Evolution Is Just An Emergent Property Of the Action Of Consciousness

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Steve Klinko, Feb 27, 2021.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,404
    Why do you keep on quoting this near death stuff, when it has no bearing on the thread topic?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,698
    How does that (Conscious Experiences) combine with
    I'm asking

    Do you have a answer?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    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.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,132
    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?
     
    gmilam likes this.
  9. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    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...
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,132
    Were you?

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

    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.



    This is not a new concept - what are you adding to it?
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2021
  11. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Yes, see also the more modern "brain in a vat".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

    yes, you dont need to.

    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.

    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...)
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,132
    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.
     
  13. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    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.

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

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

    Sure, afterward you can answer that you dident need this hypothesis (altought you have taken this in account...).
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,132
    No, that's not what's happening.

    No it isn't; it's the science of nature.

    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.

    God is a subjective belief. The universe can be studied independently of whether God might be believed by a given person.

    No. And neither are you. This is an unsubstantiated claim.

    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.
     
  15. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    They each have their own individual influence on Evolution.
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  16. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Yes, we and Science must think out side the box when it comes to Consciousness and Conscious Experience.
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,698
    Genetic scientists tapping Steve on shoulder

    "What's this we paleface?"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Dywyddyr and DaveC426913 like this.
  18. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Don't understand your complaint.
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,698
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  20. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    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.
     
  21. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,755
    I believe Descartes did think outside the box when he proposed a "brain in a vat"......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What box are you talking about that we need to think outside of? Can we start with that?
     
  23. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Same Box you referenced in your first sentence.
     

Share This Page