To Atheists & Agnostics: When did consciousness first appear?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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.

I don't know, and neither do you.

 

[columbus]

Yeah, fair enough. In my own use of the word consciousness it can't prefer anything. But I take your point. Nevertheless, rapid climate change is damaging biodiversity overall and causing harm to human societies specifically. So I'm for doing some mitigation.

How's that working out for ya?
The "rational animal" is considering the evidence, weighing the risks, costs and benefits, and taking substantial evidence based steps to secure the biosphere for future generations?
Tom

 

[Kirran]

How's that working out for ya?
The "rational animal" is considering the evidence, weighing the risks, costs and benefits, and taking substantial evidence based steps to secure the biosphere for future generations?
Tom

Not in such a Spock-like manner Emotion is also thrown in just as much. The totality of the person is there, I don't throw any of it out.

 

[columbus]

Not in such a Spock-like manner Emotion is also thrown in just as much. The totality of the person is there, I don't throw any of it out.

Sorry if that came across as personal. That wasn't what I meant.
By "rational animal" I meant the whole human race.
The assumptions we were programmed by evolution to accept, like more stuff and children is always better, seem alive and well. Even though the evidence that our existence as a species is increasingly at risk is out there and available.
Tom

 

[Kirran]

Sorry if that came across as personal. That wasn't what I meant.
By "rational animal" I meant the whole human race.
The assumptions we were programmed by evolution to accept, like more stuff and children is always better, seem alive and well. Even though the evidence that our existence as a species is increasingly at risk is out there and available.
Tom

It's cool, cooler heads prevailed. Evolution hasn't really programmed us in any deliberate manner, we're emergent in our habits and our attributes and everything. There's no reason we should be particularly rational and ideally suited to things. The human is largely just reactive. We'll be OK.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Couldn't say. We would have to have a strict definition of what consciousness was that we agreed upon, and then we would have to be able to study all life forms from the first one moving up the chain until we fond one meeting the previously agreed upon definition. The first is difficult, the second is impossible, therefor your question is unanswerable.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

No, she doesn't. You might want to look up "emergent behavior." It will not only dispel your incorrect assumptions about bee behavior, but also might help give you some insight into consciousness.

You know what is going/not going on in a bee's mind.
Now THAT is fairly presumptuous.

The entire word/concept of 'emergence' is semantically synonymous with 'magical'.
Life 'emerged'
Life 'magically appeared'

same damn thang

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I don't know, and neither do you.

Yet, you seem to somehow claim
that you know
what it is that I know.

How can you know that
any more than I can claim
to know the origin of consciousness?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Couldn't say. We would have to have a strict definition of what consciousness was that we agreed upon, and then we would have to be able to study all life forms from the first one moving up the chain until we fond one meeting the previously agreed upon definition. The first is difficult, the second is impossible, therefor your question is unanswerable.

Well the thing is that we can only prove with certainty that our own consciousness exists.
You cannot prove that other people are not mindless automatons.
And yet, we have to make a choice as to whether or not others have consciousness in our daily lives.

So just because we cannot know with certainty, does no make the question is unanswerable.
(except in absolute certain terms).

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yet, you seem to somehow claim
that you know
what it is that I know.

How can you know that
any more than I can claim
to know the origin of consciousness?

LOL! Good one.

Oh wait are you being serious?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

LOL! Good one.

Oh wait are you being serious?

Oh yes.
You claim that I do not know how consciousness originated in this physical universe.
HOW CAN you know this?
How is it even possible for any being to claim that they KNOW what another being knows?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

How is it even possible for any being to claim that they KNOW what another being knows?

Not only is it possible, but it just happened.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Not only is it possible, but it just happened.

??WHERE??

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

??WHERE??

You don't seem to be able to follow a conversation. As hilarious as that can be, I can't see this going anywhere.

Happy trolling.

 

[ScottySatan]

I realize that the likely answer you will give is that we cannot know.

The answer is that we don't know YET. And scientists are ok with that. We get raging hard-ons for the remaining mysteries in life, the fun of the chase, where others can't deal with that and turn to religion to get instant explanations.

"Science cannot explain..." is never a good argument against science.

We get paychecks because we don't know everything yet. When we have all the answers, there won't be scientists anymore.

 

[George-ananda]

The answer is that we don't know YET. And scientists are ok with that. We get raging hard-ons for the remaining mysteries in life, the fun of the chase, where others can't deal with that and turn to religion to get instant explanations.

