The Evolution of Consciousness

[joshua 1 9]

Conscious evolution is different from the evolution of consciousness. What I find interesting is that the people who love to promote evolutionary theory tend to shy away from any discussion about the evolution of our brain and the evolution of our ability to be able to understand evolutionary theory. Some of the basic questions people need to answer are: What is the adaptive value of consciousness? When did it evolve and what animals have it?

I am mostly interested in the collective consciousness. Although maybe Dawkins would argue that consciousness is selfish and there is no collective consciousness. There is unity with in organisms and there seems to be unity between individual organisms that are working together like birds in flight or fish swimming in a school of fish. One flows with the wind and the other flows with the current in the water.

We can go anywhere you want. Does anyone have anything at all to explain to us how consciousness evolved? Or how the collective consciousness evolves?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Conscious evolution is different from the evolution of consciousness. What I find interesting is that the people who love to promote evolutionary theory tend to shy away from any discussion about the evolution of our brain and the evolution of our ability to be able to understand evolutionary theory.

There are reasons for that, I think. Taken at face value, evolution (which I tend to believe in) could raise some very uncomfortable questions. I'll say no more.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

We can go anywhere you want.

Please go where we all want

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Conscious evolution is different from the evolution of consciousness. What I find interesting is that the people who love to promote evolutionary theory tend to shy away from any discussion about the evolution of our brain and the evolution of our ability to be able to understand evolutionary theory. Some of the basic questions people need to answer are: What is the adaptive value of consciousness? When did it evolve and what animals have it?

I am mostly interested in the collective consciousness. Although maybe Dawkins would argue that consciousness is selfish and there is no collective consciousness. There is unity with in organisms and there seems to be unity between individual organisms that are working together like birds in flight or fish swimming in a school of fish. One flows with the wind and the other flows with the current in the water.

We can go anywhere you want. Does anyone have anything at all to explain to us how consciousness evolved? Or how the collective consciousness evolves?

I've seen plenty of people discussing brains and the evolution of consciousness. Hence, I think that your claim that people 'shy away' from this is plain wrong.

Like eyes, you can see a continuum of intelligence among living things. Right from very simple organisms that react blindly to stimulus with no reasoning, to extremely simple nervous systems, to more complex nervous systems, right up to the most evolved brains on the planet. We also see greater or lesser degrees of consciousness among animals (including us). From living creatures with no apparent consciousness at all, to animals which express emotions and have a sense of self, to us the most evolved beings on the planet. There is no place in evolution where there is a sudden change from lack of consciousness to conscious beings.

Yes, organisms such as ourselves, fish, etc. are social organisms. This naturally evolves because the unit of evolution is the population, and social behaviour benefits populations, and is hence a characteristic that can be selected for by survival of the fittest.

Why do you refer to Dawkins for this? And how do you back up your claim that Dawkins would argue that consciousness is selfish, as I've seen nothing that would suggest this. Dawkins has written on the selfish gene, not selfish consciousness.

There are reasons for that, I think. Taken at face value, evolution (which I tend to believe in) could raise some very uncomfortable questions. I'll say no more.

Please say more. What are those uncomfortable questions?

 

[juvenissun]

Conscious evolution is different from the evolution of consciousness. What I find interesting is that the people who love to promote evolutionary theory tend to shy away from any discussion about the evolution of our brain and the evolution of our ability to be able to understand evolutionary theory. Some of the basic questions people need to answer are: What is the adaptive value of consciousness? When did it evolve and what animals have it?

I am mostly interested in the collective consciousness. Although maybe Dawkins would argue that consciousness is selfish and there is no collective consciousness. There is unity with in organisms and there seems to be unity between individual organisms that are working together like birds in flight or fish swimming in a school of fish. One flows with the wind and the other flows with the current in the water.

We can go anywhere you want. Does anyone have anything at all to explain to us how consciousness evolved? Or how the collective consciousness evolves?

No evolutionist would take that. Because they can not see it in fossils, can not see it in DNA. All the rest are just imagination.

