Evolution Is Just An Emergent Property Of the Action Of Consciousness

Dennis Tate said:
It is obvious that if the claims in this book are not somehow shown to have less value.....
then the Richard Dawkins Ph. D. world view might be defeated......
if that happened then the existing ethical foundation of the world economy would begin to crumble......
because our economy and government do have a basis in the ideas of Robert Thomas Malthus.



The type of progress that most of us want is supposed to proceed slowly and according to our world view and we are not ready for something like this.......



https://www.near-death.com/religion/christianity/howard-storm.html#a04



Personally... I suspect that the future that was shown to former Atheist Howard Storm could well have been full of technology but...... it could be that by the year 2185 we can so miniaturize technology that the tech of that time period will fit into the environment and appear almost invisible to somebody from 1985 who is given a glimpse of it.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep on quoting this near death stuff, when it has no bearing on the thread topic?
 
gmilam said:
By that logic it would be apparent that evolution is not an emergent property of consciousness. It could even imply the opposite, consciousness is an emergent property of evolution.
Click to expand...
The point with Animals is that Evolution is not a completely Mindless, Bio Electrical Chemical, DNA Mutating, Environmentally Influenced process. Rather, Evolution is driven by a combination of primitive Conscious Desires (Conscious Experiences), Bio Electrical Chemical processes, Random DNA Mutations, and Environmental Influences. It could be asked what the relative contribution is for Conscious Desires in Evolution. I believe it will be shown to have much more of an effect than is recognized today in the Evolutionary Literature. It might even be discovered to be the primary driver for Evolution. In any case I am sure Evolutionary literature is due for a big update regarding Consciousness.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Faulty logic (as usual).
Click to expand...

Logos..
I wondered myself, while observing pigeons, if the pigeons were aware of their condition.
Perhaps they are thinking they are humans, believing they are going to work, taking the subway, driving car, etc
Sometime a car hit them and they think they have a car accident etc. etc. etc.
Now, perhaps i am a pigeon...

Perhaps, same for plants, we are plants (we think we are human), and in fact "the plants" (we think they are plants) are moving because they are humans.
Could i t be possible that in a multiverse system, many realities could "live" together ?

To begin the thinking, just try to understand the world in the point of view of an ant.
And the point is : There is not one reality, but as much realities as there can be observers.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Plants don't think anything.

This is the error of anthropomorphism.

Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat?
Click to expand...

I know this, and i was already taking in account this thinking (Thats why i proposed the ant and not the bat, 3 letters...)

But, are you sure you are not an informatic simulation ?
I am very skilled in creating lifelike simulations, and this is why i ask you again : Are you sure you are not in "a simulation" (at least...but reality is like this) ?

It is very easy to make such simulation, because you dont have to make a complex world.
You only need to fit the assumptions the observers have uppon the world.
Per example : You see a tree.
You know where all the leafs are ?
No.
So why take this in account for a particular tree ???
If the observer take a better look ok, but as soon you zoom, you loose the global view...
 
Dicart said:
I know this, and i was already taking in account this thinking (Thats why i proposed the ant and not the bat, 3 letters...)
Click to expand...
Were you?

Do you think it is somehow easier to get inside the head of an ant than a bat?

Dicart said:
Are you sure you are not in "a simulation"?
Click to expand...
Depends on your standards for "sure".

Philosophically, one can never be "sure" one is not a brain in a vat (search for that term on this forum, you will find other such discussions). See also Plato's Cave.


However, I can be sure enough for all practical purposes. What that means is: I can live my life and pursue my study of it as if is, in fact, reality. My reality is what I perceive with my senses. so there is no need for me to continue to ask the question every time I study nature.

Science generally doesn't deal with the philosophical (those two parted ways a few centuries back); it deals with the observable.



Dicart said:
It is very easy to make such simulation, because you dont have to make a complex world.
Click to expand...

This is not a new concept - what are you adding to it?
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Depends on your standards for "sure".

Philosophically, one can never be "sure" one is not a brain in a vat (search for that term on this forum, you will find other such discussions). See also Plato's Cave.
Click to expand...

Yes, see also the more modern "brain in a vat".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

However, I can be sure enough for all practical purposes. What that means is: I can live my life and pursue my study of it as if is, in fact, reality. My reality is what I perceive with my senses. so there is no need for me to continue to ask the question every time I study nature.
Click to expand...

yes, you dont need to.

Science generally doesn't deal with the philosophical (those two parted ways a few centuries back); it deals with the observable.
Click to expand...

Generally.
But if you want to be more accurate, you should not (this is my opinion) reject philosophy as if it were old fashioned thinking of "has been" thinkers.
Philosophy help modern science.
And modern Science help philosophy.
At any age.

This is not a new concept - what are you adding to it?
Click to expand...

I dont add, many other do (per example neurophysiology make many progress).
I only take in account (and say you should also take in account...)
 