"Science cannot explain..." is never a good argument against science.

We get paychecks because we don't know everything yet. When we have all the answers, there won't be scientists anymore.

I agree that nothing is beyond science. I just don't like the prejudice of so many scientists that the answer must be in the known physical realm. I think the science of the future will include souls and etcetera that are not part of our known three-dimensional physical plane.

Invoking beyond the physical explanations is not just saying "God did it' or is a 'God of the gaps' arguments. These beyond the physical dimensions are complex with a science all their own that we cannot yet investigate with our physical senses and physical instruments. I believe beyond the normal human experiences have shown that things lie beyond our physical perception.

I think the answer to the consciousness question is that it is the fundamental ground of everything. The universe is consciousness at play. Some post-materialist physicists are already saying this.

 

[ScottySatan]

I agree that nothing is beyond science. I just don't like the prejudice of so many scientists that the answer must be in the known physical realm. I think the science of the future will include souls and etcetera that are not part of our known three-dimensional physical plane.

Invoking beyond the physical explanations is not just saying "God did it' or is a 'God of the gaps' arguments. These beyond the physical dimensions are complex with a science all their own that we cannot yet investigate with our physical senses and physical instruments. I believe beyond the normal human experiences have shown that things lie beyond our physical perception.

I think the answer to the consciousness question is that it is the fundamental ground of everything. The universe is consciousness at play. Some post-materialist physicists are already saying this.

I didn't say that nothing is beyond science, I don't agree with that**. I am a religious person after all...

I also don't believe that many scientists believe that the answer "must be in the physical realm", given enough context. How many scientists have you actually had the whole drawn-out conversation with? I think the prejudice you're talking about isn't real. Or at least not real enough to be dogmatic. No scientist is taught that the unobservable is impossible.

**For example, I believe it's beyond science to prove any mechanism of how life started, because we were not there when it happened and there isn't going to be a fossil record of it.

 

[George-ananda]

I didn't say that nothing is beyond science, I don't agree with that**. I am a religious person after all...

Wait. If it is real, then I would say it is in the domain of science.

I also don't believe that many scientists believe that the answer "must be in the physical realm", given enough context. How many scientists have you actually had the whole drawn-out conversation with? I think the prejudice you're talking about isn't real. Or at least not real enough to be dogmatic. No scientist is taught that the unobservable is impossible.

**For example, I believe it's beyond science to prove any mechanism of how life started, because we were not there when it happened and there isn't going to be a fossil record of it.

I was more referring to the thread topic regarding the mystery of consciousness and the assumption of many scientists that it is a product of brain functioning....i.e. the brain creates consciousness. I know that this particular prejudice is quite common.

 

[ScottySatan]

I was more referring to the thread topic regarding the mystery of consciousness and the assumption of many scientists that it is a product of brain functioning....i.e. the brain creates consciousness. I know that this particular prejudice is quite common.

Yeah, in that case, you're right.

I think it originates from the old western philosophical battle between the rationalism and empiricism.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The answer is that we don't know YET. And scientists are ok with that. We get raging hard-ons for the remaining mysteries in life, the fun of the chase, where others can't deal with that and turn to religion to get instant explanations.

"Science cannot explain..." is never a good argument against science.

We get paychecks because we don't know everything yet. When we have all the answers, there won't be scientists anymore.

Us philosophers make the precise same argument against the institution of science.
Not everything is accessible to the scientific method, and that is why we have other methods
such as hermeneutics, phenomenology, logic, and metaphoric literature as well as mysticism.

For example, just because I may witness a crime, does not mean that I can prove it
to a formal pedantic institution. That crime I still know to be real. But science that does not appreciate
its own limited philosophical context, will claim that the crime does not exist because it cannot be proven
to the institution.

It is true, that many people turn to dogmatic religion, often for instant explanations, but in recent centuries,
that is the role played by the institution of science, which itself often replaces empiricism and logic
with sheer belligerence and arguments from economics. Plenty of people get paid to to do all sorts
of things, and the more society progresses, the more people are paid redundantly.

The methods of hermeneutics, phenomenology, logic, metaphoric literature and especially mysticism
have all demonstrated that Gnosis of God is a real and lucid experience, which has motivated
the minds of the greatest thinkers, almost without exception.