Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
155
RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 12:31 pm
(October 28, 2012 at 12:17 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (October 28, 2012 at 11:12 am)Stimbo Wrote: Or semi-conscious, to varying degrees. Consciousness isn't an all-or-nothing condition.
Whatever degree of consciousness, semi, 1%, whatever...there has to be a step that would go from no consciousness. But at the same time, there needs not only be tons of steps but natural selection should be guiding it towards consciousness (semi or 1% or any level of consciousness).
Can you point to the exact moment when the baby you turned into an infant? There must have been one.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 12:31 pm
I'm not sure if you guys understand the perspective of the paradox I am perceiving.
Posts: 67343
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 12:33 pm
"You just don't understand!"
I'm trying to Mystic, that's why I keep asking questions.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm by Mystic.)
(October 28, 2012 at 12:31 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Can you point to the exact moment when the baby you turned into an infant? There must have been one.
That's iirelevant. Because the Dna is already established to a design. There certainly has to be a time where it becomes consciousness. There is a final "step" that makes it all work.
But the issue with evolution, is that such a step (seems to be the case) cannot simply arise from one step of random mutations.
Posts: 67343
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Why? Because you keep saying that it can't? You need to be able to elaborate here.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 12:39 pm
(October 28, 2012 at 12:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why? Because you keep saying that it can't? You need to be able to elaborate here.
In this case, because such a step is very complex in design. And also with the case of a baby, it's all directed by Dna to create a conscious being. And there needs to be direction towards concsious from non-concsious.
In the case of arms getting stronger or something like that, you have direction from natural selection. Stronger do better etc...
There needs to direction of non-conscious towards consciousness by process of survival of fittest.
Yet there is suppose to be one step between non-concsiouss and concsiousness (at whatever level even if 1%).
Posts: 67343
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 12:41 pm
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
You can't imagine a benefit that a conscious creature might have over an "unconscious" one?
Okay, 1%, one step...etc etc etc, all well and good, humor me and point to an organism that you feel qualifies as the first (or more aptly, earliest known) conscious organism?
(and again, survival of the fittest doesn't direct anything, a whole hell of alot of evolutionary biology would instantly make more sense to you if you could put the notion of "direction" out of your mind, it was a big -oh shit, that's what they mean- moment for me, anyway)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 12:45 pm
(October 28, 2012 at 12:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You can't imagine a benefit that a conscious creature might have over an "unconscious" one?
I think again you aren't understanding the paradox from my perspective.
This is a strawman.
Posts: 29952
Threads: 116
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm by Angrboda.)
The human eye did not evolve from a patch of innervated skin by a single step. Yet there is no clear dividing line between those creatures with complex, compound eyes and vision and those without.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither; first was an organism that could mutate into a chicken or egg by a single step. Rinse, lather, repeat. What are you proposing as an alternative framework to materialism and evolution and what is your evidence?
(You seem to have a circular argument here. God --> immaterial souls and divine nature; divine nature --> not materially possible; not materially possible --> not evolved; not evolution --> magic; magic --> God)
Again, until you know specifically what your endpoint B is, all your arguments will be useless. Until you define what you mean by "consciousness," this is a waste of time. However I will predict three potential responses, you define consciousness so that only certain types of consciousness meet the definition, thus guaranteeing a boundary by design; defining consciousness so that no actual creature can be demonstrated to possess the property, thus eliminating all counter-examples; fairly and appropriately defining it, resulting in what is known as a "vague" property, for which no boundary can be sensibly defined. (See vagueness and the sorites paradox)
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
132
RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 12:47 pm
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2012 at 12:49 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
You're either conscious or you're not, but how many things there are that you're conscious of is another matter.
|
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
