Natural Selection, Unnatural Selection, and the Nature of Consciousness

[infamouse]

If I might be so bold as to take a stab at one of the most controversial definitions in philosophy and science, I would define consciousness as a causal chain from perception, to instinct, to conceptualization. This causal chain is reflected in our evolution across time as a species, as well as our day-to-day actions. Single celled organisms perceive light, complex organisms develop feelings in accordance with higher level perceptions, and eventually conceptualization acts as a modifier on perception-based instinct. I.e., I see a tiger (by the time light bounces off the tiger into my eyes, I am seeing an image of the tiger a fraction of a second in the past). A fraction of a second after my mind processes the visual information of a tiger, I feel fear; if I have no language, and perhaps even if I do, this alone provides an adequate basis to run for my life. A fraction of a second after feeling fear, my conceptual processes may kick into overdrive, providing a series of logical options and prevalent concerns. What is the best course of action? Run? Pick up the spear at my side and attack? Remove my handgun from its holster and fire? Will I ever see my family again? My tribe? Am I about to die a painful, gruesome death? In other words, our everyday actions follow the same process as our historic path of evolution.

Natural Selection allowed or even incentivized the formulation of conscious social constructs. The basis for any conscious social construct must be a shared intellectual medium (such as language, math, art, or some combination thereof). A conscious social construct is essentially a database, created across generations, codified in early social learning, and utilized as the foundation for any large scale social organization. Imagine a child denied all access to human interaction and conceptual information. Suppose all their basic needs are provided for, but they are isolated in a room throughout their formative years into early adulthood. Having no social basis for mutual understanding, they are released into society and found to behave like an animal. There is no possible way they could spontaneously create a new language, contribute to the evolution of existing language, or reveal some hitherto unknown insight into the nature of mathematics, regardless of whatever potential existed intrinsically at birth. In order to reach their potential, they needed access not only to contemporary society, but to the historical database of math, language, and art upon which all of contemporary society depends. Released into the wild, they would be beholden strictly to the laws of Natural Selection, i.e. pure genetics. Bear Grylls, on the other hand, has a better chance of survival in the wild given the application of relevant social constructs. In the wild, he will be subject to interplay of Conscious Selection and Natural Selection.

Conscious Selection can be used as a tool to subjugate the cold-hearted anarchy of Natural Selection, but when utilized selfishly, it introduces a third form of selection to the equation: Unnatural Selection. Unnatural Selection is what happens when a turtle or a seagull can’t tell the difference between plastic and food, or when human beings fail to naturally perceive the impacts of atmospheric distortion on their environment. In such a circumstance, a turtle or a seagull continues to be accountable to natural selection: they have not evolved any perception that enables them to readily adapt to such circumstances, and over time will likely die out. Conscious entities, i.e. beings capable of advanced conceptualization, have the option at least in theory to utilize Conscious Selection to their collective advantage. A society reaching the point where Unnatural Selection has become endemic in their environment as a result of collective action, must harness conscious selection as a tool for collective survival or face dire consequences, not the least of which may be absolute extinction.

I hypothesize that resource distribution and utilization remains a major issue for our society primarily because of our failure to recognize the fundamental nature of conscious social constructs such as language and math. For 2,000 years, we have engaged in the same form of communication with little or no improvements to the fundamental code; the software, so to speak.

I propose that the conceptual ability of a society to deal with unforeseen or highly complex circumstances is directly proportional to the information density of the intellectual mediums at hand. I predict that children educated in base 100 mathematics (particularly if they are encouraged to practise math without a calculator to the extent of their capabilities)  and an equivalent higher form of language, will demonstrate advanced IQ relative to peers in a control group. Is anyone aware of any similar studies? Any thoughts on the controls that might be necessary, or the idea in general?

[naitche]

On 10/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, infamouse said:

In other words, our everyday actions follow the same process as our historic path of evolution.

Consciousness and Evolution and behavior interest me. 

I believe yes, its a continuum. The same laws repeated along the whole of the chain.

