Opinions of atheism
-
I look forward to that dayOriginally posted by ben1xy:haha, 2 seperate topics and we can't agree on the definition on both. I'm sure that 1 day we will ... somehow
-
Emotions fit well with the Jewish and Catholic explanation with the person having a soul, body and spirit. Extrapolating, i could say that it's the soul that enables humans n animals to emote.
If tat is the case, why does a person having brain injury/damage/diesease graudally lose their consciousness and intellectual ? A person can have serious trauma such as losing his legs/arms yet still maintain full consciousness or "soul" as before but in the case of the brain, he lose tat consciousness. Worse still, with medicine and recovery to the brain, it is shown tat men recover back tis consciousness. Having a soul cannot answer tis. A kid with down syndrome has geenrally poorer consciousness compared with normal people. Why is tat so ? The soul is faulty ?consciousness. It's like knowing that you are being. Example, a computer can do stuff, but do they have individualism? Do they have self-awareness?
If u ask me, consciousness is a natural progression from improving intellectual. I think u need to define wat is consciousness for us, because an animal able to realise the reflection is itself is a clear proof it is aware of its existence. As intellectual develop, consciousness become better and more complex. Intellectual improves, perception on environment improve, aware of its existence. Consciousness is directly link with intellectual. Can u provide an example tat show contrary to the previous statement ? It do not have to be divine and it simply can be natural.
In studies, some scholars try to proof consciousness by theorizing that if an animal can see recognize itself in its reflection, it has consciousness. Seems a bit dodgy if u ask me. As i find the construct to not be a yes/ no thing, but more of different levels of consciousness.
hmm, i still think i am not explaining it properly.i think the best definition is an awareness of self. i know i am living, i know what i am doing now and i can plan for what i am doing tomorrow. am i geeting closer to a definition that satisfy u?
Might as well say men is able to use machine and why doesn't animals use machine. Simply because men have higher intellectual tat is why they have a more complex consciousness. Monkeys and apes and dolphin has shown to have higher intellectual and tat is why the r more likely to have self awareness. A wise person, perheps the previous president of USA with dementia will gradually lose the ability to know wat he is doing, plan for tomorrow etc. In fact they may end up eating sh!t and forget he just eat 10 minutes ago and wanna eat more. Surely tat has fail in your consciousness criteria. -
This is a bit confusing for me. I think you misunderstood what he said.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If tat is the case, why does a person having brain injury/damage/diesease graudally lose their consciousness and intellectual ? A person can have serious trauma such as losing his legs/arms yet still maintain full consciousness or "soul" as before but in the case of the brain, he lose tat consciousness. Worse still, with medicine and recovery to the brain, it is shown tat men recover back tis consciousness. Having a soul cannot answer tis. A kid with down syndrome has geenrally poorer consciousness compared with normal people. Why is tat so ? The soul is faulty ?
Can you show us at least you got his argument right first? -
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as my definition isn't clear. Before we start a long debate, let me clarify my stance. i believe in theistic evolution. and like what nomood and kaister mention, the consciousness is not something that evolution explains well.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If tat is the case, why does a person having brain injury/damage/diesease graudally lose their consciousness and intellectual ? A person can have serious trauma such as losing his legs/arms yet still maintain full consciousness or "soul" as before but in the case of the brain, he lose tat consciousness. Worse still, with medicine and recovery to the brain, it is shown tat men recover back tis consciousness. Having a soul cannot answer tis. A kid with down syndrome has geenrally poorer consciousness compared with normal people. Why is tat so ? The soul is faulty ?
If u ask me, consciousness is a natural progression from improving intellectual. I think u need to define wat is consciousness for us, because an animal able to realise the reflection is itself is a clear proof it is aware of its existence. As intellectual develop, consciousness become better and more complex. Intellectual improves, perception on environment improve, aware of its existence. Consciousness is directly link with intellectual. Can u provide an example tat show contrary to the previous statement ? It do not have to be divine and it simply can be natural.
Anyway SIS, what a weird way or arguing, u make such a big claim that consciousness is directly linked with the intellect. you do not provide me with evidence but yet choose to extrapolate from what i deem to be tenous reasoning at best. Before we go further, let's not make this into a soul vs evolution debate. Coz when that happens, chances for going off-tangent is greater.
