677 thoughts on “Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved”

  3. DNA_Jock:
    J-Mac,
    According to the mirror test, macaques are not self-aware, but magpies and certain fish are?
    Fascinating.

    Assuming that such behaviors indicate general intelligence rather than isolated abilities.

  4. J-Mac: And some commentators here as well 🙁

    You think? 😉

    Sure ,it is just a product of design. Who can know why or how the designer does anything.

  5. petrushka: DNA_Jock:

    According to the mirror test, macaques are not self-aware, but magpies and certain fish are?
    Fascinating.

    Assuming that such behaviors indicate general intelligence rather than isolated abilities.

    Assuming evolution makes no sense anything if possible… just like in any fairy tale…

  6. DNA_Jock:
    J-Mac,
    According to the mirror test, macaques are not self-aware, but magpies and certain fish are?
    Fascinating.

    “The common magpie is one of the most intelligent birds—and one of the most intelligent animals to exist. Their brain-to-body-mass ratio is outmatched only by that of humans and equals that of aquatic mammals and great apes. Magpies have shown the ability to make and use tools, imitate human speech, grieve, play games, and work in teams. When one of their own kind dies, a grouping will form around the body for a “funeral” of squawks and cries. To portion food to their young, magpies will use self-made utensils to cut meals into proper sizes.”

    https://www.britannica.com/story/eurasian-magpie-a-true-bird-brain

  7. newton: Sure ,it is just a product of design.

    Bad, bad design!!!
    What’s the obvious conclusion then?

    newton: Who can know why or how the designer does anything.

    Here we go…
    We don’t know how designer does it, so he must not exist…
    Speaking of consciousness… 😉

  8. J-Mac: Assuming evolution makes no sense anything if possible… just like in any fairy tale…

    So true, now this is real science:

    And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.“

  9. keiths: Introspection is extremely useful in “working out what’s going on” in consciousness. You just have to remember that introspection isn’t always accurate and take first-person reports with a grain of salt.

    See heterophenomenology.

    I’m familiar with Dennett and the third-person approach. Makes sense. It’s not introspection.

  10. J-Mac: Bad, bad design!!!
    What’s the obvious conclusion then?

    Bad design can only be judged if one knows the intent of the designer, perhaps the engineers wanted the Pinto to burst into flames to remind people of need to be right with God cause at any moment you may be meeting Him.

    newton: Who can know why or how the designer does anything.

    Here we go…
    We don’t know how designer does it, so he must not exist…

    Only if you are designed to favor a facile argument. I like nuance.

    Speaking of consciousness… 😉

    Overrated.

  11. J-Mac: Bad, bad design!!!
    What’s the obvious conclusion then?

    Here we go…
    We don’t know how designer does it, so he must not exist…
    Speaking of consciousness…

    We don’t know how, why, when, where who or even if, but there must surely be Designer, there must be!!!1!1!1!!!1!1one!1!1!

  12. newton: “The common magpie is one of the most intelligent birds—and one of the most intelligent animals to exist.

    Now that you mentioned it, I have to agree…
    You give the birdie a keyboard and enough time, an it will sure make more sense than you 😉

    newton: Their brain-to-body-mass ratio is outmatched only by that of humans

    But the brain mass doesn’t really matter, as we’ve learned about consciousness, and now you confirming it with the lack of logic…

    newton: Magpies have shown the ability to make and use tools, imitate human speech, grieve, play games, and work in teams.

    That is amazing when compared with TSZ…

    newton: When one of their own kind dies, a grouping will form around the body for a “funeral” of squawks and cries.

    What are you suggesting? We should book a choir of magpies for your departure?

    newton: To portion food to their young, magpies will use self-made utensils to cut meals into proper sizes.”

    Maybe you should consider pitching the Hell’s Kitchen for magpies to Fox? But don’t get it mixed up with Alan Fox!!!

    I’m sure it will sell well, there a lot of nut bars out there 😉

  13. Alan:

    My point is introspection doesn’t get me anywhere in working out what’s going on.

    keiths:

    Introspection is extremely useful in “working out what’s going on” in consciousness. You just have to remember that introspection isn’t always accurate and take first-person reports with a grain of salt.

    See heterophenomenology.

    Alan:

    I’m familiar with Dennett and the third-person approach. Makes sense. It’s not introspection.

    It depends on first-person reports, Alan. First-person, introspective reports are at the heart of heterophenomenology. They’re crucial to the discovery and study of illusions, as in the paper we’re discussing on the other thread.

  14. J-Mac: The common magpie is one of the most intelligent birds—and one of the most intelligent animals to exist.

    Now that you mentioned it, I have to agree…
    You give the birdie a keyboard and enough time, an it will sure make more sense than you 😉

    We all have our talents at least I have no need to fear for my life at the hands of a 12 year old with a BB gun. It may sting, but not lethal.

    newton: Their brain-to-body-mass ratio is outmatched only by that of humans

    But the brain mass doesn’t really matter, as we’ve learned about consciousness, and now you confirming it with the lack of logic…

    Size doesn’t matter ,up to a point. That is what she said.

    newton: Magpies have shown the ability to make and use tools, imitate human speech, grieve, play games, and work in teams.

    That is amazing when compared with TSZ…

    Magpies rarely have a good internet connections, they’re too cheep, so it is hard to gauge their online behavior.

    newton: When one of their own kind dies, a grouping will form around the body for a “funeral” of squawks and cries.

    What are you suggesting? We should book a choir of magpies for your departure?

    Nope, Lucinda Williams would be just fine.

    newton: To portion food to their young, magpies will use self-made utensils to cut meals into proper sizes.”

