Which evolved first, consciousness or senses

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Did you bring any useful information here?

That wasn't my intent. My intent was to show that you bring no useful question.

 

[FearGod]

That wasn't my intent. My intent was to show that you bring no useful question.

To you maybe, but that doesn't mean all have to see it the way you do.

 

[YmirGF]

My own guess is that they would have evolved simultaneously...

 

[atanu]

Are you saying rocks are body-mind life forms?

I do not understand the context of this.

Spoiler: Consciousness according to Vedanta

Our understanding of what consciousness is differs. Most people take the manifest as the consciousness ... Like a face in a mirror or a reflection of moon in a puddle may be taken as the real thing.

According to Vedanta, consciousness is situated distinct and transcendental to the three states of existence of sleep, dream, and waking, which it helps to make known. For example, the form of self in these three states are of different nature due. But all three different forms are are reflections of the true self (which itself is of nature of consciousness) in three kinds of mirrors or three kinds of puddles. But the consciousness that illumines these three forms does not actually change form.

In short: What moves and assumes three kinds of shapes in three states of sleep, dream, and waking is the mind. What illumines three forms of minds is consciousness, which is unchangeable.

 

[viole]

God is incomparable to us, we believe that God exists and we can't compare God to anything that we know.

That is not a logically tenable answer.

You said consciousness is useless without senses, without specifying whether that is a general statement or not.

I hope you agree that saying that God is an exception to any argument that intends to prove Him, or to disprove something that flies in the face of your personal creed, is question begging and, therefore, useless.

It is like saying

1) property X, if universally valid, would prove God
2) property X is universally valid, with the exception of God
3) Ergo God exists

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

That is not a logically tenable answer.

You said consciousness is useless without senses, without specifying whether that is a general statement or not.

I hope you agree that saying that God is an exception to any argument that intends to prove Him, or to disprove something that flies in the face of your personal creed, is question begging and, therefore, useless.

It is like saying

1) property X, if universally valid, would prove God
2) property X is universally valid, with the exception of God
3) Ergo God exists

Ciao

- viole

Such harmony between our senses and consciousness tells that something intelligent was behind it,
to think and to believe that it just happened without intended plan for the senses to feed us with the inputs
and then another system will work it out, that's a scientific work, a designed work and not it just
happened to be so.

That's what i think of it, and if i have a scientific answer then the question begging will be not valid
and the truth will be revealed.

 

[Walter Russell]

Senses without consciousness has no value, similarly consciousness without senses has no value.

How senses and consciousness evolved simultaneously, was it due to plan or just happened by chance?

I don't believe consciousness evolved. It has always existed in the oneness of god. Man just hasn't always been aware of his consciousness.
Senses on the other hand are an inseparable part of biological beings. Their the tools we use to understand and interact with the world around us. From an evolutionary standpoint I couldn't tell you at what stage the first organisms developed senses.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Such harmony between our senses and consciousness tells that something intelligent was behind it,

How? What evidence do you have that these traits could not be the result of unintelligent, natural processes?

to think and to believe that it just happened without intended plan for the senses to feed us with the inputs and then another system will work it out, that's a scientific work, a designed work and not it just
happened to be so.

That's nothing but an argument from personal credulity. "I find it unbelievable" does no equate to "therefore it could not have happened".

That's what i think of it, and if i have a scientific answer then the question begging will be not valid
and the truth will be revealed.

The answer is evolution. What is your next question?

 

[viole]

Such harmony between our senses and consciousness tells that something intelligent was behind it,
to think and to believe that it just happened without intended plan for the senses to feed us with the inputs
and then another system will work it out, that's a scientific work, a designed work and not it just
happened to be so.

That's what i think of it, and if i have a scientific answer then the question begging will be not valid
and the truth will be revealed.

Yet, that is exactly what the vast majority of scientists think. Are they all wrong?

You seem to think that our consciousness and senses appeared in their present form at once. Or one after the other in their present form. Or that scientists believe that evolution did that. Nope. You can have varying grades of sensing perception and conscious realizations. Starting from very basic ones up to the current state. Each state building a bit more complexity from the previous state. In tandem. Over eons.

