Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 158
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Ox's Pseudoscientific Assertions about Consciousness

  1. #1  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    When was our first recorded history? About 6000 years ago.
    When did religion start? About 6000 years ago.
    When was the first fully conscious being, after all life until then had lived a subconscious existence? Yes, it was Man, about 6000 years ago.
    So, although the earth was 'created' 4.5 bn years ago, there might be a point in its history when you could say it was RECREATED. This in the minds of men.
    Carl Jung wrote at length about this, and yes I know that not everyone agrees with him, but this might explain why some people believe the world is only 6000 years old. So maybe they aren't complete nutters after all, and really should be categorised as only mild nutters.
    Watching the serious science program Horizon the other night impressed on me that you can't even measure the length of a piece of string, so how can you really measure the length of the earth's existence?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    When was our first recorded history? About 6000 years ago.
    I shall accept that as broadly correct, but sites such as Çatalhöyük, which dates to 7,500 years ago, already display an advanced culture that must have been preceded by considerable technical development and social adjustment. So there is an error bar of at least 30% on your 6,000 year old figure.

    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    When was the first fully conscious being, after all life until then had lived a subconscious existence? Yes, it was Man, about 6000 years ago.
    That is almost certainly nonsense. Unless you subscribe to Jayne's hypothesis (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind) no anthropologist would place that 'event' so late (and Jayne places it much later still). We have plenty of evidence from cave paintings and carvings (not to mention behavioural studies of the great apes) that consciousness arose much earlier by many millenia, if not scores of millenia.

    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    So, although the earth was 'created' 4.5 bn years ago, there might be a point in its history when you could say it was RECREATED. This in the minds of men.
    That is metaphorically elegant, but scientifically meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Watching the serious science program Horizon the other night impressed on me that you can't even measure the length of a piece of string, so how can you really measure the length of the earth's existence?
    It depends on the accuracy you wish to attain. When we are speaking of fractions, of a fraction of a percent it rarely matters for practical purposes.


    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Carl Jung wrote at length about this, and yes I know that not everyone agrees with him, but this might explain why some people believe the world is only 6000 years old. So maybe they aren't complete nutters after all, and really should be categorised as only mild nutters.
    The reason 6000 is an appealing number is back when the Hebrews came up with the number it was more like 3000-4000. This number is significantly large enough that the people of that time would have no way to prove otherwise, and yet that's only 150 generations of human beings. That would seem to people around that time to be a perfectly rational amount of generations since the beginning of time. Now you don't feel so small: you feel like God hasn't abandoned you that long, he's sure to come around soon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    The 6,000 year date came from Archbishop Usher of Ireland who used biblical references to count back the years to 4004 BC. This was the accepted date for a long time by the established church, but is now only held to by fundamentalists. Even biblical scholars can find heaps of errors in his calculations.
    http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    The evolution of linguistic grammar over grunts, I imagine, might also be about 6000 years old. The evidence is piling up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    The evolution of linguistic grammar over grunts, I imagine, might also be about 6000 years old. The evidence is piling up.
    From what I've read language started to evolve 50,000-100,000 years ago, not 6000.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Your own personal thoughts on the developmental stages of animals are irrelevant as evidence. I'll stake my life on it being earlier than 6000 years ago, and since I'm so willing to do that, I must be right
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    The evolution of linguistic grammar over grunts, I imagine, might also be about 6000 years old. The evidence is piling up.
    We go back about 200 000 years and you think we only developed language in the last 6000? Evidence?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    The evolution of linguistic grammar over grunts, I imagine, might also be about 6000 years old. The evidence is piling up.
    We go back about 200 000 years and you think we only developed language in the last 6000? Evidence?
    Indeed. And what is this evidence that is piling up. I rebutted all his points in an earlier post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I gave you an off the cuff response in the style of a creationist. Do you really think a creationist pays attention to the fine detail.

    <...>

    In essence you can't win because I shall be employing a suite of tools that are more extensive than your puny scientific arguments. These include misquoting research, cherry picking evidence, appeals to authority, misinterpreting data, denial of uniformitarianism (with extensive, genuine scientific support), ridicule, exposure of controversies within science. And that's only the beginning.

    <...>

    I would be aiming at the undecided.

    <...>

    At this point, still in creationist mode, I would note one of two things, both intended to deflect you away from your attempt at detailed rebuttal.

    <...>

    This would let me push the debate into [a completely unrelated topic]. The scientific contingent continue to become more and more frustrated by the string of nonsense being spouted, but the creationist sits back smugly, knowing that the uninformed have been kept unconvinced by the scientific arguments, for those have not been carried to completion.
    Nicely done, sir. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I rebutted all his points in an earlier post.
    No you didn't. You didn't rebut the fact that religion only goes back about 6000 years. Cave paintings might have existed 20000 years ago but that doesn't mean that all living people were fully conscious with eyes wide open, and talking in a language that could be understood by all. I think 6000 years ago could be interpreted as the line between the prehistorical world and the historical. According to an interpretation of the quantum, nothing exists until it is observed by a fully conscious mind. By that I mean one that it open to wonder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I rebutted all his points in an earlier post.
    No you didn't. You didn't rebut the fact that religion only goes back about 6000 years.
    I didn't rebut it because you didn't mention it. You seem to be changing the goal posts because you lost your first argument.
    This one too.
    The majority of anthropologists - and SkinWalker may come in with specifics - would view religion as an important ingredient of the life of early man. A common interpretation of cave paintings, I understand, relates to animistic religions......paintings considerably older than your 6000 year divide.
    Put simply, you are mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    I think 6000 years ago could be interpreted as the line between the prehistorical world and the historical.
    So what. I'm not disputing that. That is not what you were saying. Writing begins around that time, so prior to that we have no records. So by definition it is pre-history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    One could even make a case for religion among non-human hominidae, like Neanderthals that lived until about 24 000 or so years ago.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I rebutted all his points in an earlier post.
    No you didn't. You didn't rebut the fact that religion only goes back about 6000 years.
    I didn't rebut it because you didn't mention it. You seem to be changing the goal posts because you lost your first argument.
    Here it is from page 2:
    When was our first recorded history? About 6000 years ago.
    When did religion start? About 6000 years ago.
    When was the first fully conscious being, after all life until then had lived a subconscious existence? Yes, it was Man, about 6000 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I rebutted all his points in an earlier post.
    No you didn't. You didn't rebut the fact that religion only goes back about 6000 years.
    Writing begins at about this time, so its fair to say that we don't have written evidence of religion prior to this (the first writings were actually more like accountant's ledgers), but we have good evidence of religion and/or spirituality existing more than 10,000 years ago. Perhaps more depending upon how you define "religion."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    ... non-human hominidae, like Neanderthals...
    Strictly speaking, no paleoanthropologist considers Neandertals to be "non-human." We refer to all members of the genus Homo as "human," designating the humans known as H. sapiens sapiens in the last 150,000 years or so as "anatomically modern humans" and the rest as "early" or "archaic" humans.

    Some prominent researchers (i.e. Wolpoff) would argue that everything from what is commonly referred to as Homo ergaster/erectus is H. sapiens and that there is a continuum of evolutionary advancement that makes delineation of individual species an impossible task. We can see differences between the H. erectus of 1.8 Ma but can't pin the change to H. sapiens obvious to exist by 150 Ka, so they must be different progressions of the same species.

    I don't go as far as Wolpoff, but I can appreciate his sentiments.

    By the way, I did not mean to summarize the entirety of Wolpoff's hypotheses in a single off-the-cuff paragraph. They're far more in-depth and complex than I've highlighted here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I rebutted all his points in an earlier post.
    No you didn't. You didn't rebut the fact that religion only goes back about 6000 years.
    Writing begins at about this time, so its fair to say that we don't have written evidence of religion prior to this (the first writings were actually more like accountant's ledgers), but we have good evidence of religion and/or spirituality existing more than 10,000 years ago. Perhaps more depending upon how you define "religion."
    I would accept that paganism is older than 6000 years, but am I talking about organised religion from the Ancient Egyptians. Their beliefs were incorporated into Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity (the solar religions). This was the true start of the modern age. Religion was inspired by the full flowering of the conscious mind. You simply cannot deny that we owe a great deal to religion, because it spawned philosophy, art and literature. Even science could have been started by the astronomer priests of Ancient Egypt ('the light of the world' according to Gerald Massey).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    171
    There are plenty of people that practice pagan religions today. Does that mean, because they are not practicing Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or one of the other major religions of today, they are not living in the modern age? That their minds are not "full flowering conscious minds"?

    I don't think anyone will argue that science owes a great deal to religion. Science likely got it's start from religious people, trying to prove their religion is right using science. However, as it is currently doing, albeit mostly by religious extremists, religion has tried to suppress science for the last 500 years or so, maybe even longer. I am not well versed in the history of science and religious interactions.
    Always minimize the variables.

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Science versus religion.

    I would divide science into two types.
    1. Modern or true science, in which hypotheses are formed and then tested empirically. The first true scientist in this modern sense was Galileo, and the established church of the time was not exactly helpful towards his work.
    2. Ancient science. It would be incorrect to call this real science, and I would be inclined to simply refer to it as information gathering. Some of the results of ancient science were very true and valid, but just as much was pure superstition. It was not till Galileo, Newton, Hooke, and Bacon and those who followed them that we had a means of separating truth from superstition.

    If I restrict the argument to modern science, then history shows clearly that religion was much more of a hindrance than a help in its development.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    I would accept that paganism is older than 6000 years, but am I talking about organised religion from the Ancient Egyptians.
    What you're willing to accept based on your personal desires about how the world should be and what is reality may not be the same thing. There is evidence of religion and religious thought at 10,000 years ago, perhaps further. The religions may not have recorded their dogma and superstition in script, but it *was* recorded in the material records they left behind.

    In addition, I don't understand your use of the word "paganism" in the context above. Clearly you aren't using an academic context.

