UyiIredia:


But neurons firing is obviously different from the consciousness it produces. Neurons firing is not consciousness though it effects it.

UyiIredia:

No. It was inferred from the presence of consciousness. I'd you don't want to make the only rational inference to be made I can understand.

UyiIredia:

Natural selection is the differential survival of organism's better suited to their environment. It has nothing to.do with the genetic code and certainly cannot add new genetic information.

Wikipedia:
It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time.

UyiIredia:

Forgive away you brainless oaf.

thehomer:


Then what is your problem? You agree that neurons firing cause consciousness but you're confused because it is subjective? The fact that consciousness is caused by neurons firing is all that needs to be known.

thehomer:

How did you make this inference because your premise wasn't good enough to make that inference. Your inference is just an empty assertion based on poor reasoning.

thehomer:

It has everything to do with new genetic information. Look at the next sentence you copied from Wikipedia.




What do you think heritable traits refers to?

thehomer:

I forgive you again child. Go and stop acting like a punk child.

UyiIredia:


No. Because consciousness is something different from firing neurons. That makes all the difference.

UyiIredia:

The only one whose reasoning is poor is yours.

UyiIredia:

Ah ! But how does this change occur. Not by adding new genetic information but by the death of unfit organisms and the flourishing of a better fit species. So in the end it still has nothing to do with the genetic code of a species.

Wikipedia:
Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and offspring can inherit such mutations. Throughout the lives of the individuals, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits.

UyiIredia:

Continue forgiving you brainless buffoon.

felixomor:
No neurons in the brain have actually been found to be the reason behind consciousness.
Because even in the unconscious state, those neurons still fire.

felixomor:

Had consciousness been a product of neurons firing, by now many people in vegetative states could have been restored over the years, by medics simply triggering the neurons to fire.

felixomor:

So consciousness remains 'unseen and untrapped' or limited to any physiological mechanism.

thehomer:


This is of course false. Look up the reticular activating system. It is a cluster of neurones that are involved in wake, sleep and attention. Then also review the function of the cerebral cortex.



Do you know how difficult it can be to make these neurons fire? e.g have you considered the technological limitations and the ethics involved?



Looks like we have a grown up unlike some babies here who keep throwing fits.

Consciousness is a process not a "thing" and it is limited to physical mechanisms.

thehomer:


I didn't say they were the same. I said one caused the other.

thehomer:

How did you make your inference? I know you have poor thinking abilities and I've shown it but this is just your childishness manifesting itself.

thehomer:

Please take an elementary course in biology because you clearly are out of your depth. Fitness has nothing to do with genes? This sort of ignorance while speaking on these issues is just mindboggling. Take the time to read the Wikipedia article you started quoting because it looks like you don't understand what was written in it.

The very second paragraph says:



Learn to read please.

thehomer:

And I forgive you again little punk.

felixomor:


The reticular activating system is not in charge of consciousness.
It was once thought to be.
Other parts of the brain that have also been thought to be behind consciousness include hypothalamus, pineal gland etc
But all have shown not to be the reason behind it.

I repeat, consciousness is yet to be limited to any physiological mechanism.

If it is so then some people wiill make the argument that plants and lower living things also have consciousness.
Please read this, its from a 2015 report of conference on the topic of consciousness by scientists and philosophers:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness


The answer is still being highly sought.

UyiIredia:


Then if they are not the same why did you say consciousness was the physical process of neurons firing. And if you agree they are not the same why can't you see that as an effect of firing neurons consciousness is non-physical.

UyiIredia:

I have already told you how I made the inference. No need repeating myself to a dunce.

UyiIredia:

I don't see where it says natural selection adds anything to the genome. Variation has everything to do with the genome. Natural selection no.

Wikipedia:
Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage may become more common in a population (see allele frequency).

UyiIredia:

Forgive away you daft dolt.

thehomer:




Looks like we have a grown up unlike some babies here who keep throwing fits.

Consciousness is a process not a "thing" and it is limited to physical mechanisms.

felixomor:


Please who made the statement above? And what does that statement mean? with "limited" highlighted?

thehomer:


Consciousness is a process not a "thing" and it is limited to physical mechanisms.

thehomer:


Honestly you're a very stupid fellow. I said one is caused by the other you repeated that quote yet you're here saying something else? Are you demented?

thehomer:

This is why I have to say you're a very stupid fellow who seems to have problems reading information from an encyclopaedia. You're clearly too stupid to be trained. Any human who can read and read just the introductory paragraphs of that article would have understood the relationship between natural selection and genes but you're just too moronically idiotic to do this.

The first line on the third paragraph says this:



But you can't seem to string a thought in your nematode like brain to arrive at sensible conclusions yet you want to overturn the theory of evolution? You're so stupidly and blissfully ignorant that you can't seem to take the initiative to read and realize that there are relationships between sentences within paragraphs and paragraphs in an article.

thehomer:

I recognize that you're the pig that George Bernard Shaw warned against when he recommended against wrestling with pigs. Clearly you enjoy being an idiot and flinging faeces. I'm done kicking at your swinish being and will have to leave you now. When you grow up, you can interact with adults. Until then, enjoy rolling in your filth.

UyiIredia:


Okay. Since you insist consciousness is physical what are its physical properties.

thehomer:


It means consciousness is not physical like the eye is but is a process like sight and consciousness is not magic.

felixomor:


Let me give u benefit of doubt. Please explain the last sentence (highlighted again) and u just contradicted that last highlighted sentence again by saying "consciouness is not physical" in your last reply.