Dicart said:
But if you want to be more accurate, you should not (this is my opinion) reject philosophy as if it were old fashioned thinking of "has been" thinkers.
Click to expand...
Nobody's rejecting it; it simply has its place. And generally, its place is not in the scientific study of nature.

As with "God", science tries to remain silent on philosophical questions - leaving that to metaphysics.

It would paralyze science if, every time we saw a new thing ("Hey. Saturn's rings have fluting!") we asked ourselves ("Did God do this?")
So we can simply proceed with cataloging the cosmos without consideration for philosophy or God.

They both have their place; they won't get "rejected", but they also won't pollute our studies.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Nobody's rejecting it; it simply has its place. And generally, its place is not in the scientific study of nature.
Click to expand...

Yes sure, but did you ever realize that doing this you have let antropomorphism enter into physic ?
Physic is the science of Man.
Science of Ant would be different.

As with "God", science tries to remain silent on philosophical questions - leaving that to metaphysics.
Click to expand...

Yes i agree, we should leave the questions about God appart of science... but not His creation.

It would paralyze science if, every time we saw a new thing ("Hey. Saturn's rings have fluting!") we asked ourselves ("Did God do this?")
So we can simply proceed with catalogso you are doing some ing the cosmos without consideration for philosophy or God.
Click to expand...

You say that, giving lessons, but are you aware that this is what every genius did ?

They both have their place; they won't get "rejected", but they also won't pollute our studies.
Click to expand...
Sure, afterward you can answer that you dident need this hypothesis (altought you have taken this in account...).
 
Dicart said:
Yes sure, but did you ever realize that doing this you have let antropomorphism enter into physic ?
Click to expand...
No, that's not what's happening.

Dicart said:
Physic is the science of Man.
Click to expand...
No it isn't; it's the science of nature.

Dicart said:
Science of Ant would be different.
Click to expand...
Ants don't have science.

Look, I get where you're coming from but this kind of whimsy has its place too. This is a science board, and such claims need to be backed up. What you're looking for is the Philosophy forum, or the Free Thoughts Forum.

Dicart said:
Yes i agree, we should leave the questions about God appart of science... but not His creation.
Click to expand...
God is a subjective belief. The universe can be studied independently of whether God might be believed by a given person.

Dicart said:
You say that, giving lessons, but are you aware that this is what every genius did ?
Click to expand...
No. And neither are you. This is an unsubstantiated claim.

Dicart said:
Sure, afterward you can answer that you dident need this hypothesis (altought you have taken this in account...).
Click to expand...
What 'afterward'? What 'hypothesis'?


You need to review the forum rules, to which you agreed when you signed up. Forum posting, and in particular Alt Theories forum posting have rules you must adhere to, You can't just make stuff up or muse philosophically. Tae that to the appropriate forum.

Reporting this thread as off-course.
 
Dicart said:
Logos..
I wondered myself, while observing pigeons, if the pigeons were aware of their condition.
Perhaps they are thinking they are humans, believing they are going to work, taking the subway, driving car, etc
Sometime a car hit them and they think they have a car accident etc. etc. etc.
Now, perhaps i am a pigeon...

Perhaps, same for plants, we are plants (we think we are human), and in fact "the plants" (we think they are plants) are moving because they are humans.
Could i t be possible that in a multiverse system, many realities could "live" together ?

To begin the thinking, just try to understand the world in the point of view of an ant.
And the point is : There is not one reality, but as much realities as there can be observers.
Click to expand...
Yes, we and Science must think out side the box when it comes to Consciousness and Conscious Experience.
 
Steve Klinko said:
Don't understand your complaint.
Click to expand...
It is not helpful to exhort scientists (while at the same putting yourself alongside them at their level) to think outside the box, while at the same time you appear to have little knowledge of what scientists have inside the box

:)
 
Steve Klinko said:
Yes, we and Science must think out side the box when it comes to Consciousness and Conscious Experience.
Click to expand...

I totally agree....
I believe that we can learn a lot from chapter thirteen of "Stephen Hawking's Universe" where he postulated the possible existence of a nearly infinite number of "unsuccessful universes" out there somewhere based on his understanding at that time of The Anthropic Principle and the Cyclic Model.
 
Michael 345 said:
It is not helpful to exhort scientists (while at the same putting yourself alongside them at their level) to think outside the box, while at the same time you appear to have little knowledge of what scientists have inside the box

:)
Click to expand...
Your interpretation that when I say "we and Science" that I am implying any kind of level of status or knowledge is just wrong. The statement simply says that the World needs to think outside the Box when it comes to understanding Conscious Experience. Your appraisal of what I know or don't know about Science is derived from pure ignorance on your part.
 
Steve Klinko said:
Yes, we and Science must think out side the box when it comes to Consciousness and Conscious Experience.
Click to expand...
I believe Descartes did think outside the box when he proposed a "brain in a vat"......:D

What box are you talking about that we need to think outside of? Can we start with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top