    Their beliefs were incorporated into Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity (the solar religions).
    There is no conclusive evidence that either of these modern superstitions included ancient Egyptian superstitions in their own dogmas and doctrines. We can speculate and show some interesting correlations, but there is little direct evidence that significantly links either. More likely, Egyptian, Near Eastern, and Far Eastern cults were probably influenced by older, pre-historic (i.e. prior to the advent of writing) cults centered in the Near East or Indus Valley. Possibly even the Arabo-Persian Gulf, which was a lacustrine valley between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago.

    This was the true start of the modern age.
    Why? What evidence is there for that? Define "modern age." How does this correlate with Robert Bellah's "axial age" hypothesis of religion and society?

    Just saying its so doesn't make it that way.

    Religion was inspired by the full flowering of the conscious mind.
    It's a reasonable hypothesis, however, there's no good reason to suggest that human consciousness is anything less that 150,000 years old. Indeed, there is good evidence that cognitive function began among early hominids following the Plio-Pleistocene at around 2 - 1.7 Ma (depending on how you delineate the boundary).

    You simply cannot deny that we owe a great deal to religion
    From what passage of mine do you infer this denial? Where does this sort of irrelevant comment come from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    The adult human brain is about 1130 cc in women and about 1260 cc in men. The earliest Homo sapiens fossils had similar brain size, and our species has been around for about 200,000 years, give or take a few millennia.

    Homo erectus, which preceded humanity, had a brain size of about one litre. However, some individuals had brain capacity as high as modern man. These guys lived 1 to 2 million years ago.

    Based on this, it seems likely that the ability to think goes way back before the present, and to set the awakening of the human mind at any time measured in a few thousand years is patently absurd. My own feeling is that Homo erectus was probably smart enough to come up with religious superstitions, which makes religion more than a million years old.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    There is no conclusive evidence that either of these modern superstitions included ancient Egyptian superstitions in their own dogmas and doctrines. We can speculate and show some interesting correlations, but there is little direct evidence that significantly links either. More likely, Egyptian, Near Eastern, and Far Eastern cults were probably influenced by older, pre-historic (i.e. prior to the advent of writing) cults centered in the Near East or Indus Valley. Possibly even the Arabo-Persian Gulf, which was a lacustrine valley between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago.
    Please refer to the scholarly study made by Gerald Massey in volume 2 of 'Ancient Egypt Light of the World'.
    I'm afraid you simply cannot rule out the 'hand of a creator' in the construction of the universe, and any interference by a 'creator' in the history of the world.
    "Why is there something rather than nothing?" asked Leibniz 300 years ago, and we still don't know. Science attempts to answer 'why' questions with 'how' answers. Even Hawking has admitted that we will probably never know 'why'.
    I'm not defending the beliefs of some people who think that the whole of history is condensed into the last 6000 years. I'm guarding against scientific hubris.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    There is no conclusive evidence that either of these modern superstitions included ancient Egyptian superstitions in their own dogmas and doctrines. We can speculate and show some interesting correlations, but there is little direct evidence that significantly links either. More likely, Egyptian, Near Eastern, and Far Eastern cults were probably influenced by older, pre-historic (i.e. prior to the advent of writing) cults centered in the Near East or Indus Valley. Possibly even the Arabo-Persian Gulf, which was a lacustrine valley between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago.
    Please refer to the scholarly study made by Gerald Massey in volume 2 of 'Ancient Egypt Light of the World'.
    I'm afraid you simply cannot rule out the 'hand of a creator' in the construction of the universe, and any interference by a 'creator' in the history of the world.
    "Why is there something rather than nothing?" asked Leibniz 300 years ago, and we still don't know. Science attempts to answer 'why' questions with 'how' answers. Even Hawking has admitted that we will probably never know 'why'.
    I'm not defending the beliefs of some people who think that the whole of history is condensed into the last 6000 years. I'm guarding against scientific hubris.
    Absolutely.

    Here's a question - why are some people so hell bent on certainty, so hell bent on dismissing beliefs like it's a mission ? What does it mean to them ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    "Why is there something rather than nothing?" asked Leibniz 300 years ago, and we still don't know. Science attempts to answer 'why' questions with 'how' answers. Even Hawking has admitted that we will probably never know 'why'.
    In our bodies many things are happening that we don't know about. Chemical reactions, physical reactions ... lot's of stuff - it's in me and I don't know what's happening - I ate some pork last night and now it's part of my body - I didn't control that process or really know about it. So if I know so little about what's going on in me, why should I be able to know the history of the planet or the mysteries of the universe ? (wrong forum ?!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    I'm afraid you simply cannot rule out the 'hand of a creator' in the construction of the universe, and any interference by a 'creator' in the history of the world.
    Nor can we rule out that a unicorn fart caused the universe to begin. Nor can we rule out that an 8-armed magical spider spun her web and that turned into the universe that we know today. Nor can we rule out that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Neptune which we simply cannot see.

    If that's all you've got, then you've got nothing.

    All of those ideas are so inescapably improbable that they can be safely dismissed and ignored. Your "god did it" idea falls into the same boat. It's crap, and based entirely on wish thinking. Your desire and want for the god idea to be right is so powerful that it overwhelms your connection with logic and reality, and it blinds you to the fact that all of this CAN be explained without invoking your magical sky pixie or celestial dictator.


    By example, I can't rule out that my dog is a space alien... nor can you, but let's say that I believe my dog is a space alien because of some book that was written in the desert by barely literate tribal peoples during the bronze age. Would you be convinced that my dog is a space alien just because I said so? Just because it was written in a 2000 year old book? Further, would it really help my argument at all if... when you told me that you thought I was full of shit... if I just told you that you cannot rule it out? Seriously... give us a break, will ya?



    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    "Why is there something rather than nothing?" asked Leibniz 300 years ago, and we still don't know.
    There is something instead of nothing because there has to be.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...940&highlight=
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Nor can we rule out that a unicorn fart caused the universe to begin.

    All of those ideas are so inescapably improbable that they can be safely dismissed and ignored. Your "god did it" idea falls into the same boat. It's crap, and based entirely on wish thinking. Your desire and want for the god idea to be right is so powerful that it overwhelms your connection with logic and reality, and it blinds you to the fact that all of this CAN be explained without invoking your magical sky pixie or celestial dictator.
    Starting out on your quest for knowledge by 'dismissing' certain ideas because you don't like them - it's not a good start. Especially when some part of you knows they can't be dismissed ("Nor can we rule out ...").

    You arguments for dismissing them (a) it's based on wish thinking (b) a want for the god idea ... are dismissing the cause of the claims rather than the claims.

    This is as open minded as an evangelical priest. Science's claim to fame is to be fundamentally different by being undogmatic ... be that and let's discuss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    20
    What empirical evidence is there that definitely points towards a "higher power"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Please refer to the scholarly study made by Gerald Massey in volume 2 of 'Ancient Egypt Light of the World'.
    Why? Please cite the relevant pages and why they're relevant to your claims.

    I'm afraid you simply cannot rule out the 'hand of a creator' in the construction of the universe, and any interference by a 'creator' in the history of the world.
    Where have I ruled this out? I simply see no reason to give such a speculation credence. There's no good reason for superstitious thought nor is it productive.

    You still haven't defined "religion" or "pagan."

    Nor have you elucidated your, apparently unfounded, beliefs that religion begins 6000 years ago.

    Of what use is discourse if you simply make claims to which you support with additional claims without creating set of logical premises for the claims? Perhaps your claims are correct but, to date, there are no good reasons to accept them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Nor can we rule out that a unicorn fart caused the universe to begin.

    All of those ideas are so inescapably improbable that they can be safely dismissed and ignored. Your "god did it" idea falls into the same boat. It's crap, and based entirely on wish thinking. Your desire and want for the god idea to be right is so powerful that it overwhelms your connection with logic and reality, and it blinds you to the fact that all of this CAN be explained without invoking your magical sky pixie or celestial dictator.
    Starting out on your quest for knowledge by 'dismissing' certain ideas because you don't like them - it's not a good start. Especially when some part of you knows they can't be dismissed ("Nor can we rule out ...").

    You arguments for dismissing them (a) it's based on wish thinking (b) a want for the god idea ... are dismissing the cause of the claims rather than the claims.

    This is as open minded as an evangelical priest. Science's claim to fame is to be fundamentally different by being undogmatic ... be that and let's discuss.
    I think the quest for knowledge also involves the quest for truth. If the entire planet was focused on finding the truth, our question for knowledge would see us much further down the path.

    Imagine if everyone spent their resources on researching empirical science rather than *wink*science*wink*. Now imagine if we lived in a world where the champions of empirical science, i.e. truth, didn't have to reverse the effects of religious propaganda to convince government agencies to give grants, prevent brilliant young minds from being corrupted or to fight to allow real science to be taught in schools.

