(March 1, 2017 at 10:21 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 1, 2017 at 10:04 pm)SteveII Wrote: Note the bold and tell me how much you added to this conversation.

Very little, because you have yet to grasp this very simple point. It is hard to add anything beyond it until you do.

(March 1, 2017 at 10:04 pm)SteveII Wrote: Physics describes the world by means of formulas that tell us how things vary as a function of time, but it does not explain what time is.

Yes, it does. It explains that time is a dimension.

What do you know. I found an article with like 80 paragraphs on space and time and they mention dimension...5 times! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy...e_and_time

(March 1, 2017 at 4:44 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(February 18, 2017 at 11:27 am)Won2blv Wrote: I believe in a collective conscious, so is why I believe that the stories they wrote probably connected with most of their fellow humans.

I believe your beliefs are fucktarded.

It sounds like what a lot of my family believe. My mom read some Carl Jung and my stepdad got into Pagan shit and they thought "Oooh this is much better than evidence! Isn't it great to make my eldest son the black sheep with the brain cellls?"

Saying my beliefs are fucktarded is not an argument. At least not a good one.

I look at consciousness as being like a glacier. What we're fully aware of is the tiny tip sticking out of the ocean. The large base is the sub-conscious that we draw from when creating and using our consciousness. You would never assume that the base of a glacier is a bi-product of the tip. You would assume that the tip is a bi-product of the base.

Humans all inherited the vast sub-consciousness that had evolved over millennia. We just have small individual tips that stick out. Other than that, I think its reasonable to assume that we all have a pretty similar sub-conscious, but we have different abilities when it comes to tapping into it.

So this is why its easy for me to imagine a collective consciousness and why humans can draw from each other to learn more. I believe that all creative outputs by our brains are bi-products of our sub-conscious. Once it comes to the fore, we are able to build on that and dig deeper into our sub-conscious.

(March 1, 2017 at 10:44 pm)SteveII Wrote: What do you know. I found an article with like 80 paragraphs on space and time and they mention dimension...5 times! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy...e_and_time

What do you know - it is not a scientific article, and still talks about time as a dimension anyway.

This really is the most pointless objection I've seen anyone make in any discussion for quite some time. You keep citing sources that say exactly what you pretend they don't, then demand that others find for you what you have just read for yourself. All so that you can try to claim that time would not exist without things happening within it, which would remain nonsensical and unsupported even if time were not a dimension, and from there try to make an unjustified leap to pretending that you have evidence for causality holding outside of time.

Literally every step of your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

---

(March 2, 2017 at 1:54 am)Won2blv Wrote: Humans all inherited the vast sub-consciousness that had evolved over millennia. We just have small individual tips that stick out. Other than that, I think its reasonable to assume that we all have a pretty similar sub-conscious, but we have different abilities when it comes to tapping into it.

So this is why its easy for me to imagine a collective consciousness and why humans can draw from each other to learn more. I believe that all creative outputs by our brains are bi-products of our sub-conscious. Once it comes to the fore, we are able to build on that and dig deeper into our sub-conscious.

Humans evolving so that each member of the species has a subconscious is not equivalent to the species having a "collective consciousness". The idea is incoherent and nonsensical.

(March 2, 2017 at 1:54 am)Won2blv Wrote: Saying my beliefs are fucktarded is not an argument. At least not a good one.

I don't need an argument. You need evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Your claim is fucktarded and needs a fuckload of evidence to back itself up. I don't need an argument to dismiss your silly beliefs.

(March 2, 2017 at 11:30 am)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 2, 2017 at 1:54 am)Won2blv Wrote: Humans all inherited the vast sub-consciousness that had evolved over millennia. We just have small individual tips that stick out. Other than that, I think its reasonable to assume that we all have a pretty similar sub-conscious, but we have different abilities when it comes to tapping into it.

So this is why its easy for me to imagine a collective consciousness and why humans can draw from each other to learn more. I believe that all creative outputs by our brains are bi-products of our sub-conscious. Once it comes to the fore, we are able to build on that and dig deeper into our sub-conscious.

Humans evolving so that each member of the species has a subconscious is not equivalent to the species having a "collective consciousness". The idea is incoherent and nonsensical.

See? This guy gets it.

(March 2, 2017 at 12:11 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(March 2, 2017 at 1:54 am)Won2blv Wrote: Saying my beliefs are fucktarded is not an argument. At least not a good one.

I don't need an argument. You need evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Your claim is fucktarded and needs a fuckload of evidence to back itself up. I don't need an argument to dismiss your silly beliefs.

(March 2, 2017 at 11:30 am)Nonpareil Wrote: Humans evolving so that each member of the species has a subconscious is not equivalent to the species having a "collective consciousness". The idea is incoherent and nonsensical.

See? This guy gets it.

So you agree that humans are a bi-product of the human tree? And you probably agree that seemingly sophisticated human traits can be linked back to more rudimentary traits seen in animals? Is this not evidence that the vast majority of of human consciousness is a bi-product of evolution? If you agree with that last point, then it is evidence that we all have a very similar base with different abilities of using it

---

(March 2, 2017 at 11:30 am)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 1, 2017 at 10:44 pm)SteveII Wrote: What do you know. I found an article with like 80 paragraphs on space and time and they mention dimension...5 times! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy...e_and_time

What do you know - it is not a scientific article, and still talks about time as a dimension anyway.