I see consciousness as the measurement of ones being.

On 10/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, infamouse said:

Natural Selection allowed or even incentivized the formulation of conscious social constructs. The basis for any conscious social construct must be a shared intellectual medium (such as language, math, art, or some combination thereof). A conscious social construct is essentially a database, created across generations, codified in early social learning, and utilized as the foundation for any large scale social organization. Imagine a child denied all access to human interaction and conceptual information. Suppose all their basic needs are provided for, but they are isolated in a room throughout their formative years into early adulthood. Having no social basis for mutual understanding, they are released into society and found to behave like an animal. There is no possible way they could spontaneously create a new language, contribute to the evolution of existing language, or reveal some hitherto unknown insight into the nature of mathematics, regardless of whatever potential existed intrinsically at birth. In order to reach their potential, they needed access not only to contemporary society, but to the historical database of math, language, and art upon which all of contemporary society depends. Released into the wild, they would be beholden strictly to the laws of Natural Selection, i.e. pure genetics. Bear Grylls, on the other hand, has a better chance of survival in the wild given the application of relevant social constructs. In the wild, he will be subject to interplay of Conscious Selection and Natural Selection.

So the measure of the being is heavily influenced by available environment. The usual environment would be unfamiliar, unknown and  un-recognizable to such an individual who would be unable to respond effectively or contribute to its value.

The person or organism (whatever One object you are seeing) would be missing the foundations required for optimal use and response. 

On 10/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, infamouse said:

 

Conscious Selection can be used as a tool to subjugate the cold-hearted anarchy of Natural Selection, but when utilized selfishly, it introduces a third form of selection to the equation: Unnatural Selection. Unnatural Selection is what happens when a turtle or a seagull can’t tell the difference between plastic and food, or when human beings fail to naturally perceive the impacts of atmospheric distortion on their environment. In such a circumstance, a turtle or a seagull continues to be accountable to natural selection: they have not evolved any perception that enables them to readily adapt to such circumstances, and over time will likely die out. Conscious entities, i.e. beings capable of advanced conceptualization, have the option at least in theory to utilize Conscious Selection to their collective advantage. A society reaching the point where Unnatural Selection has become endemic in their environment as a result of collective action, must harness conscious selection as a tool for collective survival or face dire consequences, not the least of which may be absolute extinction.

I hypothesize that resource distribution and utilization remains a major issue for our society primarily because of our failure to recognize the fundamental nature of conscious social constructs such as language and math. For 2,000 years, we have engaged in the same form of communication with little or no improvements to the fundamental code; the software, so to speak.

i don't think the software is inadequate, just under utilized in our understanding and application. We are not as familiar with it yet as as we might be, to recognize the full potentials, and  response-abilities  conferred. They are the working foundations of our biology.

We don't operate with out them.

On 10/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, infamouse said:

 

I propose that the conceptual ability of a society to deal with unforeseen or highly complex circumstances is directly proportional to the information density of the intellectual mediums at hand. I predict that children educated in base 100 mathematics (particularly if they are encouraged to practise math without a calculator to the extent of their capabilities)  and an equivalent higher form of language, will demonstrate advanced IQ relative to peers in a control group. Is anyone aware of any similar studies? Any thoughts on the controls that might be necessary, or the idea in general?

 I.Q is said to increase with each generation. I believe a search of I.Q enhancement should bring results.

There is so much more though, packed into that proposal than could be adequately addressed by such a study.

 

[Phi for All]

On 10/23/2021 at 12:23 PM, infamouse said:

In other words, our everyday actions follow the same process as our historic path of evolution.

!

Moderator Note

You need to support this conjecture better. Since our everyday actions have zero impact on evolution (which is defined as changes in allele frequency within a population over time), you need to do more than wave your hands on this. This is a mainstream section, and you need evidence that fits within mainstream explanations. 

If you prefer to ask questions about this subject, I can leave it where it is, but if you're looking to defend a speculation, I need to move it to the appropriate section.