    The good thing about the fight between science and religion, is that religion has been retreating steadily. Some persons try to argue there are "proofs" to the existence of god, but we're very close to establishing that the only leg left for them to stand on is "faith."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Nor can we rule out that a unicorn fart caused the universe to begin. Nor can we rule out that an 8-armed magical spider spun her web and that turned into the universe that we know today. Nor can we rule out that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Neptune which we simply cannot see.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Hoyle, cosmologist
    It is a curious fact that while most scientists claim to eschew religion it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Weinberg, cosmologist
    Science does not make it impossible to believe in God. It just makes it possible to not believe in God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Ramsey, mathematician
    The stars may be large, but they cannot think or love, and these are qualities that impress me more than size does.
    50% of scientists today believe in some form of personal God, according to a recent poll, and if you believe in God it is most likely that you believe in a creator.
    However science is not religion, just as religion is not science. They are in separate domains.
    I'm sorry that I cannot prove that God or any 'creator' exists, but I do know that if you go to church, swallow some pride and open you heart to it, you might be pleasantly surprised, and that is your personal 'proof'.
    As for science, just tell me what I'm supposed to believe:
    Quantum theory or General Relativity: They can't both be right as the equations don't fit inside each other.
    Big Bang or Steady State: We can't say for absolute certain that BB is true because we can't explain what happened before it.
    Evolution: Is it by species based punctuated equlibrium, or gene based constant evolution?
    And so on and so forth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Flintstone
    Yabba-dabba do.
    I still have some questions for you that have gone un-answered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Paganism, as I understand, is a belief in the living attributes of what we now know to be inanimate matter, such as the sun, moon and stars. Religion, as I understand, is a belief in an unseen, but all knowing divinity. The Romans, for example, switched from a pagan belief to Christianity in 4th century CE. There is evidence that pagan beliefs were interpolated into the Bible, and for that you really will have to read the works of Gerald Massey and Thomas Doane, as they go into considerable depth. I cannot prove that organised religion started 6000 years ago, but neither can anybody prove otherwise. You can infer that it did according to the antiquity of religious art and scripture. It is a matter of opinion which was the earliest organised religion. I understand from reading Massey and others that it was found in ancient Egypt, when the Nile Valley was settled, or a civilisation 'placed there' if you believe Churchward. I will try and look up this reference if you want, even though not everybody would think that he is a reliable author.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    God is outside the remit of science, but then so is the universe, since what is there to measure the universe against, except itself? Where are the other universes with which to compare ours? It is always in the process of being redefined. There is always a newer enlarged idea of the universe to which the older, smaller one can be compared. No doubt the LHC will once again throw up more questions than answers. Does God exist only for those who believe? I would say yes, but then I think we all believe subconsciously in God. My definition of an atheist would be someone who rebels against their own subconscious mind, because they have read something in science to make them doubt. You can have family and friends (a thousand on Facebook if you are deluded enough), but I believe in only 2 entities - you as a lost soul, and God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Paganism, as I understand, is a belief in the living attributes of what we now know to be inanimate matter, such as the sun, moon and stars. Religion, as I understand, is a belief in an unseen, but all knowing divinity.
    Okay. At least it is as I thought: you consider 'paganism' to be reverence of gods other than yours. This is a typically bigoted view that many religionists, be they Christians, Muslims, Hindu, etc. take. Particularly among the more devout of these superstitions.

    There is evidence that pagan beliefs were interpolated into the Bible, and for that you really will have to read the works of Gerald Massey and Thomas Doane, as they go into considerable depth.
    The stack of texts waiting to be read by me is deep and there are priorities. Perhaps you could cite specific passages or page numbers that best make your case. As it is, you're making a broad sweeping claim, relying on the writings of two Victorian authors, the hypotheses of at least one of which (Massey) has been largely discredited.

    I cannot prove that organised religion started 6000 years ago, but neither can anybody prove otherwise.
    This will depend upon what you define as both 'organized religion' and 'proved.' I can certainly demonstrate that organized religion existed at least 10,000 years ago and may have been the trigger for the rise of agriculture as a mode of production in at least one Anatolian culture. I can show the existence of organized religion in another Anatolian culture at nearly the same period. I can demonstrate organized religion at several scattered cultures around the Levant at over 9,000 years ago. Are you sure you want to have this discussion in this fashion. For if your definition of religion is such that these cultures cannot fit it, then you aren't participating in any discourse that is worth our time and your unique perspective on reality isn't in line with that of academia.

    I understand from reading Massey and others that it was found in ancient Egypt, when the Nile Valley was settled, or a civilisation 'placed there' if you believe Churchward.
    Churchward was a crackpot or, at the very least, a charlatan in search of fame at the expense of academic integrity and willing to forge documents and epigraphy in order to further this agenda. Why would anyone wish to believe he would legitimately point you to the loo if you were in need?
    God is outside the remit of science, but then so is the universe, since what is there to measure the universe against, except itself?
    I'm not sure what the word "remit" means in this context. Perhaps you're saying that a god (yours, of course, and not those 'fake,' inanimate gods of others) cannot be defined or studied by science. This is the typical sort of mumbo-jumbo repeated time and again by those who argue their beliefs from ignorance (goddidit, after all) when faced with the unexplainable. Yet it is furthest from reality as any delusion can find itself.

    if there is a god in the universe that has any ability to affect that universe in any positive way, then that god is within the realm of science. We can measure and test the effects of this god were it to truly exist. If we were not, then it would not only not exist in reality, it would not have any ability to affect reality and, thus, not really exist. So, by defining god as "outside the remit of science," you are, in essence, saying your god doesn't exist.

    I, therefore, agree that this is probably the case.

    My definition of an atheist would be someone who rebels against their own subconscious mind, because they have read something in science to make them doubt.
    It seems clear, then, that you're willing to make up whatever definitions suit your opinion of reality, regardless of what really is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Paganism, as I understand, is a belief in the living attributes of what we now know to be inanimate matter, such as the sun, moon and stars. Religion, as I understand, is a belief in an unseen, but all knowing divinity.
    Okay. At least it is as I thought: you consider 'paganism' to be reverence of gods other than yours. This is a typically bigoted view that many religionists, be they Christians, Muslims, Hindu, etc. take. Particularly among the more devout of these superstitions.
    Yes, paganism is linked with 'gods'. Christianity and Islam recognise only one God. Hinduism has something like 3 million aspects of the one God, Brahma.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    There is evidence that pagan beliefs were interpolated into the Bible, and for that you really will have to read the works of Gerald Massey and Thomas Doane, as they go into considerable depth.
    The stack of texts waiting to be read by me is deep and there are priorities. Perhaps you could cite specific passages or page numbers that best make your case. As it is, you're making a broad sweeping claim, relying on the writings of two Victorian authors, the hypotheses of at least one of which (Massey) has been largely discredited.
    Please refer to my post on Christianity as a solar myth.
    I'll pick up on your other points later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    I forgot this one: The wheel was invented in Mesopotamia 6000 years ago. I checked it on Wiki, but argue if you wish. This is more evidence for the fantastic biblical hypothesis that the world really was created 6000 years ago. Okay, so the earth is 4.6 bn years old, but the 'world' as far as the fully conscious human mind is concerned can be dated to 6000 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    I forgot this one: The wheel was invented in Mesopotamia 6000 years ago. I checked it on Wiki, but argue if you wish. This is more evidence for the fantastic biblical hypothesis that the world really was created 6000 years ago. Okay, so the earth is 4.6 bn years old, but the 'world' as far as the fully conscious human mind is concerned can be dated to 6000 years ago.
    The manufacture of tools for hunting and food processing, the mastering of fire and rock art by humans and even some non-humans LONG before 6000 years ago don't count somehow?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    I forgot this one: The wheel was invented in Mesopotamia 6000 years ago. I checked it on Wiki, but argue if you wish. This is more evidence for the fantastic biblical hypothesis that the world really was created 6000 years ago. Okay, so the earth is 4.6 bn years old, but the 'world' as far as the fully conscious human mind is concerned can be dated to 6000 years ago.
    .

    The "invention of the wheel" has not been shown to be necessary or sufficient for the "world to be created" containing "fully conscious" Homo or not. There is sufficient evidence to refute this claim to the point at which it can be called, politely as possible, bullshit.

    Define "fully conscious." This is clearly a nonsense term and a construct you invented that isn't related to the cognitive ability of members of the genus Homo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Please refer to the works of Carl Jung when it comes to the full flowering of the conscious mind over the subconscious. (especially MDR). When it comes to rock paintings predating the fully conscious era, then think of monkey or elephant art today. No one would think these animals to be fully conscious like humans, and yet some of their 'art' even sells. Man stumbled into full consciousness about 6000 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Please refer to the works of Carl Jung ....
    Please recognise that the works of Carl Jung have not received serious consideration, other than as a historical oddity, for more than half a century.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Please refer to the works of Carl Jung when it comes to the full flowering of the conscious mind over the subconscious. (especially MDR). When it comes to rock paintings predating the fully conscious era, then think of monkey or elephant art today. No one would think these animals to be fully conscious like humans, and yet some of their 'art' even sells. Man stumbled into full consciousness about 6000 years ago.
    So, in other words, you rely on the largely discredited and laughed at works of Victorian authors and academics to support your largely discredited and laughed at fantasy of human consciousness? I say this because you've generated not a single supportable hypothesis or view and, when pinned down to provide true answers, you say things like "please refer to the works of [insert 19th century author which no one considers an authority or relevant]."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    This is getting deep, because we are starting to talk about the nature of reality. Not all of Jung's ideas are discredited, although the fact that some some have gone out of fashion, doesn't mean they are entirely untrue. He made a big contribution to psychoanalysis. Don't you think in 50 years time the scientists will be laughing their socks off about, say, string theory? If you believe in what today's science says you have no hope, because you will believe that we are nothing more than robots for our genes, living helplessly on spaceship earth, and within a universe which must die. The evolution of human consciousness is best avoided by science until it can come up with a proper theory itself. Francis Crick wrote a book on this called The Fantastic Hypothesis. Others have tried, such as Dennett, with Consciousness Explained, but still nothing convincing. I think consciousness is subject to evolution from unconsciousness. So just like the Cambrian Explosion, the consciousness explosion took place about 6000 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    171
    Others have already asked this but what do you define as "fully conscious"?

    Consciousness is an idea, not a state of the mind. Animals are conscious they exist, we are conscious we exist, we are conscious that the Earth exists. Are we truly more conscious than our ancestors 10,000 years ago? If you said yes, than why are we more conscious? What makes us more conscious than they were? The fact that we can do mathematics? Debate issues like these with each other? What makes us more conscious?

    You said it yourself Ox, "Don't you think in 50 years time the scientists will be laughing their socks off about, say, string theory?"

    Does that mean they will be more conscious than we are now? If that's so than we must not be "fully conscious" yet, because a "fully conscious" mind, would not be able to become more conscious.