This really is the most pointless objection I've seen anyone make in any discussion for quite some time. You keep citing sources that say exactly what you pretend they don't, then demand that others find for you what you have just read for yourself. All so that you can try to claim that time would not exist without things happening within it, which would remain nonsensical and unsupported even if time were not a dimension, and from there try to make an unjustified leap to pretending that you have evidence for causality holding outside of time.

Literally every step of your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

---

(March 2, 2017 at 1:54 am)Won2blv Wrote: Humans all inherited the vast sub-consciousness that had evolved over millennia. We just have small individual tips that stick out. Other than that, I think its reasonable to assume that we all have a pretty similar sub-conscious, but we have different abilities when it comes to tapping into it.

So this is why its easy for me to imagine a collective consciousness and why humans can draw from each other to learn more. I believe that all creative outputs by our brains are bi-products of our sub-conscious. Once it comes to the fore, we are able to build on that and dig deeper into our sub-conscious.

Humans evolving so that each member of the species has a subconscious is not equivalent to the species having a "collective consciousness". The idea is incoherent and nonsensical.

How much, would you say, of your sub-conscious that controls your bodily functions is similar to all humans? I would say the vast majority of it. Humans have the same tool set, but with different skills in using the tools

(March 2, 2017 at 2:01 pm)Won2blv Wrote: How much, would you say, of your sub-conscious that controls your bodily functions is similar to all humans? I would say the vast majority of it. Humans have the same tool set, but with different skills in using the tools

...Which still does not lend any credence to the idea of collective consciousness, natch.

(March 2, 2017 at 2:11 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 2, 2017 at 2:01 pm)Won2blv Wrote: How much, would you say, of your sub-conscious that controls your bodily functions is similar to all humans? I would say the vast majority of it. Humans have the same tool set, but with different skills in using the tools

...Which still does not lend any credence to the idea of collective consciousness, natch.

So do you at least agree that a large majority of our DNA is identical to all humans? If you do, then is it that big of a leap to say that we have a similar data set in which to draw from? I just don't believe that humans could make any discovery, whether it was using fire to cook meat or the theory of relativity, without having a data set to draw from. This is why we can learn and understand new discoveries that we didn't personally discover

(March 2, 2017 at 2:27 pm)Won2blv Wrote: So do you at least agree that a large majority of our DNA is identical to all humans?

Yes.

(March 2, 2017 at 2:27 pm)Won2blv Wrote: If you do, then is it that big of a leap to say that we have a similar data set in which to draw from?

No, Won, "humans have similar DNA" is not equivalent to "humans have some sort of collective consciousness". "Humans have similar DNA" does not even begin to imply "humans have some sort of collective consciousness".

(March 2, 2017 at 2:27 pm)Won2blv Wrote: I just don't believe that humans could make any discovery, whether it was using fire to cook meat or the theory of relativity, without having a data set to draw from. This is why we can learn and understand new discoveries that we didn't personally discover

The term that you are looking for is "society".

(March 2, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 2, 2017 at 2:27 pm)Won2blv Wrote: So do you at least agree that a large majority of our DNA is identical to all humans?

Yes.

(March 2, 2017 at 2:27 pm)Won2blv Wrote: If you do, then is it that big of a leap to say that we have a similar data set in which to draw from?

No, Won, "humans have similar DNA" is not equivalent to "humans have some sort of collective consciousness". "Humans have similar DNA" does not even begin to imply "humans have some sort of collective consciousness".

(March 2, 2017 at 2:27 pm)Won2blv Wrote: I just don't believe that humans could make any discovery, whether it was using fire to cook meat or the theory of relativity, without having a data set to draw from. This is why we can learn and understand new discoveries that we didn't personally discover

The term that you are looking for is "society".

I am not saying that similar DNA equals a collective conscious. I am just seeing if you agree with the point or not.

Think about a cheetah. Its the fastest land animal but it can only run at top speeds for about 10 seconds. I am sure that some cheetahs can run faster at shorter periods, some slower for longer periods, and everything in between. If a cheetah had a self awareness, it might try to train itself to run at a top speed for a longer period of time. The Evolutionary advantage of this would be huge. They could catch their prey a lot easier. And no doubt, other cheetahs with self awareness would also train this same way. So even though they might have the ability to use their existing advantage and make it better, they can't, because they don't have a self-awareness

Humans have an evolutionary advantage of bigger brains. Our self awareness is a bi-product of our long evolutionary line, not the other way around. I believe that consciousness was a slow and steady development, with the advantage being that an organism could make quicker evolutionary decisions. Does it not makes sense that when humans began using their brains to make conscious evolutionary decisions, that they were drawing on billions of years worth of information that has been succinctly jammed into their DNA?

Michael Graziano illustrates the brain as being like a neuron democracy. Where did the neurons develop their "political beliefs?" From billions of years worth of evolution

(March 2, 2017 at 4:50 pm)Won2blv Wrote: Does it not makes sense that when humans began using their brains to make conscious evolutionary decisions

"Conscious evolutionary decisions" is a nonsense phrase.

(March 2, 2017 at 4:50 pm)Won2blv Wrote: that they were drawing on billions of years worth of information that has been succinctly jammed into their DNA?

That is not how DNA works.

Again, the term that you are looking for is "society". Humans learn from the actions of their ancestors because they form social groupings that store information about what those ancestors did and hand it down over the course of generations.

You don't really seem to have a coherent idea of what it is that is supposed to be actually happening in your subconsciousness "theory".