 

[mistermack]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

 I.Q is said to increase with each generation. I believe a search of I.Q enhancement should bring results.

IQ is a measure of the ability to do IQ tests. The link to actual intelligence is far weaker. While academic abilities rise with the generations, it doesn't mean that the difference is genetic. It might be mostly environmental. However, just as average heights of humans have been rising, there may be a one-off rise in actual real intelligence levels, due to diet improvements, but like height, it's unlikely to be more than a one or two generation thing, if it's due to an improved diet. 

If you could compare a group of humans from 50,000 years ago to a modern day group, it's very unlikely that there would be a discernable difference in average intelligence, if they grew up in the same environment.

[infamouse]

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to support this conjecture better. Since our everyday actions have zero impact on evolution (which is defined as changes in allele frequency within a population over time), you need to do more than wave your hands on this. This is a mainstream section, and you need evidence that fits within mainstream explanations. 

If you prefer to ask questions about this subject, I can leave it where it is, but if you're looking to defend a speculation, I need to move it to the appropriate section.

 

You accuse me of waving my hands, which I have not done. Allow me to clarify: We evolved from single celled organisms that perceived light but had no feelings, to complex organisms with feelings, to conscious conceptualizers of our environment and internal workings. In everyday life, every moment follows the same progression: perception, feeling, thought.

16 hours ago, naitche said:

Consciousness and Evolution and behavior interest me. 

I believe yes, its a continuum. The same laws repeated along the whole of the chain.

I see consciousness as the measurement of ones being.

So the measure of the being is heavily influenced by available environment. The usual environment would be unfamiliar, unknown and  un-recognizable to such an individual who would be unable to respond effectively or contribute to its value.

The person or organism (whatever One object you are seeing) would be missing the foundations required for optimal use and response. 

i don't think the software is inadequate, just under utilized in our understanding and application. We are not as familiar with it yet as as we might be, to recognize the full potentials, and  response-abilities  conferred. They are the working foundations of our biology.

We don't operate with out them.

 I.Q is said to increase with each generation. I believe a search of I.Q enhancement should bring results.

There is so much more though, packed into that proposal than could be adequately addressed by such a study.

 

IQ and standardized tests are just one metric of intelligence, hardly definitive. What I am curious about, is why humanity has been satisfied for about 2,000 years with base 10 math and the Latin alphabet. Regardless of whether or not these are seen as sufficient tools for our day to day lives (I would argue the impending collapse of our climate indicates they are not) wouldn't we want to think about improving upon these tools? What if Microsoft had stopped at Windows 98 and said "I think we figured it out. Let's move on."

If 1,000 years ago, society had made the decision to utilize base-100 mathematics in formal education, we would all be the better for it. There is an issue of diminishing returns, but I believe it is a matter of normalization. Wouldn't a society that has used base-100 math for 500 years, be better equipped for thinking about mathematical concepts in general? Wouldn't their collective intellect meet a higher standard than contemporary society today? Is it not true that a rising tide lifts all boats?

The issue of language does admittedly seem more complicated to me. I believe you could simplify English with a larger alphabet, using individual symbols to represent the most common words, phrases, or letter combinations. Upon developing a facility with this new language there is not question that information translated into it could be processed much more quickly, which would be a huge benefit. Imagine reading a 500 page book in half the time, or better.

[naitche]

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

IQ is a measure of the ability to do IQ tests. The link to actual intelligence is far weaker. While academic abilities rise with the generations, it doesn't mean that the difference is genetic. It might be mostly environmental. However, just as average heights of humans have been rising, there may be a one-off rise in actual real intelligence levels, due to diet improvements, but like height, it's unlikely to be more than a one or two generation thing, if it's due to an improved diet. 

If you could compare a group of humans from 50,000 years ago to a modern day group, it's very unlikely that there would be a discernable difference in average intelligence, if they grew up in the same environment.