    The fact is you cannot pin down a point in time or a period in time and say "This is when consciousness occurred." That is an unprovable, untestable statement.
    If you believe in what today's science says you have no hope, because you will believe that we are nothing more than robots for our genes, living helplessly on spaceship earth, and within a universe which must die
    Sounds reasonable to me.

    Biologically our purpose is to pass our genes on to the next generation.
    Go ahead and try to leave Earth, see how well you survive, and how far you get.
    One way or another everything dies, why wouldn't the universe be subject to that rule?
    Always minimize the variables.

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Alright, the flaunting of the word 'conscious' is getting annoying. It has no real meaning in the context you are trying to use it nor any prevalence to the matter at hand. Humans didn't 'all of a sudden' become aware of their surroundings. AFAIK (and skin can definitely correct me if I'm wrong) the human brain hasn't changed much in the last 10,000 years, and there certainly wasn't a point where it suddenly shifted to allow "higher thought" which is, I'm sure, a better term for what you are trying to push than "fully conscious"...

    Regardless of whether or not Carl Jung is right or wrong, his field was not biology; it was psychology, and more specifically specialized in psychoanalysis, essentially a field dedicated to understanding the human mind. If you'd like to make claims of the past, consult an archeologist or anthropologist. They specialize in the field of attempting to understand humans of the past, and in that respect are authorities on the subject. A psychiatrist is FAR from an authority on the minds of humans 6000 years ago and how developed they were.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Crick's book was actually The Astonishing Hypothesis and its a very good read. His perspectives are certainly further along than any of the 19th century academics mentioned so far.

    And, like A_M pointed out, "consciousness" in the context you're using is meaningless. Rather than define what you mean by "fully conscious," you make very vague and non-specific references to Jung.

    Define "fully conscious" in your own words.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Okay, I got the name of the book slightly wrong. I have a copy of it which I bought 3 months ago, and I have yet to fully read it. My understanding of how you determine full consciousness is roughly the ability to recognise yourself in a mirror. Collectively, it would be the forming of nations from disparate tribes, and the organisation of society within the nation, although I guess there are still some rainforest and nomadic tribes who might be an exception. There could be a further 'Cambrian Explosion' of consciousness still to happen, but I don't have a crystal ball.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    My understanding of how you determine full consciousness is roughly the ability to recognise yourself in a mirror.
    My Labrador Retriever recognizes herself in a mirror.

    Collectively, it would be the forming of nations from disparate tribes, and the organisation of society within the nation, although I guess there are still some rainforest and nomadic tribes who might be an exception.
    Why? Why can't a small egalitarian group be considered fully conscious? This make no rational sense and no one of academic standing would embrace such a description outside of, perhaps, a few Victorian age thinkers. Indeed, this sort of definition borders on ethnocentrism and Western bias and prejudice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    What are humans (and other 'life') in the first place? My definition would be apparitions within genetic animal space. Our bodies are composed of atoms, as is inanimate matter, but those atoms are 99.9999999999999% empty space. Individuals like us flicker in and out of existence within our life/death time frame. Only genes have any claim to immortality. The person who just passed by you in the street is now an apparition. Plants have the appearance of being fixed in space, but they too have their own l-d time frame. We are fooled into believing that things are real by the virtual reality generator in our brain. So being fully conscious is having the v/r generator turned on, and obviously this happens at a point in time. Or do you think that when man first evolved he was fully conscious then? I would say that he was living on instinct within the boundary of his subconscious mind. I think it must be generally true to say that the lower the animal, the greater the instinct. Look at a migrating bird and how it flies thousands of miles, just to breed, and ends up in the exact same spot as last year. Satnav isn't even as accurate as that. And yet we have become fully conscious beings who are able to recognise our true place in the cosmos. We are just like space travellers who have arrived on a planet to find a paradise of kind sunshine and sustenance. All that within the last 6000 years, when agriculture, industry, religion,
    art, literature and science have flourished. There has never been a better time to have lived than now. In answer to the question I think Skinwalker alluded to: are all people fully conscious? I'm not sure about this one. I remember walking the streets in Alice Springs, where aboriginees were strolling by in some sort of dream state, and not seemingly recognising other passers-by. Alan Moorehead, in his book, describes a similar thing, when the first explorers arrived in Oz. They completely ignored the new arrivals as if they weren't there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    My understanding of how you determine full consciousness is roughly the ability to recognise yourself in a mirror.
    My Labrador Retriever recognizes herself in a mirror.
    Highly unlikely Skin. Dogs have not passed the mirror test in the past, so if yours has genuinely done so she is unique among canines. Magpies, pigs and several primates have passed, which bears out the nonsense of ox's claim that human's only became conscious six thousand years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    All that within the last 6000 years, when agriculture, industry, religion,
    art, literature and science have flourished.
    Agriculture predates 6000 years ago by a few thousand years. Art predates that by a few tens of thousands of years and given the likely significance of that art religion predates by a similar amount. Industry, in the form of sophisticated tool manufacture and use, predates the species.

    Quit while you are only behind.

    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    are all people fully conscious? I'm not sure about this one. I remember walking the streets in Alice Springs, where aboriginees were strolling by in some sort of dream state, and not seemingly recognising other passers-by.
    Seems to me like they were on a higher plane of consciousness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    My understanding of how you determine full consciousness is roughly the ability to recognise yourself in a mirror.
    My Labrador Retriever recognizes herself in a mirror.
    Highly unlikely Skin. Dogs have not passed the mirror test in the past, so if yours has genuinely done so she is unique among canines.
    Ha! She is indeed unique among canines! But I base my mirror test on the fact that, when presented with a mirror, she does not react to the dog in the reflection with any apprehension or even curiosity. If my daughter attempts to take her toy and she sees the action in the mirror, she reacts appropriately by turning left or right to the toy rather than reacting to her reflection. When she's presented with images of other dogs, even those that are her same breed, on television (she likes to watch that Brit show where the lady teaches people to be better pet owners), she reacts like you might expect: running to the television, wagging her tale, vocalizing her interest, anxiety, and desire to play. This is not done with her image in a mirror.

    I remember reading some of the recognition studies regarding animals and the recognition of self in mirror images (particularly primate) and I think I remember, then, thinking that there was a flaw in that they seemed to anthropomorphize the behavior of the animal. We cannot project human expectations of self-recognition on other species (or even primate expectations) since they've long since taken a different evolutionary path and our LCA is temporally further removed. It follows that the cognitive functions of canines could be different enough, derived enough, that we miss something.

    My Lab clearly doesn't think the mirror image is another dog. She's clearly capable of recognizing a two-dimensional image of a dog as canine (or feline for that matter!). I'd say its very likely that she recognizes her self in the mirror but, the difference between Canidae and Hominidae behavior could be psychological. Hominidae show more recognition of self in a mirror reflection because they are more psychologically affected by cognitive images of self and need to place the reflected image in one of these ontological categories. Dogs aren't afflicted that way and just accept their image without condition or concern.

    Okay... I'm rambling a bit. But at least I'm making more sense than our friend with the two-letter nom de forum. And I'm very willing to revise my opinion based on evidence or data. My observations are casual and slightly educated at best as well as personal opinions. I'm probably wrong and, if those better educated in the cognitive sciences have concluded dogs don't recognize themselves in mirrors, then they've surely considered the points I've raised. I need only review their works (works conducted by those who weren't alive during Victoria's reign!) and correct myself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Agriculture predates 6000 years ago by a few thousand years. Art predates that by a few tens of thousands of years and given the likely significance of that art religion predates by a similar amount. Industry, in the form of sophisticated tool manufacture and use, predates the species.
    Quit while you are only behind.
    You appear to be cherry-picking my last post. I am not suggesting that primitive man in a semi-conscious state is not capable of agriculture, as instinct plays a role.
    I would conjecture that:
    a fish is subconscious (Jung argued this).
    a bird is subconscious, and can have a powerful instinct.
    a chimpanzee is semi-conscious, and is able to make tools.
    Primitive man was semi-conscious, and able to make tools and draw primitive art.
    Modern man is fully conscious, and able to read, write, calculate and make complex structures.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    are all people fully conscious? I'm not sure about this one. I remember walking the streets in Alice Springs, where aboriginees were strolling by in some sort of dream state, and not seemingly recognising other passers-by.
    Seems to me like they were on a higher plane of consciousness.
    What do you mean by that? Unless it is the ability not to work, but accept benefits and spend them on beer. Having said that, I think the aboriginees are mostly fine people, who have good art and values. However, watching one in Sydney standing in the middle of the road while oblivious to the traffic suggests to me that some still might still be semi-conscious, which I think proves my point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Skin,
    I hear your anecdotal observations. They sound interesting. However, I'll continue to go with the current consensus based upon proper laboratory (rather than Labradory :wink: ) studies.

    I do note that their have been questions over whether it was a fair test for dogs who rely far more on smell than sight in comparison with humans. It remains an interesting area of study. Some of the great breakthroughs in primate research started with Jane Goodall precisely because she did anthropomorphise her subjects.

    Ox,
    I was poking fun at you. You have decide the aborigine who seems oblivious to his surroundings must be semi-conscious, yet you don't seem to realise that he may have been focused on different, 'higher', aspects of his environment. You were coming from a truly prejudiced position.

    As a case in point I am often at my most alert mentally (in the groove, in the moment, call it what you will) when I am all but oblivious to my environment. If you saw me at such times I am sure you would mistake me for an aborigine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Ox:

    I am far less genial about this whole thing.

    some still might still be semi-conscious, which I think proves my point.
    You appear to me to be proving your own point rather.

    I have to say that this train of thought of yours is one of the most astoundingly absurd I have read in a while. You seem clearly to be grasping at straws from where ever you imagine them poking out in an effort to give credence to your preconceived conclusion that consciousness must have started 6000 years ago with God's breath, because the wealth of relative scientific knowledge says that the world is older than 6000 years. You are hopelessly trying to fit science to your baseless beliefs.