    Maybe you should consider pitching the Hell’s Kitchen for magpies to Fox? But don’t get it mixed up with Alan Fox!!!

    Don’t think there is a big interest in how to prepare beetles, flies, and caterpillars. In Louisiana ,how to prepare magpies would draw a bigger audience.

    I’m sure it will sell well, there a lot of nut bars out there 😉

    Prefer bars which sell alcohol, myself.

  15. Corneel: CharlieM: It is the same whether we are talking about wavelength or colour, both are the products of light being attenuated by matter.

    You are being inconsistent. It is true that colour is the way we perceive certain (mixtures of) light of different wave lengths. Yet now you insist that both colour and wavelength are “effects” or “products” of “attenuated light”. No, they are not. Wave lengths are out there as measurable properties of light in the external world, whereas colour is that thing where we have to take into account the subjective observer.

    How come you, of all people, fails to see the distinction, after lecturing me about being careful to not prematurely assume to know where the distinction lies between object and subject?

    I have been wandering off topic here so I think it’s time I moved on from this thread. If you really want me to respond to any of your questions which I haven’t answered then I’d be happy to do so.

    I’ll leave this with one last thought to ponder. How can anybody measure the wavelength of light without interfering with what they are trying to measure?

  16. CharlieM: I have been wandering off topic here so I think it’s time I moved on from this thread. If you really want me to respond to any of your questions which I haven’t answered then I’d be happy to do so.

    No, that’s fine. We’ll bump into each other some other time, I suspect.

    Thanks for the discussion.

  17. CharlieM: I’ll leave this with one last thought to ponder. How can anybody measure the wavelength of light without interfering with what they are trying to measure?

    Pondering…

    I think they can’t, but that it doesn’t matter if they do. I’ll take doubt over ignorance anytime.

  18. keiths: First-person, introspective reports are at the heart of heterophenomenology. They’re crucial to the discovery and study of illusions, as in the paper we’re discussing on the other thread.

    Yes, I agree that first person reports to research teams are used in scientific studies. Introspection by itself is fun but is not a path to discovery.

  19. newton: Magpies rarely have a good internet connections, they’re too cheep, so it is hard to gauge their online behavior.

    I once had a brief encounter with a tame magpie. I had a great evening, then went home. We never met again. 🙁 I think I still have a photo somewhere.

  20. Alan Fox: I once had a brief encounter with a tame magpie. I had a great evening, then went home. We never met again. 🙁 I think I still have a photo somewhere.

    Always heard magpies were a bit flighty but paired perfectly with a good wine wine.

  21. Alan,

    Yes, I agree that first person reports to research teams are used in scientific studies.

    Those reports require introspection.

    Introspection by itself is fun but is not a path to discovery.

    Sure it is. Most illusions are discovered via introspection, for instance.

  22. CharlieM: I’ll leave this with one last thought to ponder. How can anybody measure the wavelength of light without interfering with what they are trying to measure?

    Pondered. Now try this, in fiber optic transmission there is a saying that the limitation of what a fiber can carry is determined by the equipment at the ends. Laying new fiber is expensive, so the effort is to increase the size of the pipe( fiber) by improvement to the equipment at each end.

    On method is to take 40 different wavelengths interlaced within a 1550nm wavelength , for example channel 1=1549.9987nm , channel 2= 1549.9991, etc .and transmitted on a single fiber At the other end this signal is received and separated back into the original wavelengths. You have increased the capacity of your fiber by 40. However in order for this technology to work you need to be able to build lasers and receivers accurate to a very precise wavelengths.

    So while it may be true we cannot know the absolute, we can the know the relative with high precision and to a common standard.

  23. newton: Pondered. Now try this, in fiber optic transmission there is a saying that the limitation of what a fiber can carry is determined by the equipment at the ends. Laying new fiber is expensive, so the effort is to increase the size of the pipe( fiber) by improvement to the equipment at each end.

    On method is to take 40 different wavelengths interlaced within a 1550nm wavelength , for example channel 1=1549.9987nm , channel 2= 1549.9991, etc .and transmitted on a single fiberAt the other end this signal is received andseparated back into the original wavelengths. You have increased the capacity of your fiber by 40. However in order for this technologyto work you need to be able to build lasers and receivers accurate to a very precise wavelengths.

    So while it may be true we cannot know the absolute, we can the know the relative with high precision and to a common standard.

    And in order to produce these specific wavelengths light has to be manipulated by refraction and reflection. Only by interfering with it can it be brought into the realm of the sensory.

  24. keiths: I see that definition troll is trolling.

    If you intend to argue that consciousness can evolve then you must be able to say what consciousness is.

    If you intend to argue that consciousness has evolved then you must be able to say what it means to say that consciousness has evolved.

    This is really basic stuff.

    ETA: You seem to be far more interested in arguing matters which have nothing to do with the OP than actually engaging the article referenced in the OP.

    When do you intend to carry through on your promise?

  25. Will anything interesting come of this thread? What would it take to move the conversation forward?

    If consciousness is evolving, and as a consequence it brings about a greater consciousness of God, who is keiths to complain? Is his consciousness simply less evolved than the consciousness of a Creationist?

    Should keiths blame God, or should keiths blame evolution?

  26. Consciousness is the last and latest development of the organic, and consequently also the most unfinished and weakest part of it. From consciousness there proceed countless errors which cause an animal, a man, to perish earlier than necessary.

    – Nietzsche

  27. Seems the “Mihdan” edit plugin has not been updated recently. Not many alternatives but I’ll check if they work.

Leave a Reply