In current literature, evolutionist are hard pressed to explain how consciousness is an added advantage and how its passed down, since no one knows where this consciousness is located. and that to be is a stumbling block.
I think nomood came closest in understanding what i am positing since he mentioned "sentient" which is something commonly used in the consciousness debate. Right now, we r arguing at different directions. Let's wait till we r on the same line, then we'll continue?[/b]Originally posted by stupidissmart:Might as well say men is able to use machine and why doesn't animals use machine. Simply because men have higher intellectual tat is why they have a more complex consciousness. Monkeys and apes and dolphin has shown to have higher intellectual and tat is why the r more likely to have self awareness. A wise person, perheps the previous president of USA with dementia will gradually lose the ability to know wat he is doing, plan for tomorrow etc. In fact they may end up eating sh!t and forget he just eat 10 minutes ago and wanna eat more. Surely tat has fail in your consciousness criteria. -
icey, u famaliar with the consciousness debate? if yes, can u help with the definition thingy? i'm having some articulation and definition problems hereOriginally posted by Icemoon:This is a bit confusing for me. I think you misunderstood what he said.
Can you show us at least you got his argument right first? -
Whatever I know .. you and Kaister have already mentioned. Descartes dualism and all that.Originally posted by ben1xy:icey, u famaliar with the consciousness debate? if yes, can u help with the definition thingy? i'm having some articulation and definition problems here
I remember you mentioned about Catholics and Jews believe about the soul for man and animals and the spirit only for man. Then you mentioned something and SIS started attacking you .. lol
Actually even if scientists discover that animals can laugh at all, this doesn't contradict the above view. The soul is the life, Genesis used the same word to describe man and animal - nefesh chayah. So we shouldn't be surprised if our thoughts can be reduced to matter and explained scientifically because this is part of "normal creation".
We have difficulty because the western civilization lends towards the general dualistic view of soul/spirit and matter. So you hear religious arguments like animals have no consciousness, they have no emotions etc. and humans have all of these.
But a closer look at Scripture - from the Jewish point of view - reveals something different. I shall not go into these now, but meanwhile you should think of this question - why did God attempt to find a helper among the animals for him?
Wait .. don't dismiss me first .. read the following verses from NIV. Take note of the parts in bold. It seems to suggest God was trying to give him a helper among the animals!
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
SIS is right on one thing though - the spirit has more to do with conscience than consciousness.
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam [f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
-
Hmm, be a little more explicit icey. i am not catching your drift on the animal part.Originally posted by Icemoon:But a closer look at Scripture - from the Jewish point of view - reveals something different. I shall not go into these now, but meanwhile you should think of this question - why did God attempt to find a helper among the animals for him?
Wait .. don't dismiss me first .. read the following verses from NIV. Take note of the parts in bold. It seems to suggest God was trying to give him a helper among the animals!
SIS is right on one thing though - the spirit has more to do with conscience than consciousness.
abt the SIS part, I am not trying to make this a science vs religion thing. Rather, it's just to explore this concept of consciousness which was brought up during a lunch discussion. The lack of my understanding in this is embodied in my inability to even define it properly for the readers. It seems a rather intuitive concept and the only time i came across it was during my undergrad yrs when i was studying cognitive psychology. that's why i'm having problems coming to terms with it. -
It means we often miss the forest for the trees.Originally posted by ben1xy:Hmm, be a little more explicit icey. i am not catching your drift on the animal part.
Ok .. I am drifting further and further.
To be more explicit, it means we are more similar to the animals than we think, since the creation of both man and animals are both described as nefesh chayah. Furthermore God seems to want to find a helper among the animals - a very strange idea machiam like Narnia. -
oh i have no problems with this. Theologically, if consciousness is tied to the soul and not the spirit, this will not result in a contradiction.Originally posted by Icemoon:It means we often miss the forest for the trees.
Ok .. I am drifting further and further.
To be more explicit, it means we are more similar to the animals than we think, since the creation of both man and animals are both described as nefesh chayah. Furthermore God seems to want to find a helper among the animals - a very strange idea machiam like Narnia. -
but note that we having been tying consciousness to the spirit all the while.Originally posted by ben1xy:oh i have no problems with this. Theologically, if consciousness is tied to the soul and not the spirit, this will not result in a contradiction.
yes, it will not result in a contradiction which means your faith is still rational. -
This is a bit confusing for me. I think you misunderstood what he said.
