Proof that consciousness evolved from physical matter?

@Cyracuz,

Yes.

0 Replies

...and that is precisely why we should look at it as a progression in layers...Consciousness above all to be possible in us, "material" beings must be somehow intrinsic to the processes of reality at large...we should look into the past primitive roots of Consciousness instead and see what it could be and mean in its most simplistic conception...to were I stand that equates with measurement and memory...both rudimentary possible in "dead" matter at a primal level...now of course we should n´t be looking for talking rocks...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Does there exist any proof that consciousness evolved from physical matter?
By proof I mean facts that describe the process.

Note that proof that consciousness evolved from matter
does not DISprove that consciousness existed before matter did.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

IN FACT IT DOES N´T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL...

...again, nor do we properly know what matter is nor do we fully understand what Consciousness is about...and by the look of this thread nobody is really interested in trying very hard...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

IN FACT IT DOES N´T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL...

...again, nor do we properly know what matter is nor
do we fully understand what Consciousness is about...and by the look of this thread
nobody is really interested in trying very hard...

Will U LEAD THE WAY ???

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

What Jaynes is saying is that consciousness as we experience it has only existed for the last 3500 years or thereabouts; that the entire manner in which the human mind and brain work has undergone a radical transformation in the last 4000 years.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Note that proof that consciousness evolved from matter
does not DISprove that consciousness existed before matter did.

Well, if there was any proof that consciousness evolved from matter, the assumption that matter existed before consciousness would be unproblematical.
Unfortunately, we have no such proof, which means that we have to consider the possibility of another explanation.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Quote:

What Jaynes is saying is that consciousness as we experience it has only existed for the last 3500 years or thereabouts; that the entire manner in which the human mind and brain work has undergone a radical transformation in the last 4000 years

Thanks. I noted the words "as we experience it". If Jaynes deals strictly with human consciousness his words fall in a different context in my ears.

But can we be certain that consciousness is a strictly human phenomenon? Is it not possible that our consciousness, like the matter of our bodies, is an expression of some natural phenomenon, and that our particular configuration of consciousness/matter is simply a synergy of natural phenomena.
There are no facts that let us dismiss this notion, and as of this day, to my knowledge, we have no facts that prove it either. But this is not god we are talking about. I have the experience of consciousness, which makes consciousness real. The "extreme scientific" view that anything that doesn't have facts to support it is not real seems to me to be a very narrow, almost dogmatic belief.
Fortunately, this attitude seems to be rare among scientists, at least among those who are responsible for the most profound scientific discoveries. It tends to be more of a layman's belief, and is often a response to the "irrational" thinking of religiously motivated people they seek to distance themselves from.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

correct...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Note that proof that consciousness evolved from matter
does not DISprove that consciousness existed before matter did.

Well, if there was any proof that consciousness evolved from matter,
the assumption that matter existed before consciousness would be unproblematical.

"unproblematical" HOW ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

We tend to think of the unfolding of the universe in a linear manner. But then we have the problem of explaining how consciousness could arise from something that is inherently unconscious. If that is even possible, and we had the explanation of how it is possible, this linear notion wouldn't be problematical. But as of now, this linear progression we model scientific theories of evolution and big bang after is not scientifically proven to be valid.
The notion that matter preceeds consciousness is far older than science itself. It is actually a notion that science has adopted from biblical creation, where first sky and land was created, then animals, then humans, in that order. It escapes the notice of most "rational" thinkers that this notion is actually an ancient religious belief that originated long before humans had developed any scientific methods.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

We tend to think of the unfolding of the universe in a linear manner.
But then we have the problem of explaining how consciousness could arise
from something that is inherently unconscious.

HOW did u figure out whether it is inherently unconscious ??

Cyracuz wrote:

If that is even possible, and we had the explanation of how it is possible, this linear notion wouldn't be problematical.
But as of now, this linear progression we model scientific theories of evolution and big bang after is not scientifically proven to be valid.
The notion that matter preceeds consciousness is far older than science itself.

How much older ?