Why do human want to wear clothes? It may fall into your category. As a result, no evolutionist can answer this simple question.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No evolutionist would take that. Because they can not see it in fossils, can not see it in DNA. All the rest are just imagination.

Why do human want to wear clothes? It may fall into your category. As a result, no evolutionist can answer this simple question.

Again people seem to be making assumptions about what evolutionists will or will not want to discuss or 'take on'.

We don't need to 'see it in the fossils'. We can see it elsewhere. Among life today there is a range of complexity from single celled bacteria and archaea, to us. We can study the development of consciousness by looking at that. And, people do. After 2,500 Studies, It's Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven (Op-Ed)

Humans want to wear clothes because it allows humans to live in parts of the world where it would be impossible to live otherwise. Let alone uncomfortable. Without clothes we're restricted to living in warm climates because of our physiology. How long do you think Eskimos in the arctic would survive without clothes? You declare that 'no evolutionist can answer that question', but it's actually easy to answer. Clothes make it more comfortable/possible for humans to live in different climates, and we had evolved sufficient intelligence and consciousness to discover the concept of 'clothing' and pass this on as social (in addition to biological) evolution.

It seems rather odd to just declare that evolutionists have no answer to this question, or don't want to take it on. What if I suddenly say that creationists can't explain why some of us drink tea in the morning, and then say that no creationist will take this question on? It would be very silly to proclaim something like that when it's so easily demonstrably wrong.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why do human want to wear clothes? It may fall into your category. As a result, no evolutionist can answer this simple question.

Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher that one .

 

[juvenissun]

Humans want to wear clothes because it allows humans to live in parts of the world where it would be impossible to live otherwise.

Why then tropical people want to wear clothes?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Why then tropical people want to wear clothes?

I have several close friends who don't!

Clothes still make people more comfortable in various ways, and society has developed various social rules that require people to wear clothes. I suggest that you try walking around naked on a hot day and see if anyone objects.

Many historical primitive societies cover very little, often just wearing a loincloth. I've seen it written (in all seriousness) that one hypothesis for the development of the loincloth is that the male genitals hang at about the same height as many prickly bushes.

However, I'd guess that it's just the development of taboos against genital nudity that led to clothing in hot climes.

I will be waiting with bated breath to see if you say 'Goddidit' in relation to the invention of the loincloth.

 

[bhsmte]

Why then tropical people want to wear clothes?

Because they don't want all those living rocks to see them naked.

 

[juvenissun]

I have several close friends who don't!

Clothes still make people more comfortable in various ways, and society has developed various social rules that require people to wear clothes. I suggest that you try walking around naked on a hot day and see if anyone objects.

Many historical primitive societies cover very little, often just wearing a loincloth. I've seen it written (in all seriousness) that one hypothesis for the development of the loincloth is that the male genitals hang at about the same height as many prickly bushes.

However, I'd guess that it's just the development of taboos against genital nudity that led to clothing in hot climes.

I will be waiting with bated breath to see if you say 'Goddidit' in relation to the invention of the loincloth.

You explained with a few "reasons". But you absolutely failed to explain why do those reasons ever exist. That makes the question unanswered. For example: social rules, why should wear clothes be a social rule?

Another more fundamental question is: where came the idea of wearing clothes (something) in the very beginning? Why should human "cover" his body with anything?

Evolutionists have no clue.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You explained with a few "reasons". But you absolutely failed to explain why do those reasons ever exist. That makes the question unanswered. For example: social rules, why should wear clothes be a social rule?

Social rules are social rules because societies make them up. Have you not noticed this?

Besides, if you go back and look at the discussion, there was no need for me to explain where these rules are. That we have social rules that say we need to wear clothes (and punishment if we don't), that is an explanation of why humans wear clothes. You're now trying to shift the goal posts to say I have to explain why these reasons exist.

If you really want to know, then five seconds googling would have given you research on that question. E.g. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu...redir=1&article=2654&context=journal_articles However, you seem to want to avoid finding out so that you can try and claim that if we don't know where the nudity taboo came from, then clearly biological evolution is disproved.

Another more fundamental question is: where came the idea of wearing clothes (something) in the very beginning? Why should human "cover" his body with anything?