Ok. First, ben state tat from the christian perspective why does men have consciousness is simply because men have a more complete soul than animals. I do not believe in tat notion, but believe instead tat the brain is a "vessel" tat holds all "consciousness" and "intelligence". I support my point by showing tat injury to the brain lead to reduce intelligence and thus consciousness. If soul is the "vessel" tat hold all "consciousness" and "intelligence", then damage to the brain should not reduce men intelligence or consciousness. But it is proven to be true.
If I am not wrong, consciousness from the dictionary means
consciousness: the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
Tat is u r self aware of yourself. U know u exist, u use a name to distinguish yourself, u r able to think for yourself and u r conscious of your actions and where they lead. Is tat correct ?
In tat case, my personal opinion is still linkng consciousness with intellectual. Higher intellectual lead to better perception of your environment. To me, it is just like having stronger legs will lead to travelling faster and cells degenerate slower will lead to longer longevity. Higher perception and awareness of your environment will lead to awareness of you and your contribution to the environment. It also make u more aware of wat your actions lead to. Tat is why from the examples of nature, higher intellectual is directly link with consciousness. Example, men being more intelligent have complex self awareness. Animals r also aware of themselves and the more intelligent the animal is, the more consciousness they have. People with diesease tat lower their intellectual was found to have reduced "consciousness".
How does consciousness help in "surviving". Plenty. U know of yourself as an individual, u can start to think for yourself. U can start off with storing food for future use. U can start to protect your clans from intruders and predators, u can start to run away from a losing fight because u r conscious of death after a fatal injury.
If u say tat I do not have evidence, tat is wrong since intelligence is always tested by the amount of consciousness a being have. How do scientist gauge if dog is smarter than a cat ? They do it by comparing the amount of consciousness they have. Tat is why I can state tat observed from biology, there is no example tat prove my notion to be wrong because the test of intelligent for animals is the test of amount of consciousness. If u wanna ask why does beings develop intelligent, then it is also simple and I have repeated it for a number of times before. Very very very very bluntly, Intelligence leads to better survival of a species isn't it ? -
Buddhism makes the most sense. probably because it's hardly a religion, but rather a philosophy of sorts.Originally posted by ben1xy:hmm. which religion sits best with u thus far? this is more out of personal curiousity. its ok if u don't want to reply
I'm trying to get reacquinted with christianity, but have had no luck so far. can't seem to feel the faith, & for most parts can't understand it. -
Try Judaism.Originally posted by nomood:I'm trying to get reacquinted with christianity, but have had no luck so far. can't seem to feel the faith, & for most parts can't understand it.
Enrol in a yeshiva with me. -
No worries abt this. SIS, u're an Atheist and i definitely am not expecting you to subscribe to my view abt consciousness being tied to the soul or the spirit.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Ok. First, ben state tat from the christian perspective why does men have consciousness is simply because men have a more complete soul than animals. I do not believe in tat notion, but believe instead tat the brain is a "vessel" tat holds all "consciousness" and "intelligence". I support my point by showing tat injury to the brain lead to reduce intelligence and thus consciousness. If soul is the "vessel" tat hold all "consciousness" and "intelligence", then damage to the brain should not reduce men intelligence or consciousness. But it is proven to be true.
This is coming to as close to a definition that i agree with. My concept of it deviates slightly. Let me explain; Even a person who has lost his or her memories is aware of of his state of being. It's a recognition of individualism. The I-story.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If I am not wrong, consciousness from the dictionary means
consciousness: the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
Tat is u r self aware of yourself. U know u exist, u use a name to distinguish yourself, u r able to think for yourself and u r conscious of your actions and where they lead. Is tat correct ?
I will not fault you on this as the arguements on evolution are not strong for consciousness. But before u slam me for disagreeing with you, let me reiterate that we are fighting from the same side. I'll explain why. Believing in theistic evolution, the biggest hurdle to cross is the consciousness as creationist would proposit that theistic evolution is unable to encompass that aspect.Originally posted by stupidissmart:In tat case, my personal opinion is still linkng consciousness with intellectual. Higher intellectual lead to better perception of your environment. To me, it is just like having stronger legs will lead to travelling faster and cells degenerate slower will lead to longer longevity. Higher perception and awareness of your environment will lead to awareness of you and your contribution to the environment. It also make u more aware of wat your actions lead to. Tat is why from the examples of nature, higher intellectual is directly link with consciousness. Example, men being more intelligent have complex self awareness. Animals r also aware of themselves and the more intelligent the animal is, the more consciousness they have. People with diesease tat lower their intellectual was found to have reduced "consciousness".