Agreed. I think it is mostly environmental, (The tools and language,tech. we have brought into the equation, raised from potential and direction) but the results in evolutionary terms have increased our available environment exponentially.

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, infamouse said:

In everyday life, every moment follows the same progression: perception, feeling, thought.

Just saying it doesn't make it true. You see, feel, hear and smell things all day long that do not generate feelings or thought.

[infamouse]

14 hours ago, zapatos said:

Just saying it doesn't make it true. You see, feel, hear and smell things all day long that do not generate feelings or thought.

I never implied otherwise. The scope of thought is limited as is the scope of feeling and perception. You can perceive something without having an overt feeling or formulating a conscious thought about it. That does not invalidate anything I said. I agree with you.

On 10/26/2021 at 11:35 AM, mistermack said:

IQ is a measure of the ability to do IQ tests. The link to actual intelligence is far weaker. While academic abilities rise with the generations, it doesn't mean that the difference is genetic. It might be mostly environmental. However, just as average heights of humans have been rising, there may be a one-off rise in actual real intelligence levels, due to diet improvements, but like height, it's unlikely to be more than a one or two generation thing, if it's due to an improved diet. 

If you could compare a group of humans from 50,000 years ago to a modern day group, it's very unlikely that there would be a discernable difference in average intelligence, if they grew up in the same environment.

Are you aware that in the timeframe you have described our brains have physically been shrinking?

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-human-brain-has-been-getting-smaller-since-the-stone-age

[zapatos]

Just now, infamouse said:

I never implied otherwise.

No, you didn't imply it. You claimed it. 

Right here...

20 hours ago, infamouse said:

every moment follows the same progression: perception, feeling, thought.

That is simply not true and thus your claim is incorrect.

[infamouse]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No, you didn't imply it. You claimed it. 

Right here...

That is simply not true and thus your claim is incorrect.

Allow me to clarify: what I am saying, is perception comes first. You can't feel or conceptualize without perception. Even if all your senses were blighted at this very moment, and you were plunged into a world of darkness without sound, sight, taste, touch, or smell, any feelings or conceptualizations you maintain would be based on prior perceptions. So while I grant that you could perceive my words the way that you have, that is not what I meant.

You have actually exemplified a major problem we have in our society today: rather than attempt to understand what someone is trying to say, we insist on attacking every little perceived flaw in their logic or language. This leads to defensiveness and unnecessary tension.

This is undoubtedly a complex topic. Different processes in your brain are constantly overlapping. So my point is this: if you were born into a world of darkness, without any of your senses, you could never feel anything (in the physical or emotional sense) or conceptualize anything. Perception comes first.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, infamouse said:

You have actually exemplified a major problem we have in our society today: rather than attempt to understand what someone is trying to say, we insist on attacking every little perceived flaw in their logic or language. This leads to defensiveness and unnecessary tension.

You do an excellent job of deflecting blame.

Rather than accept a criticism of your incorrect claim (twice) you finally admit your communications were not accurate. You then blames the listener for not understanding your flawed communications, while claiming you are the victim and are being attacked (like you seem to do in other threads you participate in here.)

Try taking a little responsibility. It will go a long way and reduce your defensiveness and unnecessary tension.

10 minutes ago, infamouse said:

we insist on attacking every little perceived flaw in their logic

This is a science site and thus flaws in logic are called out. If you are unwilling to accept that this place will be very difficult for you.

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, infamouse said:

You have actually exemplified a major problem we have in our society today: rather than attempt to understand what someone is trying to say, we insist on attacking every little perceived flaw in their logic or language. This leads to defensiveness and unnecessary tension.

You're exemplifying a major problem we have in science: trying to be as clear and precise in our definitions and measurements as possible, while others insist that their mistakes and flaws be forgiven or ignored. This leads to inexcusable inaccuracies and a corruption of reason.

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, infamouse said:

if you were born into a world of darkness, without any of your senses, you could never feel anything (in the physical or emotional sense) or conceptualize anything.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? You still have a brain. It does not require senses to function. Are depression and happiness learned emotions that cannot occur without senses?

[infamouse]

Just now, Phi for All said:

You're exemplifying a major problem we have in science: trying to be as clear and precise in our definitions and measurements as possible, while others insist that their mistakes and flaws be forgiven or ignored. This leads to inexcusable inaccuracies and a corruption of reason.

I am not publishing a paper. I have no problem trying to be clear and clarify my points where necessary. I am not insisting on my mistakes or flaws being forgiven or ignored, I am pointing out that in our society, people have a tendency to overreact and/or insist they know what a person *meant* by their words. Nobody is EVER perfectly precise, we all contradict ourselves, word things poorly, and possess evolving opinions. The reason the less educated don't want to get involved in science, is that nobody can ever meet your false standard of reality.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, infamouse said:

I am pointing out that in our society, people have a tendency to overreact and/or insist they know what a person *meant* by their words.

Actually, you were pointing that out about this site here, and the members in THIS community taking the time to respond to you... not society at large. You also appear to be doing so as a method of evasion of questions you obviously struggle to answer. If you want better answers, stop being so sloppy in your posts. 

2 minutes ago, infamouse said:

The reason the less educated don't want to get involved in science, is that nobody can ever meet your false standard of reality.

So? Sloppy thinking is only ever correct by accident. Science is a method of minimizing human bias and sloppiness. If that bothers you, then maybe stop voluntarily posting at a site dedicated to enthusiasm for science and its methods. 

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, infamouse said:

Nobody is EVER perfectly precise, we all contradict ourselves, word things poorly, and possess evolving opinions.

Yep, no problem. And when that happens here the poor communications will be pointed out. Quit taking it so personally. It happens that way for EVERY
ONE here. Not just you. And to improve future communications, people are expected to make every effort to reduce their imprecision, contradictions and poor wording.

10 minutes ago, infamouse said:

The reason the less educated don't want to get involved in science, is that nobody can ever meet your false standard of reality.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

 

Look, you appear to be in a new environment here. Like all new places there is a culture, expectations, rules both written and unwritten. If you take the time to understand how things are done you will likely find this to be a very rewarding place. If you try to go against the flow from the beginning you are more likely to get frustrated and bail out, or worse, be asked to leave. 

From a personal standpoint I spent the first six months here hiding in the background as I found the level of discourse much more rigorous than I was used to and was nervous to join in. 

I hope you can be happy here as we always need good new members.

Edited October 27, 2021 by zapatos

[infamouse]

Just now, zapatos said:

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? You still have a brain. It does not require senses to function. Are depression and happiness learned emotions that cannot occur without senses?

Your brain does require your senses to form, if not necessarily to function. I.e., if you lose all your senses, your brain will still function, although you will be completely useless. You can speak, but will never know if you have been heard. If you hold a pencil, you will never know. You could be lying down, standing up, floating in a gravity free environment, you would never know. You will not be able to eat, because you will never know if there is food in the area or have any way of accessing it.

If you were born without your senses, you would never be able to learn anything. What would you have feelings about? No sight, sound, taste, touch, or smell. Nothing could ever be known to you. A baby doesn't cry for no reason. They cry because they feel hunger, or pain, or sickness, or because they want their mother. None of these reasons are valid without sensory input.

"Evidence" and "logic" are two sides of the same coin. The evidence I am citing, is the entire body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, drawn to its logical conclusion in the context of this argument.

I am not perfect, so feel free to help me out. Is there any logical argument to be made that you can be depressed or happy or have any other emotion despite never having perceived a single element of reality?

Just now, iNow said:

Actually, you were pointing that out about this site here, and the members in THIS community taking the time to respond to you... not society at large. You also appear to be doing so as a method of evasion of questions you obviously struggle to answer. If you want better answers, stop being so sloppy in your posts. 

So? Sloppy thinking is only ever correct by accident. Science is a method of minimizing human bias and sloppiness. If that bothers you, then maybe stop voluntarily posting at a site dedicated to enthusiasm for science and its methods. 