Humans invent things. Have you not noticed this? It's sometimes cold. Wearing things keeps you warm. You don't need any divine guidance for that.

Evolutionists have no clue.

Ah yes, the creationist strategy of arm-waving away everything 'evolutionists' say while offering no evidence of their own. Where is the evidence of your world view? You might want to start by giving as verifiable objective evidence that there actually is a God.

So, I ask you directly: Where is the verifiable objective of your God. This seems to be a bit more on topic than you challenging me to describe the origin of social norms.

Because: remember, if you base your whole world view around something that is wrong, you don't just have no clue. You actually know less than nothing.

 

[juvenissun]

Social rules are social rules because societies make them up. Have you not noticed this?

Besides, if you go back and look at the discussion, there was no need for me to explain where these rules are. That we have social rules that say we need to wear clothes (and punishment if we don't), that is an explanation of why humans wear clothes. You're now trying to shift the goal posts to say I have to explain why these reasons exist.

If you really want to know, then five seconds googling would have given you research on that question. E.g. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu...redir=1&article=2654&context=journal_articles However, you seem to want to avoid finding out so that you can try and claim that if we don't know where the nudity taboo came from, then clearly biological evolution is disproved.



Humans invent things. Have you not noticed this? It's sometimes cold. Wearing things keeps you warm. You don't need any divine guidance for that.



Ah yes, the creationist strategy of arm-waving away everything 'evolutionists' say while offering no evidence of their own. Where is the evidence of your world view? You might want to start by giving as verifiable objective evidence that there actually is a God.

So, I ask you directly: Where is the verifiable objective of your God. This seems to be a bit more on topic than you challenging me to describe the origin of social norms.

Because: remember, if you base your whole world view around something that is wrong, you don't just have no clue. You actually know less than nothing.

According to the ToE, we should NOT wear any clothes. No evolutionist can explain why do we wear clothes. All the reasons you gave attract a fundamentally unanswered question: WHY. But MY God gives a perfect final answer. Based on the fact, His word is perfectly verified.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[DogmaHunter]

According to the ToE, we should NOT wear any clothes.

Ow boy.....

No evolutionist can explain why do we wear clothes.

Social contracts and also, it's kind of cold outside without clothes.

All the reasons you gave attract a fundamentally unanswered question: WHY.

Social stability and staying warm.

But MY God gives a perfect final answer. Based on the fact, His word is perfectly verified.

You mean the "explanation" where 2 naked people, who didn't have biological parents, were convinced by a talking snake to eat the supernatural fruit of a magical tree in a magical garden, after which they suddenly were aware of being naked and felt shame?

That "explanation"?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

According to the ToE, we should NOT wear any clothes. No evolutionist can explain why do we wear clothes. All the reasons you gave attract a fundamentally unanswered question: WHY. But MY God gives a perfect final answer. Based on the fact, His word is perfectly verified.

What on earth? According to the ToE we should not wear clothes? What a bizarre statement.

Give me one reason why the ToE says that we should not wear clothes?

Because unless you actually give me some sort of reason for that claim, I can't answer it, as there isn't any logic or sense for me to grab onto.

As DogmaHunter says, there are social norms that require clothes, and it's more comfortable wearing them. Particularly in the cold.

How on earth can you conclude that no evolutionist could explain that?!?!?!?

 

[juvenissun]

What on earth? According to the ToE we should not wear clothes? What a bizarre statement.

Give me one reason why the ToE says that we should not wear clothes?

Because making and wearing clothes is a unnecessary burden to the survival.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Because making and wearing clothes is a unnecessary burden to the survival.

Making and wearing clothes significantly enhances survival. Have you never ever heard of hypothermia?

 

[juvenissun]

Making and wearing clothes significantly enhances survival. Have you never ever heard of hypothermia?

No need to struggle. Simply move toward south. That is all animals do. Did you say we are just another animals?

Biologically, no reason to wear clothes.

 

[durangodawood]

According to the ToE, we should NOT wear any clothes....

Thats completely false.

Lots of human behavior is explained by culture and not by biological evolution.