Chris - for openers let us agree that humans have the quality we are calling consciousness. Now, what is it about that quality that gives you reason to believe that it is limited in some way or fashion to some collection of species, rather that being present everywhere and in everything? You say your belief that consciousness is limited "has been demonstrated through a reasonable scientific process." Please explain. I hope you don't see this as just being argumentative. I would seriously welcome any light you can shed on this topic. Jim
On Jul 24, 12:05 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-Hidequoted text > > - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