"Actually, you were pointing that out about this site here, and the members in THIS community taking the time to respond to you... not society at large."

You actually just proved my point.

You insist you know what I "meant". Unless we have all memorized a dictionary, language is an imprecise method of communication. I said what I meant, and you perceived what you wanted to. No interest in what I was saying, you have simply decided you know better than me what I was trying to convey, and use this to attack a falsified version of my perspective.

I don't think I have evaded any questions here. I am trying to answer them, and to clarify.

Just now, zapatos said:

Yep, no problem. And when that happens here the poor communications will be pointed out. Quit taking it so personally. It happens that way for EVERY
ONE here. Not just you. And to improve future communications, people are expected to make every effort to reduce their imprecision, contradictions and poor wording.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

I take your point, although I think you are projecting a bit when you claim I have taken this personally.

Frankly, the evidence I have comes from the conversations I have had with tons of people who believe in things like magic, ghosts, mysticism, shamanism, witchcraft, etc.

There is no scientific evidence that ghosts exist, for example, however there is no scientific evidence they don't. Rather than belittling people's perspective, I try to focus on what I regard as an incontrovertible fact: any phenomena that appears to be supernatural consists of an objective physical process, even if we have absolutely no way of explaining it. We may never be able to explain it, yet it is nevertheless explainable.

It may well be that at some point in the future, there will be a scientific basis for understanding a phenomena similar or directly related to the idea of "ghosts". Whether or not I think this is likely is irrelevant. For all I know, it could very well be so.

[Phi for All]

40 minutes ago, infamouse said:

The reason the less educated don't want to get involved in science, is that nobody can ever meet your false standard of reality.

The reason the overly sensitive don't want to get involved in science is often because they take corrections like this personally, rather than in the spirit of learning they're steeped in. Every one of us here is hopefully filling the gaps in their ignorance with trustworthy, objective explanations derived from methodical and patient study of science.

[infamouse]

Just now, Phi for All said:

The reason the overly sensitive don't want to get involved in science is often because they take corrections like this personally, rather than in the spirit of learning they're steeped in. Every one of us here is hopefully filling the gaps in their ignorance with trustworthy, objective explanations derived from methodical and patient study of science.

I mostly agree with your point, however I would counter that scientists can be some of the most overly sensitive and egotistical people out there. I would also add, that while you are right that people have a tendency to take corrections personally, it doesn't seem to me like you respect the fact that their perspective may lead them to feel legitimately antagonized. Not to stray off into politics, but as an example the primary reason for Trump's support and the corresponding anti-scientific sentiment is that people feel like they are being condescended to and antagonized. Your perspective doesn't seem to allow those who are poorly educated or less than supremely skilled in language into the conversation, so they go have conversations of their own. Someone I used to work with literally had a 2nd grade education... they aren't going to jump right into a strictly scientific forum and feel comfortable, so they find acceptance elsewhere.

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, infamouse said:

I mostly agree with your point, however I would counter that scientists can be some of the most overly sensitive and egotistical people out there.

Is it egotistical if I want you to understand a fine point that only comes from a layered approach to the subject, and I feel the terms you're using are leading you to conclusions you wouldn't make if you DID grasp it? It's not like I get a commission for every person I convert to mainstream science.

Overly sensitive I can live with, it's definitely true wrt measurements, definitions, and critical thinking. But it's not for any reasons of ego or offense. It's because when people claim things like "I have a theory", or "It's only a theory", it's clear they have NO IDEA what a theory is, or how strong a theory in science is, and it makes my ass twitch until I can correct them, because they'll NEVER appreciate science as long as they think theory means "my best guess".

For example, I learned, from discussion with scientists here, that using the term "reality" the way you do is slightly misleading, so I try to avoid it (and I sometimes nitpick others about it). It's hinting at a concept of "realness" that might be different from what we observe in nature. You can talk about reality in philosophical terms, but when I'm thinking as a scientist, I think "natural universe" rather than "reality".

21 minutes ago, infamouse said:

I would also add, that while you are right that people have a tendency to take corrections personally, it doesn't seem to me like you respect the fact that their perspective may lead them to feel legitimately antagonized.

Something we don't stress enough here is that we attack ideas, not people. We do it the way the wind tries to blow down a plant, and in doing so strengthens the stalk and makes it able to grow taller and stronger. People aren't dumb, but can say and do dumb things. These distinctions are important here, and part of the civility we want to maintain. I'm sorry if you've ever felt attacked personally, it's not our way, but it's also difficult sometimes to admit that our ideas are not us. Remember that most ideas are wrong, always have been, and it takes a good system or process to separate the signal from all that noise.

29 minutes ago, infamouse said:

Not to stray off into politics, but as an example the primary reason for Trump's support and the corresponding anti-scientific sentiment is that people feel like they are being condescended to and antagonized. Your perspective doesn't seem to allow those who are poorly educated or less than supremely skilled in language into the conversation, so they go have conversations of their own. Someone I used to work with literally had a 2nd grade education... they aren't going to jump right into a strictly scientific forum and feel comfortable, so they find acceptance elsewhere.

Those folks are already lost to resentment because college-educated 22-year-olds got promoted above them despite their experience, and then in the last 20 years those executives took all their benefits and sent their jobs overseas. The best I can do now is not talk down to them while also not sinking to Trump's level, and support free education and better access to it for all people whenever I vote.

Most of the folks who come here with a second grade education find their place in discussion by asking questions. You don't have to be well-educated or supremely skilled in the language to point out where you're confused. Those folks never seem to get the same kind of pushback as those who come here with their personal "theories" and wild-ass guesses about alternative philosophies. They usually learn a lot.

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

If you were born without your senses, you would never be able to learn anything. What would you have feelings about? No sight, sound, taste, touch, or smell. Nothing could ever be known to you. A baby doesn't cry for no reason. They cry because they feel hunger, or pain, or sickness, or because they want their mother. None of these reasons are valid without sensory input.

"Evidence" and "logic" are two sides of the same coin. The evidence I am citing, is the entire body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, drawn to its logical conclusion in the context of this argument.

But you are not citing evidence. You are stating why you THINK they don't have feelings based on what makes sense to YOU.

Evidence would be something along the lines of a scientific study whose goal was to examine how and when emotions are formed, perhaps looking at sensory deprivation, brain injury, birth defects, in utero studies, etc. These studies might provide clues to whether or not you can have emotions without any senses.

Without this sort of evidence, perhaps the following statement:

Quote

if you were born into a world of darkness, without any of your senses, you could never feel anything (in the physical or emotional sense) or conceptualize anything.

could more accurately be stated as:

"if you were born into a world of darkness, without any of your senses, your ability to feel anything (in the physical or emotional sense) or conceptualize anything, would almost certainly be hindered".

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

Is there any logical argument to be made that you can be depressed or happy or have any other emotion despite never having perceived a single element of reality?

First of all, having no physical senses but having a normal brain probably shouldn't be referred to as "never having perceived a single element of reality". A functioning brain is experiencing reality, even if it is receiving no external input from the senses. An underdeveloped brain (one lacking outside sensory input) is still a functioning brain, with sections involved in sensory input, reasoning, logic, etc. Brain activity will still be going on. Neurons firing, etc.

Second, there may very well be a logical argument to support the idea that you can experience emotions sans external sensory input since conception, but I don't know if there is or not. And hence why I would not make that claim without first researching whether or not such evidence exists.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

Frankly, the evidence I have comes from the conversations I have had with tons of people who believe in things like magic, ghosts, mysticism, shamanism, witchcraft, etc.

There is no scientific evidence that ghosts exist, for example, however there is no scientific evidence they don't.

