Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Theoryofrelativity, Aug 17, 2006.
deleted in protest to really poor moderation
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The development of neural networks.
Here we are. Back at that same old place.
Planaria are 'conscious'. That is, they are aware of their environment and are able to react to it.
For that matter, so are bacteria. By different mechanisms.
You put the lime in the coconut and shake it all up...
proof invert, your word is not good enough, links
I am asking about high order and inner sense consciousness levels
I was about to edit that in
Proof of what?
you attempted an inadequate answer re neural networks, elaborate how it evolved from nothing and at what point
I predict the following:
This is the shortest thread I ever started Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well. At least you're learning a little. A definition is most certainly required as I've stated elsewhere (and still haven't had time to get back to... bah.)
But. Let me see if I got this straight. Ok?
You see the importance of definitions to this discussion. So you provide one.
You provide a link to a definition that is composed of 7,784 words.
Is that right?
Am I to believe that you've read your definition and you agree with it in its entirety?
You really might want to start thinking about putting a bit more effort into your opening posts.
Ah. Pity. I thought you were going to ask me to justify the number 15. I derived that number from the Spring Break episode of the Simpsons. It's the answer to the question of how many boobs Homer saw that day. I've always found it adequate in answering questions such as yours.
I think I'll pass.
Sow's ear and all that.
Good luck though.
The supplementation of EPA in the diet can achieve wonderous things when it comes to speed reading. And yes I did read most of it. Do I agree? What position do i come from to disagree, the link cites the many variations of consciousness with examples, fascinating. With what would you disagree?
Anyway that was not the point, the point was looking at the intricacy of consciousness on the two levels noted, how did they manifest from nothing?
Is it your intention to bring up discussions of consciousness and eyeballs, demand detailed explanations for them in the space of this forum, and when you don't get them conclude that we and the science behind them are bogus and that god did it?
If so, you win. You can pick up your trophy at the concession stand. It's a bronzed hotdog on a stick. And no, I have no idea what the hell that means.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The science is not bogus it is simply 'missing' many important points when marvelling at the world around us.
One is it's sheer diversity.
Why is it so diverse?
Why did organsims experiencing the SAME environmental conditions evolve into completely different organisms with diffrent adaptive features, equally effective yet different. Hundreds of species of insects, sharing same habitat.
How does a creature pass the knowledge of it's existance via the genes to it's progeny?
How can this incredible device be accidental? Arise from nothing?
How does a stick insect 'know' on a genetic level what a tree looks like and how do these genes manage to provide a 'program' to ensure that the creature looks like that tree?
I know, there were creatures who looked like the tree and some that did not and thus the ones that did not died and the ones that did survived. Except that is not the full story is it? There are many insects on that tree that do not resemble it, they survive though with other adaptive traits. Now I am NOT saying this theory of evolution is incorrect, it IS corect BUT, look beyond the immediate answer to the manner in which genes pass this information to progeny and the diversity that arises. Ask the questions of how the genes manage all this?
How did genetic coding manifest? How did they 'learn' to be adaptive' how did life sustain iteself when genes were not adaptive.
I will ASK and keep asking
ALL life requires very specific conditions to maintain it's life, thus the 'first accidental random' attempts at 'life' would have failed and there would BE no life.
Evolution shows us how life forms have improved (evolved- become more adapted etc) but NOT how in the absence of these improvements it survived at all.
Maybe you should read first a general textbook in biology before you make a fool of yourself.
TofR, I heartily recommend The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. Currently available in paperback in Mariner Books (ISBN 0-618-05707-2).
This is an intriguing work in which Jaynes postulates that mankind only became fully conscious within the last three thousand years. He maintains that the early Greeks, talking to their Gods, and the Hebrews receiving direction from their God, were actually the two hemispheres of the brain communicating with each other. He offers some thought provoking evidence for his thesis.
It is essential reading for anyone interested in the topic of consciousness.
thank you I will deffinately do so.
as you are promoting yourself as knowledgable please demonstrate it.
Anyone can Ad hom and insult, my 2yr old does it with the same ability as demonstrated by you.
I have many questions in the new evolution thread, if you can answer them I would genuinely be grateful.
Your best bet really would be to spend a while reading up on this stuff. Otherwise you seem to keep attacking things that have long been known or demonstrated one way or the other. Like your comment about science "'missing' many important points when marvelling at the world around us."
Many scientists are some of the most creative and imaginary people on the planet. That's why they're scientists. They marvel more than most at the intricacies of the cosmos. Largely because they can appreciate the details better since they actually know the details.
interesting, people post here about : "What is the weight of a carrott?" and I ask a few little questions and all I get is 'read a book'..........that answer says more about you than me.
This place is FULL of questions super, we could all just read a book. If you can't answer the questions fine...just say so. Science admits it does not know the answer yet to the origin of life. So which book are you reccomending I read that HAS this answer when it is promoted as remaining thus unknown?
Arn't I allowed to ask questions beyond the scope of science? Is that an unwritten rule? I want to know these things! If you have a book with the answers let me know.
Ophiolite and Sarkus are being helpful, why aren't you?]
I'm not attacking the responses, I am just delving deeper, and I want to know how does a self replicating organism given the complexity of replication spontaneoulsy appear? (see other thread) This could be answered with 'it's not that complex...followed by info on the structure of early organism' etc. But that has not been forthcoming yet.
They are? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It seems you have been doing more uninformed attacking than honest question asking. My bad. Apologies and whatnot.
My suggestions to read a book(s) was based on the fact that there is so much to this subject that you seem unaware of that a good primer might help before you, in my perception, attack the issue. Again, apologies.
I will try to be helpful. Plus, I already explained that science does not know the exact mechanism of the formation of life as we currently understand it.
Separate names with a comma.