Cyracuz wrote:

It is actually a notion that science has adopted from biblical creation, where first sky and land was created, then animals, then humans, in that order. It escapes the notice of most "rational" thinkers that this notion is actually an ancient religious belief that originated long before humans had developed any scientific methods.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

HOW did u figure out whether it is inherently unconscious ??

I didn't. No one did, but it's still the going assumption. It's what they taught us in school.

Quote:

How much older ?

At least as old as the biblical genesis. But it is culturally based as well. Christian kids were taught about the world along the thinking of the culture they were born in. But in ancient India the world was categorized in an entirely different way, and their culture was based on this. If the big bang theory had been constructed by a hinduistic brahman rather than a catholic priest it might have looked very different even though the facts at it's base were the same.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

The Big Bang Theory resulted from observation
that the universe is continually expanding.

That leads us to believe that yesterday n last year: it was smaller.

The further back in time,
the smaller it is.

Is that different for Catholics or Hindus ?

Do Hindu telescopes work differently than Catholic ones ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

No, but the emphasis a christian would put on this observation might differ from that of a hindu.

Physicists today talk about unified field theory. It is an entirely different approach to explaining the cosmos, and there is no linear progression from start to finish. This model comes purely from the theoretical physics that are only now starting to be verified by experiments.

In the context of a unified field it is perhaps more accurate to call big bang a theory of the origin of our human experience rather than a theory of the origin of the universe. We pretty much know already that physical matter is only "real" in our perception, that our reality happens in a relationship between a percieved observer and a percieved object.

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I would say, Cyracuz, instead of "physical matter is only 'real' in our perception", that the CHARACTER that matter takes results from our perceptual and conceptual dispositions. But I must confess that I do not understand what you mean by "real."

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I would say, Cyracuz, instead of "physical matter is only 'real' in our perception", that the CHARACTER that matter takes results from our perceptual and conceptual dispositions. But I must confess that I do not understand what you mean by "real."

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

No, but the emphasis a christian would put on this observation might differ from that of a hindu.

Physicists today talk about unified field theory. It is an entirely different approach to explaining the cosmos,
and there is no linear progression from start to finish.
This model comes purely from the theoretical physics that are only now starting to be verified by experiments.

In the context of a unified field it is perhaps more accurate to call big bang a theory of the origin of our human experience
rather than a theory of the origin of the universe.

R u alleging that the sought after Unified Field Theory DENIES the Big Bang ??
I am not aware that it does.

Cyracuz wrote:

We pretty much know already that physical matter is only "real" in our perception,
that our reality happens in a relationship between a percieved observer and a percieved object.

Because matter is full of big holes; is that what u had in mind ?

David

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Agreed.

The meaning of "reality" (like all words) comes from its contextual usage (Wittgenstein). When a theists argues "God is real", he implies that he speaks of "an entity" having separate existence to himself as another entity. Now at one level the atheist argues against him that "God is not real" because although there are separate entities "there is no evidence that God is one of them". But at another level the atheist (me for example) might argue that there are no separate entities at all, that all are defined by their perceived relationships.

Thus a theist has a coexistential relationship he+god and the atheist is defined relatively as he+no god. Note that these relationships are themselves predicated on each other since the labels "theist" and "atheist" only arise in dispute contexts.

Now whatever can be said about "the reality of God" can be said of "reality in general". Thus questions of "reality" only arise in dispute contexts. We do not for example normally question the reality of "the internet" we are all using. But note the contemporary nature of the "reality" of that concept. Note also the demise of other concepts like "the humors of the body". In short, since relationships change, so too does "reality" as an agreed functional co-relationship between what we consider to be "self£ and "world".

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

What I mean by "real" in this context is that the category physical matter may not be relevant anywhere but within the relationship of (our) consciousness. As we know that reality responds to consciousness, it seems fair to say that the unified field can respond to consciousness.
If that is the case, how do we know that what we find when "looking" through deep space telescopes isn't just what we see because we expected it?

0 Replies

Proof that consciousness evolved from physical matter?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know