Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things i don't know anything about."
So I killed a fly..
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Image came from a "Zen laughter" search. It's my great fondness for self-referent humor, in which i see a valuable mental exercise for sorts like me who sometimes cramp up into analytical thinking. cn...'splain?
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...which is exactly what I said to MP in the first place
(so, does that mean that science is still a better way to arrive at the same approximations?)
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
..."eye laughter", for sure
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Whatever. I guess you don't have a current understanding, you have a belief. Understanding implies actual knowledge. Although you might get lucky and come up with the correct solution by mere self-reflection and thought, I personally really doubt it. Science has demonstrated time and again that our initial instincts and beliefs are usually wrong. I believe you are wrong as well. Evolution has nothing to do with this. Individuals don't evolve. Matter doesn't evolve due to some goal so asking why is pointless. Evolution just happens, just like chemistry just happens. Do you think chemicals have consciousness?...yours is an outer science, which is fine and necessary. The answers that I can use to construct a worldview are from within. It's an amalgamation of science, philosophy, art, and religion (as it pertains to religare). Seems to have passed the ever-stringent tests of time, this whole balance thing.
...I think that all things are conscious at their respective levels. Evolution would be pointless otherwise, wouldn't it? Why would matter evolve if not to become something other than matter? Do you see what I am saying here? Is the human being an amalgam of all matter? Does the person (the reasoner) evolve or does consciousness itself evolve? This is a problem of mind, phuk.
It appears that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the collection of neuronal processes in the brain. This is why that insects and jellyfish likely are not conscious, their nervous system is not complex enough. It is unlikely they have any self-awareness. Insects don't even have a brain, their nervous system is divided up into bundles all along its body.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
No. My beef is that I asked a basic question about how he arrived at a conclusion that he stated. And instead of answering, he poses a question to me (actually two questions) then gets indignant when I don't answer his questions, in spite of never answering mine.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...individuals don't evolve? Asking why is the common denominator in all discovery - material or immaterial.
...do you have a greater use of your mind now that you've aged and have gained experience?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Correct. Populations evolve. Individuals have virtually the same genetic information they had when they were born.
My mind has developed, it has matured. It has not evolved.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I would opine that he and you do not agree about the meaning of "an understanding". You are pure Analyst, and he is pure Poet/Mystic. From each other's perspective (as seen from mine!), the way you use the words begs the question. I see irresoluble impasse. cn
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...so the genetic info is not affected by a lifetime of experience? Blank slate was overridden a while back, no?
...also, I do not agree that populations evolve without individual persons first having accomplished the feat - imu
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
At the biological level, no. We have a perhaps innate fondness for the Lamarckian idea (the practice effect), but nobody has shown one to exist in the substrate. cn...so the genetic info is not affected by a lifetime of experience? Blank slate was overridden a while back, no?
...also, I do not agree that populations evolve without individual persons first having accomplished the feat - imu
<add> deft addition there of "unopinion"
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...lol - case closed, like unopine?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The case has a false bottom. A bit like Demi Moore. cn
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...demi-moored, that one (she was a contender back in the day, though 
)
(she was a contender back in the day, though )
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Whether you agree or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not you are correct based on our 'current understanding' and you would be wrong in this case. That is of course unless you change the meaning of the word evolve, which is what I suspect you are doing in a quite loose manner. Equivocation, when done so conspicuously is distasteful IMO....so the genetic info is not affected by a lifetime of experience? Blank slate was overridden a while back, no?
...also, I do not agree that populations evolve without individual persons first having accomplished the feat - imu
The only individual changes that make any difference in evolution are those of the gametes. Any somatic changes in the individual will not be passed down to subsequent generations, hence no change in the genetic makeup of the population and therefore no evolving.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...in the beginning of our discussion I mentioned consciousness as that which evolves. Nothing conspicuous here, I'm not into playing games with people's time.
...most importantly, without consciousness there is no prime mover, therefore no evolution as a populous, or otherwise.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Actually you asked a question about whether evolution would be pointless if everything didn't have consciousness. I pointed out that things evolve whether conscious or not. You may not think you're playing games but misusing terminology to suit your position is game playing IMO.
Without a prime mover there is no evolution? Have fun with your discussion, I'm done.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...I will, thanks.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
It does seems to be a problem of equivocation: MP is using evolve in the biological sense, to develop by evolutionary processes, and you seem to be using it in a casual conversational manner, i.e. to develop of achieve gradually, to evolve one's own sense of style, etc.. When it comes to consciousness evolving, it seems you could use your definition but not the technical, biological definition. Consciousness cannot be the prime mover for evolution in the biological definition, as the first living things (bacteria) are not conscious and had no will (beside the fact that evolution by natural selection happens regardless of anyone's will). I'm not even sure consciousness is the prime mover for evolution in your sense of the word, since we become aware of our decisions after they are formed, so our consciousness is not the force making our decisions...