    Modern man is fully conscious, and able to read, write, calculate and make complex structures.
    Those things had to be invented first. Isn't that glaringly obvious to you? Are you saying that anyone who can't do these things are not fully conscious?

    I can't for the life of me understand how you can separate the mental processes that these things spring from primitive man, which include most of the Homo genus. You are basically using the ideas of a guy you found who appear to your preconceived ones, irrespective if they have any kind of support in modern circles. That is pretty shameless of you if I may say so.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    My Labrador Retriever recognizes herself in a mirror.
    Labs are pretty smart.

    A very good mirror test involves marking the animal in such a way that it will react to the mark, yet only see the mark through mirror. For example a smudge of blue paint on a chimp's forehead.

    I'd try a bit of red fingerpaint on the dog's paw to confirm that she'll groom it off when noticed. If true, then try a bit above the eyes, and present the reflection. EDIT: I realize a dog is ill equipped to groom its own head, but I guess the lab would do something...maybe...?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I have to say that this train of thought of yours is one of the most astoundingly absurd I have read in a while. You seem clearly to be grasping at straws from where ever you imagine them poking out in an effort to give credence to your preconceived conclusion that consciousness must have started 6000 years ago with God's breath, because the wealth of relative scientific knowledge says that the world is older than 6000 years. You are hopelessly trying to fit science to your baseless beliefs.
    All I am saying is out of man's 2 million year history, some quantum leap has happened in the last 6000 years, and this tallies with the supposed age of the earth as debated by some Christians, Jews and Muslims. I was shocked by a Muslim friend saying to me that in the mosque he was taught that the earth is flat, the centre of the universe, and only 6000 years old. I mean, does science count for nothing among these people? Only 100 years ago, you might have believed it too. Nevertheless, I don't completely disrepect their views. If you believe only in science I think you end up being humiliated and depressed. Someone said that astronomy is the science of increasing humiliation, as it pinpoints man's insignificance. Someone else said that we are merely survival machines for our genes, and so on. I guess we need to evolve further before all false ideas eventually go away. One way would be if the brain evolves to multitask thinking. Consider the evolution of our primate cousins in the last 6000 years compared with ours. So that's why I consider this topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    [quote="ox"]
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Consider the evolution of our primate cousins in the last 6000 years compared with ours. So that's why I consider this topic.
    You seem to be confusing rapid cultural evolution, a visible expression of homo sapiens phenotype, with evolution of our genotype. It is a massive error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You seem to be confusing rapid cultural evolution, a visible expression of homo sapiens phenotype, with evolution of our genotype. It is a massive error.
    Okay, but why did man's phenotype take so long to develop? I'm not so sure that you can compare a human's phenotype with an animal's anyway. Why has it all happened for man in the last 6000 years out of 2 million, rather than in a previous interglacial period?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You seem to be confusing rapid cultural evolution, a visible expression of homo sapiens phenotype, with evolution of our genotype. It is a massive error.
    Okay, but why did man's phenotype take so long to develop? I'm not so sure that you can compare a human's phenotype with an animal's anyway. Why has it all happened for man in the last 6000 years out of 2 million, rather than in a previous interglacial period?
    Dunno where you're getting your 'information' from.

    1. All current studies quite clearly show that civilisation (in the form of agriculture and human settlements (instead of wandering bands), started around 12,000 years ago.

    2. All the evidence from skeletons etc, shows no phenotypal changes for around 40,000 years.

    If you are harping upon 6,000 years because you'd like the Bible to be 'true', then you're making the capital error (as Holmes pointed out) of trying to make the facts fit the theory, rather than the other way around.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    You have to also factor in the means and mode of cultural diffusion. If you start a fad in today's society, it doesn't take long for it to either catch on or be ridiculed (sometimes the latter becomes the meme). Take for instance the "all your base belong to me" phrase that was popular a few years ago or even the iPod. These cultural memes that spread rather quickly around the globe.

    When we look at the question of how these memes traveled so fast, we our forced to consider modern technologies (memes in themselves) as means and modes of diffusion: telephone, television, air travel, overnight shipping, worldwide markets, etc.

    6000 to 9000 years ago, the world was a vastly different place. Not only did these technological memes not exist but their modes didn't exist. The number of people that populated the world at during the Last Glacial Maximum was less than 1 million. Once the glaciers retreated, conditions became wetter and warmer and people were forced into migration by rising sea levels (the Black Sea and Persian Gulf were inundated, the land bridge to Britain submerged), demographic modes changed, and subsistence strategies experienced climatic and geologic forcing. Populations began to increase exponentially: to about 5 million individuals by 8,000 BCE then about 15 million by 5,000 BCE.

    The distance between populations closed, trade and interactions increased. We know this to be the case because of exotic materials found in archaeological sites that date to as far back as 150,000 years. As populations increase, the amount of exotic materials increase, trade increases. There are also strontium isotope studies which corroborate movements between geographic regions and MtDNA / nuclear DNA studies which both show evidence of migration and movement between populations -all at around this same period.

    What would be surprising is if there weren't also marked changes in cultural innovation.

    There wasn't a true "emergence of consciousness" 6000 years ago, but I can accept a metaphorical one as long as one keeps in mind that "consciousness" is only a trope and the actual, underlying mechanisms are far more complex than man simply "woke up" as a conscious being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    By the way, anatomically modern humans, with all the modern phenotypes that can be found in skeletal remains, are present in the archaeological record as far back as 150,000 years if not more.

    Indeed, some (Milford Wolpoff, Alan Thorne, et al) would argue that Homo sapiens and H. erectus are a contiguous, continuous species and that the morphological characters present in H. erectus are early versions of characters and traits that are still present in the genetic continuity of various geographic regions.

    If Milford is right, then this would make H. sapiens a hominid species that dates back to about 2 million years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Then what about the Participatory Anthropic Principle? There reaches a point in evolution when full consciousness is actually required for our universe itself to exist. This separates us from the multiverse, until possibly we further evolve to realise multitask thought. Full consciousness can be thought of as the true Creation. That is why it still resonates today. Nearly all that went before is prehistory. However, I don't subscribe to the nut religions which believe that the physical world, as well as the mental is only 6000 years old.
    Consider the oldest books. The Precepts of Ptah-hotep and the Epic of Gilgamesh are about 4000 years old. Of the oldest written languages, Sumerian and Sanskrit are about 5000 years old. The oldest organised religion is Hinduism, also at about 5000 years old. Well within the 6000 years time frame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Consider the oldest books. The Precepts of Ptah-hotep and the Epic of Gilgamesh are about 4000 years old. Of the oldest written languages, Sumerian and Sanskrit are about 5000 years old. The oldest organised religion is Hinduism, also at about 5000 years old. Well within the 6000 years time frame.
    But all you have here is the age of human writing. It really says nothing about human consciousness unless you posit the notion that in the America humans did not become conscious until 2,000 years ago and in many parts of the world, not until about 500 years ago.

    Writing is a human invention, like the wheel and, to a certain extent, fire. Each invention appeared at a different time, and even at different times amongst different human diaspora.

    The one thing of which we can be certain is that language (verbal - indicating consciousness) must have predated writing by a long, long time. Only with language could groups of humans have co-operated enough to build civilisations, and civilisations there were - long before your 6,000 year deadline. The people who built Jericho, some 7,500 years or more ago, would be rather miffed by your notion that they were somehow not conscious.

    The Participatory Anthropic Principle, in this particular part of the discussion, is a red herring - yet another notion thrown in before thrashing out the empirical problems with your claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Then what about the Participatory Anthropic Principle? There reaches a point in evolution when full consciousness is actually required for our universe itself to exist.
    Let us assume that this Principle is true. (A majority of cosmologists, physicists and philosophers would not accept this.) What makes you think it was our consciousness that achieved this? Why do you think we were the first consciousness to arise in the Universe?

    You continue to associate the emergence of certain important aspects of civilisation (e.g. writing, agriculture) with the emergence of consciousness yet you offer zero evidence to support this association.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    The people who built Jericho, some 7,500 years or more ago, would be rather miffed by your notion that they were somehow not conscious.
    I doubt if Jericho looked much like a city then. I mean, does a caddis fly need to be fully conscious in order to build a house?
    Further to this argument I would like to mention Andrew Parker's book 'The Genesis Enigma' (2009). Just as the Bible suggests the creation of human consciousness 6000 years ago, it is uncannily accurate when it comes to the creation of the world, and the subsequent evolution of life.
    A very brief summary with reference to King James version (1613).
    1. God said let there be light. (The sun formed 5 bn years ago).
    2. Let waters under heaven be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear. (Formation of seas and separation of land areas, 4.2bn years ago).
    3. Let earth bring forth vegetation. (Beginning of plant life 3.9bn years ago).
    4. Let there be lights...to divide day from night. (First image forming eye evolved and the visual information used, 521 mn years ago - ie. the 'lights' are the eyes).
    5. Let waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life. (Evolution's big bang, the Cambrian Explosion, 520 mn years ago, was the direct result of the evolution of vision).
    6. God created the great whales, and every living creature that moved. (Life was exclusively marine at this time. The period when all animal phyla that exist today evolved their characteristic forms).
    7. And every winged fowl after his hand. (All animals adapted to the vision of predators except birds which could afford not to, because they can escape predation through flight and so generally can avoid camouflage colours ie. sea creatures and birds are singled out).
    Interesting, n'est pas?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Then what about the Participatory Anthropic Principle? There reaches a point in evolution when full consciousness is actually required for our universe itself to exist.
    I see no reason to engage in discussions that are not based on reality and shall pass on this fanciful question.