Owliver:
consciousness is an abstract state(noun) like saying someone is mad. he's termed mad because his brain(physical) functions differently from accepted "normalcy" now would you say madness is spiritual? Choi una no go kill person.

thehomer:


Read my entire sentence and explain the contradiction. I said it isn't a physical object, but a physical process. What exactly is the contratiction? And what do you think consciousness is?

felixomor:


Other people have even noticed the contradiction.

felixomor:

U are clearly running away from the sentence u urself wrote: "It is limited to physical processes"

If u cant explain that sentence especially considering the fact that you used "limited".


Is it that u dont know what "limited" means before u used the word?

thehomer:


Who else has stated the noted "contradiction"?



What more is there to explain? What do you understand by what I've said? I've already expanded on it so what exactly has you so confused? What do you think consciousness is?

Owliver:
consciousness is an abstract state(noun) like saying someone is mad. he's termed mad because his brain(physical) functions differently from accepted "normalcy" now would you say madness is spiritual? Choi una no go kill person.

felixomor:


"it is limited to physical processes"

Then in another post "It is not a physical process".

Chei, what else will I say again?
How else can i Show contradiction again?

It is well.

AgentOfAllah:


Process: A series of things working holistically in pursuit of a certain end

Physical Process: The mechanical/chemical/biological operations of a series of things made of fundamental particles (or waves, if you like) to achieve a certain goal. e.g. Auto fanning of heated CPUs, Chemical reactions, walking to the bathroom.

Non-physical process: The operations of things that are not made of fundamental particles (or waves) to achieve a certain goal. E.g. Execution of computer games, thinking, dreaming, CPUs presenting solutions to PDEs.

The question then is; is it possible for something to not, it self, be a physical process, yet be limited to (i.e. constrained by) physical processes?

Absolutely! Interaction between virtual characters in PC games is non-physical, as no fundamental particles feature in the the forms/appearances or characteristics of the said characters. Yet, for you to perceive these characters, you need physical processes like an electricity powered monitor with speakers connected to a PC/game console which can run the storage medium within which these characters exist.

In light of the foregoing, I can say interaction of characters in PC games is not a physical process, and I can as well say interaction of characters in PC games is limited to physical processes (i.e. Running CPUs) , without fear of contradiction. Hope you can now see why you shouldn't claim those statements are contradictory.

felixomor:


"it is limited to physical processes"

Then in another post "It is not a physical process".

felixomor:

Chei, what else will I say again?
How else can i Show contradiction again?

It is well.

felixomor:



Fantastic logical argument. No doubt.

But for a little twist: You can use the PC game as an example for "Limited to physical processes" because it has an "off and on" button.
So when u use "limited" which also implies "resides within or trapped within" for the consciousness, then the scientist or the doctor will argue and ask where is the On and Off button for consciousness?

Afterall, if consciousness was limited to any organ or mechanism, Medics will just simply "Switch the on button" (As done for the PC game), by stimulating the "consciouness centre of the brain" for those patients they are trying to bring back from unconsciousness to consciousness. It will prevent many deaths and revive many patients who are currently on life support machines.

But thats not the case.

HardMirror:

Wrong.
There is no consciousness without self awareness.

It makes more sense that a self evolved organism would be self aware than a designed organism.

Consciousness is as simple as feeling hungry, you feel hungry and you are conscious of it. What makes you know you are hungry? They are called the hunger hormones leptin and ghrelin are responsible for triggering hunger. This means even if you are not hungry and this hormones are artificially injected into you, you can deceive your consciousness into thinking you are hungry.

What makes you happy? Hormones
What makes you feel sexual urges? Hormones

Interaction of different hormones with our brains are responsible for our day to day consciousnesses.

Our striving for survival prompts curiosity about our environment, man has evolved enough to absorb, investigate and understand his environment than other animals. This does not in any way make other animals less conscious of themselves.

Again, it is more plausible for an organism to be self conscious (without which there can't be survival of the fittest (evolution)) than a designed organism to be conscious. If your mobile phone evolved by itself, it would be conscious, if your car evolved, it would be conscious, else how would it have survived on it's own.

So consciousness actually supports evolution, it in no way invalidate evolution. And it in no way validates God.

vincentico:

science says otherwise

if there truly were a God why does every fact and figure in contrast with the idea

why would He leave so much evidence for man to question his existence

UyiIredia:
It's actually one of the arguments I posted earlier on this thread

Now if atheists are right then there should be no consciousness at all. In a purely physical world consciousness would be the anathema, something strange. But there is consciousness and therefore the atheist is not correct. Consciousness being immaterial cannot be explained by physical means.

It did not evolve since evolution applies to physical beings.

It does not spontaenously emerge because emergence typically deals with how complex PHYSICAL systems arise from simpler precursors.

Atheism being materialistic in nature has nothing to offer to explain mental awareness.

But the theist believing in an eternal conscious God has a means to explain consciousness. And that my friends wraps up my argument.

Cc thehomer Seun cloudgoddess Blaqsmith dalaman ichommy HardMirror johnydon22 onetrack joseph1013 Kay17 plaetton Davien ValentineMary lepasharon reallest freecocoa K9blunt Amusaopeyemi