Now, you mention that intelligence is linked to consciousness. Now this is my question, linking and being a part of consciousness have differing consequences. Which one do you choose?
This is in view with my previous question on top. I will play fair and lay all my cards on the table as i rather have a good discussion vis-a-vis a nit pick deabate. Firstly, This is all well if cosciousness is part of intelligence. But if it isn't (which surprisingly i think many scientist agree with me given the amount of research put in to the studying of consciousness), we might have a problem here. But if your assumption in that consiousness is part of intelligence. It is easier to reach a conclusion. Let's go on to what u typed:Originally posted by stupidissmart:How does consciousness help in "surviving". Plenty. U know of yourself as an individual, u can start to think for yourself. U can start off with storing food for future use. U can start to protect your clans from intruders and predators, u can start to run away from a losing fight because u r conscious of death after a fatal injury.
I think u should be astute enough to realise that this is not a discussion about inteligence. I have no issues with the role intelligence has with increasing survival rate. However, interestingly, a short click on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness and you can gleam that consciousness is more than just intelligence. However, if your definition ties consciousness to intelligence, your reasoning makes sense.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If u say tat I do not have evidence, tat is wrong since intelligence is always tested by the amount of consciousness a being have. How do scientist gauge if dog is smarter than a cat ? They do it by comparing the amount of consciousness they have. Tat is why I can state tat observed from biology, there is no example tat prove my notion to be wrong because the test of intelligent for animals is the test of amount of consciousness. If u wanna ask why does beings develop intelligent, then it is also simple and I have repeated it for a number of times before. Very very very very bluntly, Intelligence leads to better survival of a species isn't it ? -
ahh, a Protestant or Catholic group?Originally posted by nomood:Buddhism makes the most sense. probably because it's hardly a religion, but rather a philosophy of sorts.
I'm trying to get reacquinted with christianity, but have had no luck so far. can't seem to feel the faith, & for most parts can't understand it. -
No worries abt this. SIS, u're an Atheist and i definitely am not expecting you to subscribe to my view abt consciousness being tied to the soul or the spirit.
But then the spirit being tied to consciousness cannot explain the phenomenon of brain injury to lost of consciousness. I assume u believe tat the human spirit is tied to consciousness. Care to touch on tis ?This is coming to as close to a definition that i agree with. My concept of it deviates slightly. Let me explain; Even a person who has lost his or her memories is aware of of his state of being. It's a recognition of individualism. The I-story.
Tat doesn't contradict the explanation above though it may limit your conclusion due lack of experience. basically u know who u r and your interaction with the environment
Iwill not fault you on this as the arguements on evolution are not strong for consciousness. But before u slam me for disagreeing with you, let me reiterate that we are fighting from the same side. I'll explain why. Believing in theistic evolution, the biggest hurdle to cross is the consciousness as creationist would proposit that theistic evolution is unable to encompass that aspect.
My stand is intelligent leads to consciousness. It is like stronger legs means travel longer or longer arms means reach further. One of the consequences of being intelligent is having consciousness. It is an inevitable progression and attribute of intelligence.