??? How can you have evidence that something does not exist? I'm probably one of the less formally educated on this site, that you sort of inferred in some of your previous posts, but knowing that science and the scientific methodology is what is primarilly responsible for the current knowledge mankind has, I have since my poorly educated phase in leaving school at 15.5 years of age, done a trade apprentiship, and  educated myself with reputable reading mainly on astronomy/cosmology. I have also learnt as a great educator once said, that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. eg: Someone telling me that they have seen a ghost, or an Alien operated UFO, is no where near enough to validate such things. At best, both probably remain as unexplained. Nothing wrong with saying we don't know, but there is plenty wrong in equating unexplained with supernatural. By the way, I have been witness to a UFO, but that's all, unidentified or unknown is what it remains.

Most scientists accept that Alien life, off this fart arse little blue orb, "should" exist elsewhere, somewhere, due to the  near infinite extent and content of the universe around us, and the stuff of life being everywhere we look. As that same great educator also said, "We were all born in the belly of stars" That makes Aliens separable from your "run of the mill" supernatural examples. You may ask, why is it unscientific [supernatural/paranormal explanations]? The answer to that in my limited education is that it is beyond the laws of physics. The professionals on this forum can correct me if that is wrong.

We have no good reason to believe that anything can ever exist beyond the laws of physics.eg: supernatural and paranormal experiences. We have no evidence that pink unicorns do not exist. Does that mean that there is a possibility that they exist? See how silly that becomes? I have no evidence that fairies do not exist at the bottom of your garden.....are you going to tell me that because I have no evidence they don't exist, that therefor they do?  My argumentive style may sound unprofessional, and probably is, but that's because I am not a professional, but I dearly hope that I have learnt from professional people both here, other science forums, and based on reputable material that I have read. 

A great read for you if I may is a book by Professor Lawrence Krass, entitled "A Universe from Nothing" Certainly not as yet classed as accepted scientific knowledge, as we know absolutely nothing about any time before t+10-35th seconds, but it does rely on already accepted scientific principles such as the uncertainty principle and the instability of nothing, or in this case the quantum foam. But he [professor Krauss] accepts that as yet we do not know.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by beecee

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

The topic does not seem to follow mainstream biology and has been moved to speculations. Please take some time to familiarize with associated rules. Specifically you are requested to back up claims, and frame your hypotheses in way that is at least accessible to science (i.e. one needs to be able to test those claims).

 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Most of the folks who come here with a second grade education find their place in discussion by asking questions. You don't have to be well-educated or supremely skilled in the language to point out where you're confused. Those folks never seem to get the same kind of pushback as those who come here with their personal "theories" and wild-ass guesses about alternative philosophies. They usually learn a lot.

*puts hand up*  And no, I'm not pissing in Phi's pocket, nor anyone elses. While my formal education maybe limited, my common sense and intelligence tells me that those pushing "personal theories", or alternative to mainstream physics, must understand that there is a recognised process to go through. No scientist or anyone else is going to invalidate accepted mainstream evidenced based physics, on a remote science forum. You gather your evidence, the results of your experiments, write up a professional paper for peer review from a professional science orientated orginization, and wait for results. You will also of course need to "run the gauntlet" of critique and the results and general outcomes of your hypothesis, just as any mainstream theory has also needed to do, before it is accepted and becomes mainstream. That's how the scientific method works.

Mainstream physics and science is mainstream for a reason.

Edited October 27, 2021 by beecee

[Phi for All]

55 minutes ago, beecee said:

While my formal education maybe limited, my common sense and intelligence tells me that those pushing "personal theories", or alternative to mainstream physics, must understand that there is a recognised process to go through.

In my experience, the way their arguments usually run, it appears they think scientists just explain things in the way that makes the most sense to them, because a theory is just a guess anyway, right? I think this is part of why they think other scientists are "hidebound" to their own "answers", as opposed to trusting explanations that use a preponderance of our best current evidence.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

*puts hand up*  And no, I'm not pissing in Phi's pocket,

Nor are you ever likely to be invited to. I'm fairly conservative when it comes to my clothes.