Because as an empiricist, I don't assign properties to something without having an active reason to believe such is there, in the form of evidence. I don't "limit" the possibilities of conscious; I merely limit my own belief to that which has been demonstrated through a reasonable scientific process.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chris - I guess limiting consciousness to some arbitrary organization > of molecules, or to some set of such organizations, is about as > arbitrary as not limiting it to anything but contending that it is > everywhere and in everything (as well as in nothing - i.e; all of > space). Why do you think it is limited? Jim > > On Jul 24, 11:20 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why would it seem that way to you? What seems conscious about a rock, or > > other inert matter? > > I would extend consciousness to any form of "life" (whatever that may > turn > > out to mean), since as I've described, consciousness rises from > > organization, a function of life. > > > > I'm locked behind a somewhat restrictive firewall right now, but will > > endeavor to provide you with some quality citation post haste. :) > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Chris - it seems to me that consciousness is present everywhere in the > > > universe and in all matter, and eneryg too for that matter, not just > > > is some arbitrary collection of species. I'd like a cite to the vast > > > majority you reference. Jim > > > > > On Jul 23, 9:50 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Absolutely! > > > > Consciousness is most likely (according to the vast majority of > serious > > > > research on the topic) a function of higher organization. You are > correct > > > to > > > > assign consciousness to monkeys, but to delineate levels of such. > > > > > > Something to keep in mind here: It's a common misconception of those > that > > > > attack evolution that we're stating "Humans are descended from > chimps" > > > (or > > > > Orangutans, as the case may be). In actuality, we're noting common > > > > ancestors. Could Chimpanzees or Orangutans eventually evolve into > Homo > > > > Sapiens? It's highly improbable. > > > > > > So, back to your question...in our branch of development, more energy > was > > > > expended in prefrontal structure (i.e. the lobes, man.) This is the > seat > > > of > > > > higher intellect, our personality, and likely, what we consider to be > our > > > > consciousness. The lesser apes? Not so much. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, retiredjim34 <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Chris - I understand what you are speaking of when you reference > > > > > people or persons to be the physical human being. While this body > may > > > > > well be related to some sort of monkey, the person is not the body > but > > > > > the consciousness within that body. There are many examples of > this. I > > > > > doubt if the level of consciousness humans have is much like > whatever > > > > > might be the sort of consciousness monkeys have. Any thoughts on > this > > > > > level? Jim > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 11:21 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > From another list I'm on...chimps may not be our closest relative > > > after > > > > > all? > > > > > > > > From the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review. Anyone interested in a pdf > of > > > the > > > > > > original article please let me know. John Grehan > > > > > > *Pitt anthropologist argues humans more like orangutans than > chimps* > > > > > > A University of Pittsburgh anthropologist argues in a paper > published > > > > > today > > > > > > that humans most likely share a common ancestor with orangutans, > and > > > not > > > > > > chimpanzees, which is the prevailing belief. > > > > > > > > Jeffrey H. Schwartz hopes the paper will get researchers to > practice > > > > > > fundamental science and question some assumptions. > > > > > > "What I'll be happy with is if people actually think out of the > box > > > and > > > > > > consider alternative theories of human relationships with apes," > > > Schwartz > > > > > > said Wednesday in a phone interview from Zagreb, Croatia. > > > > > > > > He concedes it won't happen overnight, but the paper in the > Journal > > > of > > > > > > Biogeography that he co-authored could help, said Schwartz, who's > the > > > > > > president of the World Academy of Art and Science. > > > > > > > > "We've done the analysis," said John Grehan, who is the paper's > other > > > > > > co-author, director of science at the Buffalo Museum in New York > and > > > a > > > > > > research associate at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. > > > > > > > > Jeffrey L. Boore, an adjunct biology professor at the University > of > > > > > > California-Berkeley who specializes in interpretive genome > sequences, > > > > > said > > > > > > he knows of no strong reason to discount the DNA studies that > have > > > > > > demonstrated chimps and gorillas are more closely related to > humans > > > than > > > > > > orangutans. > > > > > > > > "The overwhelming majority of those studies have given very > strong > > > > > support > > > > > > to excluding orangutans from the human-chimp-gorilla group," said > > > Boore, > > > > > > who's also CEO of Genome Project Solutions, Inc., in Hercules, > Calif. > > > > > > > > "If people disagree with it, they need to put out their evidence > and > > > let > > > > > it > > > > > > go back and forth," said Grehan, an entomologist who also studies > the > > > > > origin > > > > > > and evolution of animals and plants. "But I think a lot of people > are > > > > > > incapable of dealing with it." > > > > > > > > That's because for years most of the scientific community > accepted > > > DNA > > > > > > analyses that suggest humans are most closely related to chimps, > > > Schwartz > > > > > > and Grehan said. > > > > > > > > But an examination of fossil and other evidence shows humans and > > > > > orangutans > > > > > > share 28 features -- including reproductive systems, tooth > structures > > > and > > > > > > mouth palates, the scientists say. > > > > > > > > Schwartz and Grehan write in their paper that humans share only > two > > > > > features > > > > > > with chimpanzees and seven with gorillas. > > > > > > "In science, you must integrate the fossil record with the living > > > > > record," > > > > > > Grehan said. "That's what we've done." > > > > > > They propose a scenario that explains the migration of the > > > > > human-orangutan > > > > > > common ancestor from Southeast Asia, where modern orangutans are > > > from. > > > > > > > > The molecular evidence that scientists commonly cite to > demonstrate > > > the > > > > > link > > > > > > between humans and chimps is flawed, Schwartz said. > > > > > > > > "Only 2 percent of the entire human genome can be verified," he > said. > > > > > "But > > > > > > people are saying that chimps and humans share 98 percent of some > > > portion > > > > > of > > > > > > that 2 percent to make their case." > > > > > > > > That's not good science, said Malte Ebach, a paleontologist at > > > Arizona > > > > > State > > > > > > University's International Institute for Species Exploration, > who, > > > like > > > > > > Grehan, studies the origin and evolution of animals and plants. > > > > > > > > "People think DNA data is better because they perceive it as > > > > > technologically > > > > > > superior and more progressive," Ebach said. "But technology > doesn't > > > make > > > > > > data better." > > > > > > > > Schwartz proposed his human-orangutan theory in 1982. He wrote > the > > > book, > > > > > > "The Red Ape: Orangutans and Human Origins," in 1986 that > expanded on > > > > > those > > > > > > ideas. In 2005, Schwartz published and revised an updated version > of > > > the > > > > > > book. > > > > > > > > The work was ignored as molecular studies came out that showed > the > > > > > > similarity between chimps and humans. > > > > > > Grehan said alternative views should not be dismissed when a > theory > > > > > becomes > > > > > > so accepted. > > > > > > During the mid-20th century, scientists so fervently disagreed > with > > > > > Barbara > > > > > > McClintock's theory that genes could move along a chromosome that > she > > > > > > stopped publishing, Grehan said. In 1983, McClintock won a Nobel > > > Prize > > > > > for > > > > > > her research in "jumping genes." > > > > > > > > Subscription options and archives available: > > > > >http://listserv.buffalo.edu/archives/anthro-l.html-Hide quoted text > - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