Now, you mention that intelligence is linked to consciousness. Now this is my question, linking and being a part of consciousness have differing consequences. Which one do you choose?This is in view with my previous question on top. I will play fair and lay all my cards on the table as i rather have a good discussion vis-a-vis a nit pick deabate. Firstly, This is all well if cosciousness is part of intelligence. But if it isn't (which surprisingly i think many scientist agree with me given the amount of research put in to the studying of consciousness), we might have a problem here. But if your assumption in that consiousness is part of intelligence. It is easier to reach a conclusion. Let's go on to what u typed:
My assumption is clearly, it is. Tat is why I put up the challenge to show an example where intelligent does not have a direct correlation with consciousness. From wikipedia my stand can also be found below. It is the same website u have given
We generally agree that our fellow human beings are conscious, and that much simpler life forms, such as bacteria, are not. Many of us attribute consciousness to higher-order animals such as dolphins and primates; academic research is investigating the extent to which animals are conscious. This suggests the hypothesis that consciousness has co-evolved with life, which would require it to have some sort of added value, especially survival value. People have therefore looked for specific functions and benefits of consciousness. Bernard Baars (1997), for instance, states that "consciousness is a supremely functional adaptation" and suggests a variety of functions in which consciousness plays an important, if not essential, role: prioritization of alternatives, problem solving, decision making, brain processes recruiting, action control, error detection, planning, learning, adaptation, context creation, and access to information.[citation needed] Antonio Damasio (1999) regards consciousness as part of an organism's survival kit, allowing planned rather than instinctual responses.[citation needed] He also points out that awareness of self allows a concern for one's own survival, which increases the drive to survive, although how far consciousness is involved in behaviour is an actively debated issue. Many psychologists, such as radical behaviorists, and many philosophers, such as those that support Ryle's approach, would maintain that behavior can be explained by non-conscious processes akin to artificial intelligence, and might consider consciousness to be epiphenomenal or only weakly related to function.
Regarding the primary function of conscious processing, a recurring idea in recent theories is that phenomenal states somehow integrate neural activities and information-processing that would otherwise be independent (see review in Baars, 2002). This has been called the integration consensus. However, it has remained unspecified which kinds of information are integrated in a conscious manner and which kinds can be integrated without consciousness. Obviously not all kinds of information are capable of being disseminated consciously (e.g., neural activity related to vegetative functions, reflexes, unconscious motor programs, low-level perceptual analyses, etc.) and many kinds can be disseminated and combined with other kinds without consciousness, as in intersensory interactions such as the ventriloquism effect.
A new theoretical framework, Supramodular Interaction Theory (SIT; Morsella, 2005, Psychological Review) is unique in that it identifies the primary, essential function of conscious processing by contrasting the task demands of consciously penetrable processes (e.g., pain, conflicting urges, and the delay of gratification) and consciously impenetrable processes (e.g., intersensory conflicts, peristalsis, and the pupillary reflex). With this contrastive approach, SIT builds upon the integration consensus by specifying which kinds of interaction require conscious processing and which kinds do not (e.g., some intersensory processes). SIT proposes that conscious processes are required to integrate high-level systems in the brain that are vying for (specifically) skeletomotor control, as described by the principle of parallel responses into skeletal muscle (PRISM). Accordingly, regarding processes such as digestion and excretion, one is conscious of only those phases of the processes that require coordination with skeletomotor plans (e.g., chewing or micturating) and none of those that do not (e.g., peristalsis). From this standpoint, consciousness functions above the level of the traditional module to “cross-talk” among high-level, specialized and often multi-modal, systems.
These abilities, especially social and cultural development needs extended ability for imaginations (manipulations on mental images) [2]
Ervin Laszlo argues that self-awareness, the ability to make observations of oneself, evolved. Emile Durkheim formulated the concept of so called collective consciousness, which is essential for organization of human, social relations. The accelerating drive of human race to explorations, cognition, understanding and technological progress[3] can be explained by some features of collective consciousness (collective self - concepts) and collective intelligence -
no no, the soul is tied to consciousness. In Judaism and Catholicism the person consists of soul, body and spirit. Animals have souls and body but they lack spirit. In this case, there's no contradiction as it doesn't go against religion.Originally posted by stupidissmart:But then the spirit being tied to consciousness cannot explain the phenomenon of brain injury to lost of consciousness. I assume u believe tat the human spirit is tied to consciousness. Care to touch on tis ?
I think we have finally reached an agreement. But u think that this is attributed to intelligence am i right?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tat doesn't contradict the explanation above though it may limit your conclusion due lack of experience. basically u know who u r and your interaction with the environment
This flows to the next point. i will take this on following the next quote;Originally posted by stupidissmart:My stand is intelligent leads to consciousness. It is like stronger legs means travel longer or longer arms means reach further. One of the consequences of being intelligent is having consciousness. It is an inevitable progression and attribute of intelligence.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
It's actually quite amusing how i choose to to look at the Philosophical headings and not the neuro-science heading and physical/ functional heading. Talk about selective perception. Ok. i see where you're coming from.
My assumption is clearly, it is. Tat is why I put up the challenge to show an example where intelligent does not have a direct correlation with consciousness. From wikipedia my stand can also be found below. It is the same website u have given
We generally agree that our fellow human beings are conscious, and that much simpler life forms, such as bacteria, are not. Many of us attribute consciousness to higher-order animals such as dolphins and primates; academic research is investigating the extent to which animals are conscious. This suggests the hypothesis that consciousness has co-evolved with life, which would require it to have some sort of added value, [b]especially survival value. People have therefore looked for specific functions and benefits of consciousness. Bernard Baars (1997), for instance, states that "consciousness is a supremely functional adaptation" and suggests a variety of functions in which consciousness plays an important, if not essential, role: prioritization of alternatives, problem solving, decision making, brain processes recruiting, action control, error detection, planning, learning, adaptation, context creation, and access to information.[citation needed] Antonio Damasio (1999) regards consciousness as part of an organism's survival kit, allowing planned rather than instinctual responses.[citation needed] He also points out that awareness of self allows a concern for one's own survival, which increases the drive to survive, although how far consciousness is involved in behaviour is an actively debated issue. Many psychologists, such as radical behaviorists, and many philosophers, such as those that support Ryle's approach, would maintain that behavior can be explained by non-conscious processes akin to artificial intelligence, and might consider consciousness to be epiphenomenal or only weakly related to function.
Regarding the primary function of conscious processing, a recurring idea in recent theories is that phenomenal states somehow integrate neural activities and information-processing that would otherwise be independent (see review in Baars, 2002). This has been called the integration consensus. However, it has remained unspecified which kinds of information are integrated in a conscious manner and which kinds can be integrated without consciousness. Obviously not all kinds of information are capable of being disseminated consciously (e.g., neural activity related to vegetative functions, reflexes, unconscious motor programs, low-level perceptual analyses, etc.) and many kinds can be disseminated and combined with other kinds without consciousness, as in intersensory interactions such as the ventriloquism effect.
A new theoretical framework, Supramodular Interaction Theory (SIT; Morsella, 2005, Psychological Review) is unique in that it identifies the primary, essential function of conscious processing by contrasting the task demands of consciously penetrable processes (e.g., pain, conflicting urges, and the delay of gratification) and consciously impenetrable processes (e.g., intersensory conflicts, peristalsis, and the pupillary reflex). With this contrastive approach, SIT builds upon the integration consensus by specifying which kinds of interaction require conscious processing and which kinds do not (e.g., some intersensory processes). SIT proposes that conscious processes are required to integrate high-level systems in the brain that are vying for (specifically) skeletomotor control, as described by the principle of parallel responses into skeletal muscle (PRISM). Accordingly, regarding processes such as digestion and excretion, one is conscious of only those phases of the processes that require coordination with skeletomotor plans (e.g., chewing or micturating) and none of those that do not (e.g., peristalsis). From this standpoint, consciousness functions above the level of the traditional module to “cross-talk” among high-level, specialized and often multi-modal, systems.
These abilities, especially social and cultural development needs extended ability for imaginations (manipulations on mental images) [2]
Ervin Laszlo argues that self-awareness, the ability to make observations of oneself, evolved. Emile Durkheim formulated the concept of so called collective consciousness, which is essential for organization of human, social relations. The accelerating drive of human race to explorations, cognition, understanding and technological progress[3] can be explained by some features of collective consciousness (collective self - concepts) and collective intelligence[/b]
I am looking at this from the Phenomenal and spiritual headings in wiki SIS. that's why i think we were talking abt different matters. But no biggie. I'll use your explanation from this post and move along. In the case of evolution then, how would such a gene be passed to the next generation then? Is is possible to locate this gene?
i have another question that just popped to mind. What about intelligence? is it locatable and can be passed down? as in a higher propensity to learn? -
anyway i need to get back to work. I'll probably reply either tonight or sometime tomorrow
-
no no, the soul is tied to consciousness. In Judaism and Catholicism the person consists of soul, body and spirit. Animals have souls and body but they lack spirit. In this case, there's no contradiction as it doesn't go against religion.
Ok. soul is tied to consciousness. Then why does people with brain damage lose tis consciousness ?In the case of evolution then, how would such a gene be passed to the next generation then? Is is possible to locate this gene?
Actually tat is pretty simple. Those people who have higher consciousness (able to plan, learn, solve problem better) survive better and have higher chance of offsprings. As such after many generations the species have more and more consciousness
i have another question that just popped to mind. What about intelligence? is it locatable and can be passed down? as in a higher propensity to learn?