    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    I doubt if Jericho looked much like a city then.
    It didn't. It looked, however, very much like a village. But one with many innovative architectural features. Çatalhöyük, on the other hand, looked very much like a city. Here's an artist's reconstruction based on archaeological discoveries:


    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    I mean, does a caddis fly need to be fully conscious in order to build a house?
    It does if it is using planning and forethought to overcome seasonal flooding with a low-lying wall and a cylindrical tower that acted as a silo to raise grain above the ground. This is during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic which began at about 9500 kya. They also became farmers, showing the forethought to plant and raise crops. In addition, prior to agriculture or, perhaps, at just around the time of its emergence there, the Natufian culture that existed at Jericho had a ritual practice of venerating an ancestor by removing the head of a deceased family member, plastering it and re-forming it to look like the ancestor. Indeed, these people actually prepared themselves for being an avatar of the ancestor by modifying the shape of their skulls as small children. The evidence for this is clear in the paleoanthropological record.

    The temple at Göbekli Tepe was created about 11,500 years ago and depicted animal figures in stunning detail on the stone monuments. In fact, the work was so intense (the planning and forethought goes without saying -obviously they were "conscious") that it is very likely that it sparked agriculture in the region as the caloric intake needed to feed the workforce would have exceeded the carrying capacity of the region if subsistence were simply hunting and gathering.

    So far, you've demonstrated not a single legitimate reason why people could not have been "fully conscious" even 150,000 years ago and have been presented with many very good reasons why it would be foolish to believe that they weren't at between 11,500 and 150,000 years ago.

    Do you still persist with the notion that can only be defined now as 'crackpot' that humans weren't "fully conscious" until 6000 years ago?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    3. Let earth bring forth vegetation. (Beginning of plant life 3.9bn years ago).
    4. Let there be lights...to divide day from night. (First image forming eye evolved and the visual information used, 521 mn years ago - ie. the 'lights' are the eyes).
    5. Let waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life. (Evolution's big bang, the Cambrian Explosion, 520 mn years ago, was the direct result of the evolution of vision).
    Clearly backwards, no, without your rather strained interpretation of the language?

    Here's the order:

    1. Light (the Sun came first, before the earth). It would be impossible to have plants without light. Not fair trying to re-interpret light as eyes - very strained and pointless.

    2. The oceans came forth with life before plants. All modern life, as far as we can tell, started in the oceans.

    3. Plants came last of these three, as they are not ocean-dwellers and generally need either dry land, or fresh-water, in which to live.

    And thanks Skinwalker, for the evidence on early human civilisations and their ability toplan towns, funerary rituals etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    There are marine species of green algae, so some plants can live in the oceans. They probably evolved around the same time as all the other single celled eukaryotes though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    los angeles
    Posts
    53
    You both are wrong, the earth is neither 6000 or 6 billion years old, they said the earth was 6000 years old in 1400, I rest my case, they say the earth is 3 billion in 1991, and then say the earth is really 6 billion a few years later, the truth is the earth is in its thousands, maybe around 50 or 60 thousand, when it comes to the millions of years they are usaully extremely wrong, the bible says the dinosaurs lived before the flood, and as for the so called creationists if there theory were true the pyramids would have been built near the creation time, and 500 years would be a lot longer than normal, these are equally foolish assumptions, the 6000 year thingy is crap, the shitt0est thing I've ever heard, they are both from extremists, one is catholic, the other is a theory all together, the theory of evolution, let's not make it more than that, it's just a theory, and the bible says jericho was a mighty city and had mighty walls, including the cities surrounding it, just a word to straighten things out, so there is no winner in this, just two people on opposite sides.
    the more science you know, the less crap you get.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    no... Through dating methods the Earth can be aged to be about 4 billion years old. it is not "in it's thousands" as you suggest. How did you come up with this fanciful idea that the earth is 50 or 60 thousand years old, anyway?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshuaCarter
    You both are wrong, the earth is neither 6000 or 6 billion years old, they said the earth was 6000 years old in 1400, I rest my case, they say the earth is 3 billion in 1991, and then say the earth is really 6 billion a few years later, the truth is the earth is in its thousands, maybe around 50 or 60 thousand, when it comes to the millions of years they are usaully extremely wrong, the bible says the dinosaurs lived before the flood, and as for the so called creationists if there theory were true the pyramids would have been built near the creation time, and 500 years would be a lot longer than normal, these are equally foolish assumptions, the 6000 year thingy is crap, the shitt0est thing I've ever heard, they are both from extremists, one is catholic, the other is a theory all together, the theory of evolution, let's not make it more than that, it's just a theory, and the bible says jericho was a mighty city and had mighty walls, including the cities surrounding it, just a word to straighten things out, so there is no winner in this, just two people on opposite sides.
    Are you planning to use the Bible as evdience? If so, of what could it be evidence except your own faith? Nothing in it is scientific evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshuaCarter
    You both are wrong, the earth is neither 6000 or 6 billion years old, they said the earth was 6000 years old in 1400, I rest my case, they say the earth is 3 billion in 1991, and then say the earth is really 6 billion a few years later, the truth is the earth is in its thousands, maybe around 50 or 60 thousand, when it comes to the millions of years they are usaully extremely wrong, the bible says the dinosaurs lived before the flood, and as for the so called creationists if there theory were true the pyramids would have been built near the creation time, and 500 years would be a lot longer than normal, these are equally foolish assumptions, the 6000 year thingy is crap, the shitt0est thing I've ever heard, they are both from extremists, one is catholic, the other is a theory all together, the theory of evolution, let's not make it more than that, it's just a theory, and the bible says jericho was a mighty city and had mighty walls, including the cities surrounding it, just a word to straighten things out, so there is no winner in this, just two people on opposite sides.
    When one thinks of the term 'fractally wrong', this paragraph should be linked to it.

    I know of no one who is stating the earth is 6 billion years old. The current estimates, which are supported by several lines of data, converge on about 4.6 billion years old.

    Estimates that put the planet in ages less than billions of years (eg. "50 or 60 thousand") are ill-informed and undereducated.

    With regard to "just a theory," clearly you're very ignorant and undereducated in biology and science in general. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as you're continuing to seek knowledge and accepting of an education. Evolution is hardly "just a theory" and, indeed, the word "theory" in the science holds considerably more weight that those who lack educations in science understand. To them "theory" is any half-baked thought (much like the paragraph above). I'll not spend additional space on this, but suffice to say you are completely and utterly incorrect in your assumptions regarding the fact of evolution, which clearly happened and is supported by a extremely large body of evidence and data from many disciplines of science which converge on a theory which explains it in the same way as germ theory, atomic theory, etc.

    With regard to Jericho, this is an example of how Christian mythology is also fractally wrong, as the description of Jericho is completely inaccurate. At the time biblical mythology claimed it was a "mighty city," Jericho was barely a village, it's low-lying wall (which was either for Livestock or flood control, not defense since it was only a couple feet high) had long-since crumbled from lack of maintenance.

    Thanks for commenting. If there are other topics to which you are poorly educated and wish some enlightenment, please don't hesitate to post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Do you still persist with the notion that can only be defined now as 'crackpot' that humans weren't "fully conscious" until 6000 years ago?
    Do you believe that evolution is smooth or punctuated? One of these is wrong and therefore 'crackpot'. I don't believe in an instant creation, and that's what Genesis says. It clearly implies, on page 1 that there was a progressive evolution, no matter which translation you read. A 'day' in this context is an indeterminate period of time. When you consider that this was written about 3000 years ago, don't you accept that this is amazing? The point I am trying, but seemingly having difficulty making, is simply that the mind is also subject to evolution. The fact is, out of man's 2 million year history, the greatest advancement has been made in the last 6000. I don't believe that it was 'God's breath' that suddenly made man fully conscious, rather it was something that was coming for a few thousand years before. I base this on the works of Carl Jung, and maybe you have to read his writings to justify an opinion, rather than just say he was a crackpot too. I don't believe that 'God' has anything to do with evolution, but even that depends on your definition of God. In the case of Jung it was the subconscious mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Do you still persist with the notion that can only be defined now as 'crackpot' that humans weren't "fully conscious" until 6000 years ago?
    Do you believe that evolution is smooth or punctuated? One of these is wrong and therefore 'crackpot'. I don't believe in an instant creation, and that's what Genesis says. It clearly implies, on page 1 that there was a progressive evolution, no matter which translation you read. A 'day' in this context is an indeterminate period of time. When you consider that this was written about 3000 years ago, don't you accept that this is amazing? The point I am trying, but seemingly having difficulty making, is simply that the mind is also subject to evolution. The fact is, out of man's 2 million year history, the greatest advancement has been made in the last 6000. I don't believe that it was 'God's breath' that suddenly made man fully conscious, rather it was something that was coming for a few thousand years before. I base this on the works of Carl Jung, and maybe you have to read his writings to justify an opinion, rather than just say he was a crackpot too. I don't believe that 'God' has anything to do with evolution, but even that depends on your definition of God. In the case of Jung it was the subconscious mind.
    1. Evolutionary theory is not polarised between 'smooth' and 'punctuated' - in fact Gould's original 'punctuated' position was reasonable, then he exaggerated it, then reformed it perfectly in line with the rest of evolutionary theory, so there are no crackpots there.

    2. "A 'day' in this context" is quite clearly whatever you decide to read into it. Nowhere in Genesis is there any indication that it is not meant to be taken literally.

    3. Jung, like Freud, provided the early 20th century with many insights into psychology, particularly abnormal psychology, but nobody today believes his claims, or Freud's, are anything more than inspiring metaphors for further research. they're certainly not science, but they're no more crackpot than, say, the works of Picasso, or even the unscientific facts of Aristotle. They're just out of date.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    los angeles
    Posts
    53
    Skinwalker, please refrain from using any insults while on this forum, this is your only warning. Skinwalker evolution is only a theory, there are too many things that prove intelligent design was involved, and not that it just was a mistake, there are also too many complexities to humans for them to just have evolved, and so many other things that prove god is in control, as well as too many ways to duplicate these so called million year fossils in one hour.


    As for the person who sayed he doesn't believe in the day thingy, a day to god is a thousand years, a pointer guys, for now on do your research before you say anything about the bible, otherwise you don't know what your talking about.