Which is obvious, considering that there is a continuum between us and our remote ancestors which had a complexity comparable with the one of a bacterium.

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

Yet, that is exactly what the vast majority of scientists think. Are they all wrong?

You seem to think that our consciousness and senses appeared in their present form at once. Or one after the other in their present form. Or that scientists believe that evolution did that. Nope. You can have varying grades of sensing perception and conscious realizations. Starting from very basic ones up to the current state. Each state building a bit more complexity from the previous state. In tandem. Over eons.

Which is obvious, considering that there is a continuum between us and our remote ancestors which had a complexity comparable with the one of a bacterium.

Ciao

- viole

Still bacteria do exist and survived.

 

[viole]

Still bacteria do exist and survived.

And your point is...?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

And your point is...?

Ciao

- viole

Our common ancestors went extinct, the simpler forms of life still do exist.
1+1 = 2, then you ask, what do you mean with that.

Just think of it, it just doesn't make sense, why we can't see today the simpler forms in the mid way since
the simpler forms still do exist and may evolve as well, but we see none.

 

[viole]

Our common ancestors went extinct, the simpler forms of life still do exist.
1+1 = 2, then you ask, what do you mean with that.

Just think of it, it just doesn't make sense, why we can't see today the simpler forms in the mid way since
the simpler forms still do exist and may evolve as well, but we see none.

Amazing how all those scientists missed this obvious truth of yours, lol.

May I ask what is the last book about biology and evolution you read?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

Amazing how all those scientists missed this obvious truth of yours, lol.

May I ask what is the last book about biology and evolution you read?

Ciao

- viole

Evolution is a fact based on assumption, they just know that life started from simpler forms and to the more
complex ones, what happened billions of years ago and why we're here today is not facts, no one
on earth can tell you what had happened exactly and how life came to existence.

 

[viole]

Evolution is a fact based on assumption, they just know that life started from simpler forms and to the more
complex ones, what happened billions of years ago and why we're here today is not facts, no one
on earth can tell you what had happened exactly and how life came to existence.

Mainly because the origins of life have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, which assumes an initial life as given.

I think you are confusing scientific subjects, which gives me additional evidence that you do not have a lot of knowledge about them.

Am I right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

Mainly because the origins of life have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, which assumes an initial life as given.

I didn't say the origin of life is the subject of evolution, i know it's a different subject.

I think you are confusing scientific subjects, which gives me additional evidence that you do not have a lot of knowledge about them.

Am I right?

No you aren't right, believe what you want to believe.
We agree to disagree, end of discussion.

 

[viole]

end of discussion.

Obviously

However, I believe it is necessary, before attacking a scientific subject, to have at least some knowledge about it. Otherwise, it is like going to a gun fight with a knife.

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

Obviously

However, I believe it is necessary, before attacking a scientific subject, to have at least some knowledge about it. Otherwise, it is like going to a gun fight with a knife.

Ciao

- viole

What a scientific mistake that i did, please explain?

 

[idav]

I do not understand the context of this.

Spoiler: Consciousness according to Vedanta

Our understanding of what consciousness is differs. Most people take the manifest as the consciousness ... Like a face in a mirror or a reflection of moon in a puddle may be taken as the real thing.

According to Vedanta, consciousness is situated distinct and transcendental to the three states of existence of sleep, dream, and waking, which it helps to make known. For example, the form of self in these three states are of different nature due. But all three different forms are are reflections of the true self (which itself is of nature of consciousness) in three kinds of mirrors or three kinds of puddles. But the consciousness that illumines these three forms does not actually change form.

In short: What moves and assumes three kinds of shapes in three states of sleep, dream, and waking is the mind. What illumines three forms of minds is consciousness, which is unchangeable.

Yeah you lost me too. I don't believe dreams are anything but imagination similar to day dreaming we are something different.

Consciousness appears to be a retaining of the senses which doesn't just happen by default or life would not struggle so much to evolve to the complexity we are familiar with.

 

[atanu]

Yeah you lost me too. I don't believe dreams are anything but imagination similar to day dreaming we are something different.

Your waking dream is same too. It will pass.

Consciousness appears .....

Appears to what? To know something to be appearing, you require consciousness.
...