Able to locate the gene ? I think it is still pretty hard now to even find the genes to produce arms and legs properly. I don't think tat is an interesting question to us. My answer if u want it, is Maybe.
It is shown from the fossils tat men have bigger and bigger brains and it really is passed down. Locatable or not, same question as above and the answer is Maybe. -
SIS is really getting into metaphysics now...Originally posted by stupidissmart:Actually tat is pretty simple. Those people who have higher consciousness (able to plan, learn, solve problem better) survive better and have higher chance of offsprings. As such after many generations the species have more and more consciousness
Able to locate the gene ? I think it is still pretty hard now to even find the genes to produce arms and legs properly. I don't think tat is an interesting question to us. My answer if u want it, is Maybe.
It is shown from the fossils tat men have bigger and bigger brains and it really is passed down. Locatable or not, same question as above and the answer is Maybe. I would really like to see how well he understand this complex subject. -
protestant. but only by sole virtue that the bible i am reading is a protestant one.Originally posted by ben1xy:ahh, a Protestant or Catholic group?
Don't ask me the denomination. I tried asking once and they just said, christian. -
I'm not in singapore!!!Originally posted by Icemoon:Try Judaism.
Enrol in a yeshiva with me.
hehe, how does yeshivah work huh? some insight into the jewish religion in singapore would be appriciated. -
HUH .. are you kidding us with such a simple question? In the bible .. the soul is the nefesh chayah .. and it is translated as "life" during the creation. So a tree don't have life (in the biblical sense), but SIS has a life. So of course those vital functions in life like breathing, thinking etc. are tied with the biblical concept of soul.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Ok. soul is tied to consciousness. Then why does people with brain damage lose tis consciousness ?
I can even quote the Hebrew for your reference:
1:20 God said, 'The water shall teem with swarms of living creatures. Flying creatures shall fly over the land, on the face of the heavenly sky.'
Vayomer Elohim yishretsu hamayim sherets nefesh chayah ve'of yeofef al-ha'arets al-peney rekia hashamayim.
1:21 God [thus] created the great sea monsters, along with every particular species of living thing that crawls, with which the waters teem, and every particular species of winged flying creature. God saw that it was good.
Vayivra Elohim et-hataninim hagedolim ve'et kol nefesh hachayah haromeset asher shartsu hamayim le-minehem ve'et kol-of kanaf leminehu vayar Elohim ki-tov.
1:21 God [thus] created the great sea monsters, along with every particular species of living thing that crawls, with which the waters teem, and every particular species of winged flying creature. God saw that it was good.
Vayivra Elohim et-hataninim hagedolim ve'et kol nefesh hachayah haromeset asher shartsu hamayim le-minehem ve'et kol-of kanaf leminehu vayar Elohim ki-tov.
1:30 For every beast of the field, every bird of the sky, and everything that walks the land, that has in it a living soul, all plant vegetation shall be food.' It remained that way.
Ulechol-chayat ha'arets ulechol-of hashamayim ulechol romes al-ha'arets asher-bo nefesh chayah et-kol-yerek esev le'ochlah vayehi-chen.
2:7 God formed man out of dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils a breath of life. Man [thus] became a living creature.
Vayitser Adonay Elohim et-ha'adam afar min-ha'adamah vayipach pe'apav nishmat chayim vayehi ha'adam lenefesh chayah.
READ THE LAST PART IN BLUE. -
Ok. soul is tied to consciousness. Then why does people with brain damage lose tis consciousness ?
I don't know if u got it wrongly or I got it wrong. Consciousness; the "thinking" awareness portion. It is not about living or dying. If "thinking, processing, awareness" is linked with soul, then how come injury to the brain lead to reduced consciousness ? -
yah .. aren't thinking, processing awareness what makes you a living being?Originally posted by stupidissmart:I don't know if u got it wrongly or I got it wrong. Consciousness; the "thinking" awareness portion. It is not about living or dying. If "thinking, processing, awareness" is linked with soul, then how come injury to the brain lead to reduced consciousness ?
So if you have brain damage, you are reduced to a half living being .. a "vegetable". Not much difference from a dead person.
Of course .. whether to pull the plug or not is an ethical question.