jumps.
That is why Planck gave us quantum-energy and quantum-time.
What is being attempted is to locate the first quantum of consciousness.

It's a shame quantum mechanics is cooped to support pseudoscience and woo so often. This reminds me of the website which claims quantum jumps allow you to download medicine off a website.

 

[Kirran]

Are viruses alive?

If we say they are. I tend to go with not. 'Living' isn't some category that exists outside of our classifying things as such.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

No, I do not think rocks would so respond. My considered opinion is that plants (living things) have a dimension to them beyond the three-dimensional physical plane. 'Life' is more than physical complexity.

If we ignore the notion of time as 'the' 4th dimension,
and instead posit consciousness as an extra-dimension,
it would make sense to consider the physical body as a subset of the spirit.

After all, we can calculate 5-d space with a mind.
But the brain is only a 3-d object.
So it is not possible for the 5-d idea to be a subset of a 3-d object.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

If we say they are. I tend to go with not. 'Living' isn't some category that exists outside of our classifying things as such.

But surely the distinction between consciousness and non-consciousness is more than mere categorization?