Human Consciousness
Posted on: January 5, 2010 - 8:06pm
Offline
Human Consciousness
Where does human consciousness come from?
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
human brains.
If I'm sad, is my brain sad or am I sad?
Identical twins have the exact same human DNA, but they can be entirely different in character at heart. Explain this for me.
Intent is prior to Content.
your brain processes the sadness and regulates the responses.
Synapses, chemicals, electrical impulses....stuff.
What Ciarin said.
And? ...that's it? Explain then, why each human being on the face of the earth are distinctive individuals in their heart and mind.
Intent is prior to Content.
The heart you speak of, does not exist...
What Would Kharn Do?
we're all snowflakes.
ciarin.com
Ignoring that heart nonsense, the answer is that we are the products of genetics and environment. No one has your DNA, nutrition and experiences. So no one developed a brain just like yours. An identical twin or clone would have your DNA, but not your experiences or a perfectly identical environment in which to develop. Even in the womb, twins are subjected to different environmental conditions (ie: one will get more blood that the other thanks to its position). The differences in stimuli and environmental factors would produce physiological differences in your brains. So you two wouldn't be the same person.
Was that a serious question? Are you stupid or something? I really don't mean to be insulting. But that is a stupid question. Were you insincere in asking it or do you really not get it? But that is really just asking: are you dishonest or stupid? I hope that 'insincere' was the correct answer and that this was a rhetorical ploy that will be revealed later. The other option is depressing.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Comes from? Most atheists are going say it's a product of the chemical and electrical processes in their brains governed by environmental and genetic influences. The alternative to our personalities existing in the big grey organ in our heads that consumes 25 per cent of all the calories we eat is that we have an invisible soul inside us and our characters were personally designed by the lord god as part of his wondrous sea monkey experiment. Which makes less sense to you?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Tell me something. Our human DNA is 98% accurate to the DNA of a primate according to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. We have studied animals and see that they also have some kind of intelligence. Monkeys can learn, dolphins can learn. Richard Dawkins says we are not like primates, but we are primates. However, we are able to hold the our own existence in the palm of our hands and examine it as if we were a third party. Human beings have choice, our consciousness is the capacity to conduct right and wrong, to exercise moral virtue in this world. You see, we are not programmed not instinct and genetic predetermination. There is no other creature of the face of this earth that has that choice. We both well know that dogs don't get together and discuss dogginess, what does it mean to be a dog. Bears don't examine their own existence and question it. Where does human consciousness come from? - because remember, it couldn't have evolved because it's not something genetic. Us humans are suppose to be the superior species on this earth and we lack definition; we don't know who we are. And all of the sudden we develop choice to do what is right and what is wrong. We create evil and good and moral postulates. It's called a conscious and no other animal has it. We know what cats or primates gather around and discuss how there is so much evil in this world. You see, animals are not moral agents. The only thing that drives any animal is the instinct to eat, survive, and reproduce. And here we are as primates telling ourselves to eat, survive, reproduce - eat, survive, reproduce - eat, survive, reproduce. And then all of the sudden we're humans and we that we are naked, when we've been naked the entire time in the evolution process when we were primates. And to add to it, we no longer no who we are. Is evolution cheating us here? Consciousness, where does it come from since consciousness doesn't evolve; consciousness doesn't mutate. It's as if we are going backwards. Why do humans not know who they are or where they come from? Dogs don't question where they came from - they eat, survive, reproduce. So, if consciousness doesn't mutate, it can't evolve, then where does it come from? Can you explain this problem for me?
Intent is prior to Content.
use paragraphs.
GENESIS, even if it were the case that scientists and philosophers couldn't explain consciousness, that doesn't mean that god did it. Don't commit an either-or fallacy. If you want to prove that god is responsible for consciousness, you have to provide positive evidence. How did he do it?
To answer your question about the variety of human personalities: genes, environment, and decisions account for it. And, if you're going to challenge me on free will, read my first paragraph and replace the word "consciousness" with "free will".
If it turns out that we don't have free will, then genes and environment are sufficient to account for the variety of personalities.
To say no other animal has a sense of self. We don;t even know how our own brains work yet. I agree that humans are out on their own in their mental abilities but look at the human brain, with instinctive reptilian structures and higher order mammalian structures. Is it more likely consciousness is a survival adaptation that gives a relatively defenseless monkey an advantage, or is it proof of an invisible deity, who lives in a different dimension we can know nothing whatever about?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
No, no no. my friend. Human consciousness is also the capacity to exercise moral virtue, to conduct right and wrong. And remember, consciousness doesn't mutate, it doesn't evolve. So if as evolution came about where did consciousness come from? Evolution doesn't explain human consciousness, does it? Consciousness doesn't mutate. Dogs don't ask each other why they are here, or practice moral standards. In the animal kingdom, evil and good doesn't exist, as Dr. William Lane Craig says, animals are not moral agents. As for some reason, we primates evolved and then we look at ourselves and say we're naked when we have been exposing our genitals the entire time. Where did that come from? And remember, it couldn't have evolved because it's not something genetic. Can you explain this problem for me?
Intent is prior to Content.
Is that Dawkins and Hitchens are scarcely the last word in neuroscience and evolutionary biology.
Here we go, ready? We evolved from primates, right? We exposed our genitals ever since then, we were naked we didn't where close. And all of the sudden as humans we decide it is morally wrong to be naked, and that, my friend, is called a consciousness, the capacity to conduct moral right and moral wrong. And as Ravi Zacharias would put it - every time you raise the question of evil, it always by a person or about persons. The issue of evil isn't raised in the animal kingdom. And to add to it, the very fact that we are discussing this proves the reality of consciousness that evolution can never explain. Ask yourself, if we evolved from primates then why do not know who we are? Why are we even having this discussion? What is this all about then? Evolution doesn't explain human consciousness. Take it to the bank.
Intent is prior to Content.
Consciousness doesn't have to evolve in and of itself - though I'm sure it probably has levels - even in terms of human experience. If consciousness gives the ability to plan, to second guess our foes and predators and to map out the environment and its resources, then it's seriously advantageous. Do you really think we are the only creature with a sense of self? All the social animals must have a sense of self to some degree. We didn't evolve from primates - we are a primate - we have a common ancestor with primates. Other primates evolved to best fit their niches and we evolved to best fit ours. I don't get your inability to get it with good and evil. What are good and evil if not good and evil things as they relate to our treatment of other people? Looking after people in our group makes sense. Of course we look after each other. It's not magic.
I don't know why we are having this discussion either - you're completely convinced an invisible god set us up with some sort of invisible soul and loaded in morality at the bios level. None of this makes any sense to me. In order to explain something that can be explained by acceptance of evolutionary social advantage you posit an alternative reality outside this universe with a god living in it. We know nothing pre-bang and can say nothing about anything outside this universe, yet here you are insisting you know the truth. Take that to the bank.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Consience and Morals don't evolve huh? Explain why we've gone from thinking that women are inferior and other homo sapiens were somehow beneath others of us because of our skin color or mythos and should therefor be our slaves to realizing how wrong that is if consience and morals don't evolve.
Secondly, we didn't start wearing clothes because "omg no, makedness is wrong! We should cover our genitals!" We started covering ourselves to fight off the cold when we started moving to colder regions. The notion of nakedness being bad came after that and was probably based on notions of ownership and the lack of exposure to naked bodies which therefor made the naked body more interesting. You are aware that some cultures think women uncovering their hair in public is wrong, right? I would say that right there is some more evidence that human perception of right and wrong is entirely consistant with evolution.
Consience is based on the information you have been trained with since birth. Depending on what you were raised to think of as right and wrong your consience will sting you over different things. Consience is comprised of feel good feelings for doing something 'right', and guilt and other feel bad feelings for doing something 'wrong'. By the way, right and wrong are not concepts with any foundation whatsoever except in the mind of the individual. my notion of right and wrong will likely be very different from yours, and both will likely be quite different than the notions of right and wrong from a islamic jihadist. Memes, just like Genes evolve, change based on environmental pressures, and die out if they become too unfavorable.
"If I'm sad, is my brain sad or am I sad?"
You are.
"Identical twins have the exact same human DNA, but they can be entirely different in character at heart. Explain this for me."
DNA is merely the blue prints of the house. It tells you where the water and wires and kitchen goes. But the character is built bit by bit over many years, and does not stop growing until the house has been destroyed. Many houses may look identical on the outside, but in none do you find the same appliances, art, and general 'character' in the same places in the same way. Often even the foundation is different in small ways, even if it doesn't look like it at first glance.
"Tell me something. Our human DNA is 98% accurate to the DNA of a primate according to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens."
Our DNA is equally similar to most mammals, if not all. Even bacteria have a VERY similar DNA to ourselves. DNA strands are huge. A 1% difference can mean millions of significant changes.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"Human beings have choice, our consciousness is the capacity to conduct right and wrong, to exercise moral virtue in this world. You see, we are not programmed not instinct and genetic predetermination. There is no other creature of the face of this earth that has that choice."
I'm cutting everything else about consciousness out, as it's all coming down to science which has not fully explained it. However, it is in the process of doing so. It's far enough along to know we are NOT unique in this regard. Elephants, as one example, are extremely similar to us mentally. They are self aware, show moral actions and responses, and even fear death as we do; even to the point of knowing it is inevitable, as we do. Here's a link to an article I posted not long ago that I think you'll find fascinating:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/50308/title/Humans_wonder%2C_anybody_home%3F
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It's morally wrong to be naked??? I prefer my boys to have a house but when I'm home with my girlfriend I'd be happy to be starkers. I'm not sure how nudity is immoral outside of social mores. Some cultures wear nothing much at all. I could go down to Coogee Beach and see girls topless and wouldn't consider them immoral in any way though they might consider me a sleaze if I stared at them too long. The nudity and fig leaf thing really takes the biscuit. The great message of good and evil in the garden of eden - get your kit on. Too silly for words.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
First point. You missed the point. The question where did moral postulates even come from? Where did we even get the capacity to conduct bad and good? Sure, morals can change when regarding to a subjective moral standard. But why do we even raise this issue of morality, if we evolved from primates that are not moral agents, like every other animal?
Second point. Granted. We put on clothes for protection, the wheather, etc. But why doesn't the father come to his child naked. Why is it morally wrong to wrong the public streets naked, or even have sex in public. We humans see that as morally "wrong." When primates had sex in trees all the time in the public. You don't see them going into caves, in private just to have sex. Where did we get this consciousness from the gives us the notion of morality? And remember it couldn't have evolved because it's not something genetic.
Third point. This follows my first premise - evolution doesn't explain consciousness. Now, you say I was raised by my parents and others for my notion of morality. However, the actuality is neither can the parents explain their reason why they have the capacity to conduct moral postulates. Explain this problem for me.
Intent is prior to Content.
I realized I failed to cover one or two important points. Self-awareness and free will, these are not things we are unique in, and we do have instincts, and we follow them. Some people more so than others. Some people are very self aware, others I've met I wouldn't give the label self aware to if I were paid to do so. Animals do have choice in the same way that we do. If you think animals act purely on instinct then you've obviously never spent much time with a cat. Same with any great ape.
They do lack something though. Language. They have no symbols to represent their thoughts, no way to truely communicate. Our bodies evolved in ways that allowed us to start communicating effectively with eachother. Without language they can't communicate their feelings or thoughts so easily. Someone once told me, unless you have the words to communicate what you're thinking, you don't know what you're thinking. Language is what seperates us from other animals. It's very dificult to think very deeply if you lack words to sort out your thoughts. As can be shown in cases of children who have been brought up with little or no human contact. If it goes on long enough the child may never be comparable to their peers in ability to use reasoning skills or communicate.
If consciousness gives the conscious an advantage over its competitors then evolution explains consciousness perfectly well. What are you looking for? A blow by blow account of how consciousness developed at the genetic level?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
No.
We don't actually know that. In fact, we know that dogs, just like wolves and other pack animals, have very complicated social rituals which involves communication on many levels - most definitely including that of how to be a dog, both in general principle and in tactile reality within that specific pack. Most animals are quite "trainable" like that - and, as such, we can even argue that most animals are smarter than most people; who seem to be able to do little but spew forth hot air and meaningless sounds that they mistakingly believe to be "intelligence".
You Sir are an example of the latter.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
Both. They're the same thing. There is no "you" apart from the physical body.
No they don't.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical
Genetics is not the only factor. Duh!
Their brains are not exactly the same. Wtf does it mean for them to be distinctive individuals in their heart?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
"The question where did moral postulates even come from? Where did we even get the capacity to conduct bad and good?"
Good and bad are equally subjective, and the capacity exists even in bacteria. Food is good. No food is bad. It's very simple.
"But why doesn't the father come to his child naked."
In many cases they do. And not because they're child molestors, merely because they aren't prudish. Ever heard of nudists?
"evolution doesn't explain consciousness."
Good luck in proving that.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Fire Bad, fire hurts! You like my coat, I not stop you, you take my coat, then I not have my coat! Stealing bad!
Our 'moral' postulates come from simple cause effect relationships. More obtuse and useless things came from greed, from power obsessed leaders and so on. We want something to happen, or not to happen, so we make a rule about it. Something bad happens every time you see a black cat, you make a rule that black cats are bad. You got turned down by the barkeeps daughter, and you've got the power, you call her a witch to get your revenge. Cause effect, cause effect. We want results so we make up rules that we think will get the results we want.
How about thousands of years of imposing modesty on our fellow human beings. You are aware that there are many primitive tribes, who's DNA is esentially identical to ours, go around completely nude right? And that there are nudist colonies?
It is actually genetic, the feeling of wrongness is caused by chemicals in our brains. I bet you an animal, given human speach would look at you like you were out of your mind if you suggested they do the nasty with, oh say a fox, and say, "dude, that's just... Wrong." I bet you that same sense of "wrongness" is present in pleanty of animals when they're in a situation that goes against their knowledge and genetic programing.
The specifics of what quialifies as "wrong" to our senses is entirely dependant on what we are taught. That being something that has been handed down throughout countless generations within families and cultures. Modern culture today says that it's 'wrong' to have sex in public, and 'wrong' to go naked in public. the truth is there's technically nothing actually wrong with these things. It simply offends many prudish people, and since many cultures are in the death grip of the prudish, society will consider it wrong.
Let's take a quick look at what wrong really is. Wrong is "don't do that".
I don't even know what you're asking here, you've lost me in your gramatic flailings. It -seems- like you're saying that parents don't know why they are capable of coming up with 'moral' guidlines. I assure you, many do know. We're capable of seeing cause effect relationships. We're able to see that if our little girl goes out and sleeps with some boy she could get an STD or pregnant. We see that if we lock her in her room forever with guards and video cameras scaning every inch of her room at all times, and never let any boys anywhere near her, that she probably won't be able to get an STD or get pregnant. Of course, we can also see that there'd be problems with that, and so on.
Cause, effect, cause, effect. The ability to understand that relationship allows us to come up with all kinds of fun rules.
And you know this....how?
We've turned our instincts into abstract concepts.
I suspect that our aversion to being naked is mostly cultural morality that developed with our need to wear clothing as protection, as opposed to a natural instinct. Indigenous people in some countries still walk around naked without any worry at all.
What does that mean?
I really don't understand the question.
Perhaps you are stuck on the idea that consciousness is some actual entity? From our perspective, consciousness is not a thing in itself. I guess I could say it's a function.
What exactly would qualify them to be moral agents here?
To me, all social animals exercise what we might call "morals" to some extent. As in, they may make some sacrifices to benefit others in their in-group....or whatever behaviors that have been selected for that might help the group survive. The only major difference I see is that we are intelligent enough to abstract our instincts and philosophize with it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
what do you mean specifically by consciousness? start of there, because the word conscious can mean lots of things depending on how you are defining it, and since neither scientifically nor philosophically is there a standard definition by which most use the term conscious, I would like to understand how you are defining what is conscious?
[edit]
evolution of consciousness well you gotta do some basic research before saying why would evolution give us consicousness
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC49701/
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=99&pgtype=1
there are topics on how mammals developed consciousness, more specifically birds and primates, and various other mammals. So yeah research do it before posting something that you seem to lack knowledge in.