    Skinwalker, I have put you on my ignore list and I'd appreciate you not answering any of my topics, and as for everyone else please act like adults, otherwise we have a problem.
    the more science you know, the less crap you get.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Yeah Skinwalker who do you think you are?

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    the term 'fractally wrong'
    Thanks for new term, most appropriate.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshuaCarter
    Skinwalker, please refrain from using any insults while on this forum, this is your only warning. Skinwalker evolution is only a theory, there are too many things that prove intelligent design was involved, and not that it just was a mistake, there are also too many complexities to humans for them to just have evolved, and so many other things that prove god is in control, as well as too many ways to duplicate these so called million year fossils in one hour.
    Please read over the definition of scientific theory before using the "its only a theory" argument. No offense meant but you are using it wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by JoshuaCarter
    As for the person who sayed he doesn't believe in the day thingy, a day to god is a thousand years, a pointer guys, for now on do your research before you say anything about the bible, otherwise you don't know what your talking about.
    Citation please...

    Quote Originally Posted by JoshuaCarter
    as well as too many ways to duplicate these so called million year fossils in one hour
    Again citation please
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshuaCarter
    Skinwalker, please refrain from using any insults while on this forum, this is your only warning. Skinwalker evolution is only a theory, there are too many things that prove intelligent design was involved, and not that it just was a mistake, there are also too many complexities to humans for them to just have evolved, and so many other things that prove god is in control, as well as too many ways to duplicate these so called million year fossils in one hour.


    As for the person who sayed he doesn't believe in the day thingy, a day to god is a thousand years, a pointer guys, for now on do your research before you say anything about the bible, otherwise you don't know what your talking about.


    Skinwalker, I have put you on my ignore list and I'd appreciate you not answering any of my topics, and as for everyone else please act like adults, otherwise we have a problem.
    LOL!

    I just about fell out of my friggin' chair!

    I'm going to go out and get a bite to eat, come home, pour some scotch and answer your, still fractally wrong, post later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I'm convinced that all young Earth creationist on the internet must be trolls. The real YECs avoid computers out of fear of black magic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Ox
    Do you believe that evolution is smooth or punctuated?
    Yes. Why can't it be both? Gradual changes over time with punctuated periods of more rapid change due to competitive releases at times of climate change, species extermination, etc. The two types of evolutionary change are not mutually exclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ox
    One of these is wrong and therefore 'crackpot'.
    Not at all. Believing that humans became "fully conscious" just 6000 years ago when there is significant data and evidence to the contrary is a crackpot idea.


    Quote Originally Posted by JoshuaCarter
    Skinwalker, please refrain from using any insults while on this forum, this is your only warning.
    First, if you aren't a joke (i.e. a user who created a sock puppet to screw with others here) and actually believe the nonsense you're writing, then you will likely find any discourse that is intellectually and academically truthful and honest insulting. Second, if I fail to heed your "warning," what are my consequences? I'm very curious.

    Skinwalker evolution is only a theory,
    Then you are an ignorant and undereducated individual. But, like I said, this is only a bad thing if you aren't willing to educate yourself and become enlightened to truth and scientific nomenclature. In science, the term "theory" holds considerably more weight than you perceive it. It isn't cast lightly nor is it remotely related to the colloquial version you seem to subscribe to. A scientific "theory" is an explanation or set of explanations that include accepted facts, tested data, demonstrated repetition and/or prediction, scientific laws, and assorted hypotheses -though the latter are ancillary to the rest.

    From the Oxford English Dictionary, a theory is: "A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a
    statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

    Now you are educated and have no excuse for ignorance. If you make the same comment again that "evolution is only a theory," or somehow not on par with other scientific facts like atomic theory, germ theory, etc., then I'm within my rights to continue to refer to you as ignorant. And the insult, while earned, is a fault of your own.

    there are too many things that prove intelligent design was involved,
    Nope. Not even a single thing proves 'intelligent' design was involved. Not a single thing. You said there are many, so if I'm wrong (and the actual "ignorant one"), please cite the most convincing of these "things" here.


    there are also too many complexities to humans for them to just have evolved
    ,

    Why? This is just an argument from ignorance. You're essentially saying, "I don't understand it. Therefore, goddidit."

    and so many other things that prove god is in control,
    Such as?

    as well as too many ways to duplicate these so called million year fossils in one hour.
    Ah.. magic. Well, if you want to introduce magic, you might as well argue that garden gnomes come out at night and replace every single blade of grass in the lawn with new blades. It makes about as much sense and has the same likelihood of being falsified.

    As for the person who sayed he doesn't believe in the day thingy, a day to god is a thousand years
    ,

    Says who? Why isn't a god-day 10,000 years? Or 2,000? Maybe a god-day is 1,000,000 years. Why do you get to decide? What good reason is there to accept that there's a god who has a different concept of time anyway? These are just more making-shit-up-as-you-go-along arguments.

    a pointer guys, for now on do your research before you say anything about the bible, otherwise you don't know what your talking about.
    What should be researched precisely? What passages in biblical mythology are relevant to the discussion and why? What good reason would we have to believe that Bronze and Iron Age goat-herders would have anything relevant to say about about the age of the Earth or evolution?

    Skinwalker, I have put you on my ignore list and I'd appreciate you not answering any of my topics, and as for everyone else please act like adults, otherwise we have a problem.
    Perhaps you discovered by now that you can't put me on ignore. Moreover, if you'd prefer that I not answer any of your "topics," you might consider only participating in discussions that I have no interest in. Math. I'm least likely to participate in a math discussion. I also detest politics and rarely participate in those discussions, though I make an exception if one's political views are informed by bigoted religious doctrines and superstition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    los angeles
    Posts
    53
    Okay skinwalker this conversation is over, nice debate, now this topic should be closed.
    the more science you know, the less crap you get.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Robert Jastrow quotes for you:
    "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
    "There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgements to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, there is no first cause...
    This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control...
    Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, what cause produced the effect? Who or what put the matter and energy in the universe? Was the universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions".

    Was he a 'crackpot' too?
    Let's face it, anyone who does not tow the orthodox scientific line is indeed a crackpot according to some people here. But I am not afraid to differ when faced with prejudice and hubris.
    Happy Christmas to all sceptical scoffers!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Could just be wrong, as you are, about some things. People will frequently wish for their faiths to be true and this will colour the way in which they interpret their experiences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshuaCarter
    Okay skinwalker this conversation is over, nice debate, now this topic should be closed.
    So, in other words, I've raised points and questions you cannot answer and you refuse to debate those issues since you'll be shown wrong at every permutation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Robert Jastrow quotes for you:
    I'm sorry, I missed in the Jastrow quote where he was arguing that humans became "fully conscious" at 6000 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Well, maybe he kept that one to himself. (phew!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    What, then, was the relevance of the quote?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Robert Jastrow quotes for you:
    "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
    "There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgements to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, there is no first cause...
    This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control...
    Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, what cause produced the effect? Who or what put the matter and energy in the universe? Was the universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions".
    Yeah absolutely.

    It's actually obvious. The number of questions that exist unanswered are many and fundamental - like consciousness / reality / existence - we know little about these things, we don't know if they exist or even whether we are capable of knowing these things.

    So the confidence of scientists should not be very high. But it is !! The confidence therefore does not come from having found the answers. It is something else. It is ego clinging to certainty, like what Christianity has become.

    'scientists' are at a low rung of the ladder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    The very fact that there are unanswered questions is the reason scientists exist in the first place.

    Those that are of a credulous, gullible, or otherwise unskeptical positions will typically fault science and those of a rational point of view for not giving into to fanciful beliefs and notions by pointing out that "science doesn't know everything" or characterizing scientists as arrogant know-it-alls (certainly there are some!).

    However, the fact is that its a given that science doesn't know everything since there exists this thing called "science," which is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. And if there are scientists who are 'arrogant know-it-alls,' then this is the human failing of a minority. The methods of science and the rational positions of scientists is demonstrably the right position since it most effectively discovers truth. Whereas blind speculation supported by spurious data and ignorant (often willingly as we've seen in this thread) of contradictory data is unfruitful. Time and again science has produced results and led to discovery and knowledge; time and again speculations based on superstition, personal conclusions, and pre-existing beliefs has shown itself to be without merit or worthy of intellectual investment.

    One can quote all the Victorian and eccentric academics one wishes, but, at the end of the day, the question of "being fully conscious only 6000 years ago" comes down to evidence. There is simply no good reason to think that human consciousness just began at the arbitrary period of 6 kya and there exist many good reasons to note that the cognitive ability of the genus Homo arrived with anatomically modern humans at least around 150 kya if not with Homo neanderthalensis and even H. erectus. There exist good data that even H. erectus was cognitively advanced enough to refer to as "fully conscious" by any realistic and useful definition of the word.

    To continue to propose this "6000 kya" claim is to hold a crackpot idea by even the kindest definition of the term.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    I consider this argument won, because no one has yet to prove that anything substantial was achieved by man before 6000 years ago. Where, for instance are the Stonehenges and Pyramids of the 6th millenium BCE and before? Where are the prehistoric languages and writings of similar antiquity? I am a supporter of Jung's argument that consciousness evolved, no doubt through the evolution of the human brain. If you rubbish Jung you also have to rubbish Pauli and others who supported his ideas. You could call it a consciousness explosion about 6000 years ago. This sort of thing had happened before eg. the Cambrian explosion was probably the result of eye evolution. Jung was concerned with the godless, meaningless and clockwork universe of modern science. I could add that all it's attempting to do is find the ultimate dead end.
    Even though the Bible is rubbished by some scientists, they are embarrassed to find that up to 50% of their fellows actually believe in God. The Bible is uncannily accurate when it comes to evolution, bearing in mind that there were no scientists around then. Its dating of the world to 4004 BCE is remarkable in its accuracy to the flowering of human consciousness over the darkness of the subconscious world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Then you're making yourself out to be a crackpot

    You made no comment about the many examples I gave such as Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük, examples of monumental architecture and city planning at before 10,000 BCE.

    You made no effort to either acknowledge or explain the fact that human populations increased exponentially around this time, reaching a point at which the ability of any one group to "build pyramids" wasn't possible until the point at which it occurred.

    You made no effort to acknowledge or refute the presence of art and artistic thought at a time as early as 150,000 years.

    You made no effort to acknowledge or refute the cognitive ability and planning necessary for lithic industries like the Mouseterian, Achuelean, or Lavallois, all of which are bifacial industries between 2 and 1 Ma that required serious forethought, planning and cultural sharing -they had to be taught/learned and passed on from generation to generation.

    You made no effort to provide a substantial or useful definition of "fully conscious" that separates your arbitrary 6000 year point from the rest of time.

    If you want to declare yourself victor, you also declare yourself crackpot.

    The Bible is uncannily accurate when it comes to evolution, bearing in mind that there were no scientists around then. Its dating of the world to 4004 BCE is remarkable in its accuracy to the flowering of human consciousness over the darkness of the subconscious world.
    Says no one but you, apparently. But that is, perhaps, another thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I consider this argument won,
    Well ox, that is not surprising. You people have a terrible track record when comes to intellectual dishonesty, self delusion, irrationality and bias. Have a nice time in Lala land.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Then you're making yourself out to be a crackpot
    You made no comment about the many examples I gave such as Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük, examples of monumental architecture and city planning at before 10,000 BCE.
    Well, there you go again. Firstly, I would never call anybody a crackpot. Secondly, you have shot youself in the foot, because the Gobekli Tepe site may well be a reference to the Garden of Eden (from Genesis of course). Hunter gatherers may have banded together to construct a primitive hilltop sanctuary or settlement, and the carvings added much later. This is no Stonehenge or Pyramids, both of which require complex technology that even people today would find difficult to replicate.
    Please note, I have never argued that human consciousness was suddenly switched on by God 6000 years ago, rather it was the end product of brain evolution. You seem to me to be twisting my argument to suit yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Well, there you go again. Firstly, I would never call anybody a crackpot. Secondly, you have shot youself in the foot, because the Gobekli Tepe site may well be a reference to the Garden of Eden (from Genesis of course).
    Source please.
    So Çatal Höyük, Nevalı Çori, Ain Ghazal, Jericho... were these examples of pre 7000 BCE civil engineering also a reference to Eden? Or was the story of Eden a reference to them? Could you clarify your logic please. I don't understand.

    This is no Stonehenge or Pyramids, both of which require complex technology that even people today would find difficult to replicate.
    I don't get why you have this requisite for megalithic monuments to judge a civilization as being beyond a certain point in mental evolution. Just because they didn't decide to engage themselves in such endeavors, does that mean they are incapable of doing so? How are these examples of cities of nearly 10,000 people not enough for you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    171
    From what I have gathered, you profess that you don't take the bible literally. This is a good thing. You admit that humans evolved from more primitive species, this is also a good thing.

    However, when someone informs you of something that goes against your ideal of consciousness flowering at 6,000 BCE (the date of which was derived from a literal interpretation of the bible), you say that it could be a reference to the Garden of Eden. If people evolved and the Earth is billions of years old, why would you ever consider the Garden of Eden to have existed?

    You profess not to take the bible literally and seriously. But when shown evidence against your point, the first place you turn to back up your argument is the bible.

    I'm sure you are smart enough to see where the issue lies in this.
    Always minimize the variables.

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Then you're making yourself out to be a crackpot
    You made no comment about the many examples I gave such as Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük, examples of monumental architecture and city planning at before 10,000 BCE.
    Well, there you go again. Firstly, I would never call anybody a crackpot. Secondly, you have shot youself in the foot, because the Gobekli Tepe site may well be a reference to the Garden of Eden (from Genesis of course). Hunter gatherers may have banded together to construct a primitive hilltop sanctuary or settlement, and the carvings added much later. This is no Stonehenge or Pyramids, both of which require complex technology that even people today would find difficult to replicate.
    Please note, I have never argued that human consciousness was suddenly switched on by God 6000 years ago, rather it was the end product of brain evolution. You seem to me to be twisting my argument to suit yourself.
    Oh dear good grief. The Altamira and Lascaux cave paintings require complex technology (the pigment was in many case blown on to the surfaces, deep inside caves in which artifical lighting was necessary - even today, archeologists and others who try to reconstruct them find it difficult). And these are 15,000 years old or thereabouts.

    Unless you have a clear-eyed vision of the progress of human technology, culture, artefacts etc, you're whistling in the dark mate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    Oh dear good grief. The Altamira and Lascaux cave paintings require complex technology (the pigment was in many case blown on to the surfaces, deep inside caves in which artifical lighting was necessary - even today, archeologists and others who try to reconstruct them find it difficult). And these are 15,000 years old or thereabouts.
    Unless you have a clear-eyed vision of the progress of human technology, culture, artefacts etc, you're whistling in the dark mate.
    I agree that these paintings are awesome, but I don't think that art is technology. By technology I mean the invention of the wheel in the last 6000 years or the construction of the great temples, pyramids and neolithic monuments in the same timescale. I don't think anyone has explained why the Mayans were constructing step pyramids 3000 years ago, and the Mesopotamians constructing the ziggurat step pyramids 4000 years ago. Could it be explained by a technology carried along by the human diaspora, or just pure coincidence? Alternatively could Jung be right with his theory of the collective unconscious? Mankind truly awoke from his great sleep about 6000 years ago, to emerge from caves, build cities and begin technologies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Mankind truly awoke from his great sleep about 6000 years ago, to emerge from caves, build cities and begin technologies.
    Would you stop repeating the same thing at the end of every post? It's like you really think you have rebuked the points by others each time. Do you really think that?

    Have a look HERE at estimated population figures of mankind. Mankind did not "move out of the caves" 6000 years ago for goodness' sake. The majority of them were hunter gatherers, which automatically means low population densities. Once the cultivation of plants took full hold, the congregation of people into urban areas was becoming more viable, though, and this is very important, only 3% of the world lived in cities at 1800 AD. The reason those large structures were built is directly because of urbanization, but in 1800 the vast majority of people did not live in cities. Are you then seriously suggesting that some switch was flicked and everyone suddenly moved into the cities? Do you think the one or two guys that did the actual designing of these structures are the ones that fully awoke, or are the people that built them by following orders included? How are the people that did the labour different from rural people?

    ox, again, you are making a huge fool of yourself by inventing nonsense as you go along just to keep your delusion bubble from bursting. Think critically rather than trying to fit data to your preexisting conclusions.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    Oh dear good grief. The Altamira and Lascaux cave paintings require complex technology (the pigment was in many case blown on to the surfaces, deep inside caves in which artifical lighting was necessary - even today, archeologists and others who try to reconstruct them find it difficult). And these are 15,000 years old or thereabouts.
    Unless you have a clear-eyed vision of the progress of human technology, culture, artefacts etc, you're whistling in the dark mate.
    I agree that these paintings are awesome, but I don't think that art is technology. By technology I mean the invention of the wheel in the last 6000 years or the construction of the great temples, pyramids and neolithic monuments in the same timescale. I don't think anyone has explained why the Mayans were constructing step pyramids 3000 years ago, and the Mesopotamians constructing the ziggurat step pyramids 4000 years ago. Could it be explained by a technology carried along by the human diaspora, or just pure coincidence? Alternatively could Jung be right with his theory of the collective unconscious? Mankind truly awoke from his great sleep about 6000 years ago, to emerge from caves, build cities and begin technologies.
    This is poor, poor argumentation ox.

    You are doing your best to define technology as only the stuff that's been around for 6,000 years or fewer. That's why you eventually get to the feeble "I don't think art is technology".

    Refusing to even address the point I made - which was that the technology involved in creating that art was spectacular, and not possible for a non-conscious animal.

    Do you not see the special pleading you're putting into this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    Oh dear good grief. The Altamira and Lascaux cave paintings require complex technology (the pigment was in many case blown on to the surfaces, deep inside caves in which artifical lighting was necessary - even today, archeologists and others who try to reconstruct them find it difficult). And these are 15,000 years old or thereabouts.
    Unless you have a clear-eyed vision of the progress of human technology, culture, artefacts etc, you're whistling in the dark mate.
    I agree that these paintings are awesome, but I don't think that art is technology. By technology I mean the invention of the wheel in the last 6000 years or the construction of the great temples, pyramids and neolithic monuments in the same timescale. I don't think anyone has explained why the Mayans were constructing step pyramids 3000 years ago, and the Mesopotamians constructing the ziggurat step pyramids 4000 years ago. Could it be explained by a technology carried along by the human diaspora, or just pure coincidence? Alternatively could Jung be right with his theory of the collective unconscious? Mankind truly awoke from his great sleep about 6000 years ago, to emerge from caves, build cities and begin technologies.
    There is also significant evidence that the paleolithic humans that did the painting in the Lascaux caves did it for astronomical reasons. The hall of the bulls fits very well as an overlay of the zodiac star constellations wound back 15,000 years. In another part of the cave there are two bulls facing away from each other with their tails crossed. The eye of each bull lines up perfectly with the rising sun at the winter and summer solstices while the point at which their tails cross lines up with the equinoxes. The bulls are also depicted as either molting or rutting, their respective behaviors during those times of year. Mind you this is inside a cave. We could not do this without modern surveying equipment, which seems to be one of your requirements. So how is ancient man doing astronomy any less amazing than ancient man doing architecture?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Apologies for the quibble:
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The reason those large structures were built is directly because of urbanization
    I'm pretty sure these were built by large populations of agricultural labourers idled by their seasonal work pattern. Compare the mega infrastructure make-work projects of the Great Depression, built by unskilled transient labourers between seasonal jobs e.g. fruit harvest.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •