/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9810790]

Consciousness is simply the adaptation of our species to the environment. Consciousness allows beings to detect and analyze threats so they can avoid them. The organisms, namely humans, that could conceive of "me" better than others survived and procreated.

On a smaller level, other, less intelligent beings also experience a concept of "me." We see it in wasps, that attack intruders. We see it in guinea pigs, that show dominance displays. We see it in snakes hissing at threats. They cannot abstract their consciousness as well as humans can, which is why they are not the apex predator, while humans are. Humans cannot only recognize "me" but can abstract a great deal from that thought alone, while a snake cannot.

Holding that evolution is valid, and that other life exists in the universe, that other life, given enough time, must have evolved for consciousness as well. Consciousness seems to be an inherently natural side effect of survival.

[Anonymous No.9810842]

>>9810790
You need to publish this immediately

[Anonymous No.9810859]

>>9810842
shut the fuck up you hooligan

[Anonymous No.9811063]

>>9810790
>Consciousness
define "Consciousness"

[Anonymous No.9811502]

>>9811063
The ability to understand, on some level the concept of "me." A rat would be conscious under this definition because it can fend for itself. It can understand, very vaguely, that it is an individual. For example, it knows that it has to eat, and will fight another rat if that rat impedes its ability to eat out of self-sustainability. A human has this very same instinct, but because of their intelligence can abstract much more from their concept of me.

A plant is not conscious under this definition because it has no concept of self. Though arguably, I can see the argument being made that a plant's "sense of self" can be seen in its intake of water, "reaching" for the sun, or evolutionary protective adaptations to environmental stimulai, such as the development of thorns.

[Anonymous No.9811510]

wow this guy cracked the hardest problem.

[Anonymous No.9811518]

>>9811502
Furthermore, the beings that are able to abstract from this sense of "me" aka, those that are more conscious, are able to procreate more because they have an advantage in the environment in that they can figure things out more quickly and easily. Following this line of thought, it seems that the advantage would be intelligence, since the better one is able to abstract from "me" the more intelligent they become. And hence, we get the apex predator that is the human race.

[Anonymous No.9811519]

>>9811510
I'm just spitballing here. Get out rube.

[Anonymous No.9811525]

>>9811518
Is there not a paradox here in that a greater sense of "me" also creates greater divide and selfishness?

This increased "intelligence" is not always used for the betterment of the species, quite the opposite in fact.

[Anonymous No.9811552]

>>9811525
Nah, not a paradox unless your assuming that the concept of "me" only leads to "moral" ends.

I am only implying that consciousness leads to better survival, which is why it may be an unavoidable result in the evolution of life. Whether this consciousness leads to selfishness is fine in this context if it leads to better survivability for the organism and species.

[Anonymous No.9811554]

>>9811525
Nah, not a paradox unless you're assuming that the concept of "me" only leads to "moral" ends.

I am only implying that consciousness leads to better survival, which is why it may be an unavoidable result in the evolution of life. Whether this consciousness leads to selfishness is fine in this context if it leads to better survivability for the organism and species.

[Anonymous No.9811570]

Mass education was a mistake

[Anonymous No.9811577]

>>9811554
Clearly consciousness helps us to survive, but only at the most base level where it interfaces with our 5 senses, like:

>Ouch I feel pain on my foot.
>I feel hungry.
>This tastes good/bad.
>This looks dangerous. Etc.

However, our consciousness deals with things completely unrelated to our survival, and in fact can contribute to the opposite of survival (suicide, for example). We can also enjoy things that are dangerous, things that go against our natural, base instincts. How does that fit in with evolutionary theory?

[Anonymous No.9811590]

>>9810790


The "magic" conscious experience we have has no provable adaptive function, it isn't even in the realm of scientific study, so fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9811593]

>>9811577
brb, will respond to this in an hour or two cause I have some shit to attend to atm.

[Anonymous No.9811598]

>>9811570

[Anonymous No.9811634]

>>9811593
>rats have invaded my basement

[Anonymous No.9811689]

>>9810790
>>9811502
No, self is a different topic from consciousness.
A self concept isn't needed for conscious awareness and conscious awareness isn't needed for a self concept.

[Anonymous No.9811825]

>>9811577
>Clearly consciousness helps us to survive, but only at the most base level where it interfaces with our 5 senses, like:

>Ouch I feel pain on my foot.
>I feel hungry.
>This tastes good/bad.
>This looks dangerous. Etc.

It's much more than this imo. The more one can think critically about their place in the environment, the better they can survive. This ability to critically think is directly related to the concept of "me" in that without the concept of "me" an organism wouldn't have a vantage point from which to plan (paired with the concept of time, which also stems from "me": "MY place as the world moves and changes").

Examples: early hominid realizes he can trap animals to get food. Early hominid realizes he can mislead stalking predators/enemies by hiding and throwing rocks in another direction. Early hominid realizes he can make life easier by fashioning tools out of stone. early hominid realizes he can dry meat with smoke.

All of these ideas trace back to the idea of "What can *I* do to make my life easier and survive?"

>However, our consciousness deals with things completely unrelated to our survival, and in fact can contribute to the opposite of survival (suicide, for example). We can also enjoy things that are dangerous, things that go against our natural, base instincts. How does that fit in with evolutionary theory?

Suicidal people are the outliers of humanity. So are the people who engage in dangerous activities. And people are simply dumb, or adrenaline junkies, or peer pressured, or had terrible upbringings, traumatic experiences that cause them to do certain things, or are sociopaths, which may lead them down dangerous or unsavory paths. But even then, those people want to survive; they still have the desire and the tools (that evolved for the purpose of survival). These people may be less inhibited for the various reasons stated above. But at their base, their consciousness, their concept of "me" allows them think abstractly.

[Anonymous No.9811827]

>>9811689
Can you expand on this? Examples?

[Anonymous No.9811829]

>>9811634
Correct. They are no longer.

[Anonymous No.9811842]

>>9811590
>it isn't even in the realm of scientific study

>what is neuroscience
>what is cognitive psychology

Though you're right, in the context I'm using it in, it's definitely metaphysical. It's interesting to think about and discuss.

[Anonymous No.9811846]

>>9811825
>Examples: early hominid realizes he can trap animals to get food. Early hominid realizes he can mislead stalking predators/enemies by hiding and throwing rocks in another direction. Early hominid realizes he can make life easier by fashioning tools out of stone. early hominid realizes he can dry meat with smoke.
>All of these ideas trace back to the idea of "What can *I* do to make my life easier and survive?"

Yes, but again, these only satisfy our base instincts. Evolution can only make the argument that consciousness is an intrinsic evolutionary property if its sole mechanism is for that of survival, when it clearly is not. Wouldn't it make more sense to evolve properties where you're not considered a threat? Or not considered edible? Or the ability to eat almost anything in nature so that food scarcity would never be an issue? Creating consciousness seems like incredibly odd property to evolve when the sole purpose of evolution is to survive.

>Suicidal people are the outliers of humanity. So are the people who engage in dangerous activities. And people are simply dumb, or adrenaline junkies, or peer pressured, or had terrible upbringings, traumatic experiences that cause them to do certain things, or are sociopaths, which may lead them down dangerous or unsavory paths.
Isn't all of this possible due to consciousness? Also, suicide is the biggest killer of men between the ages of 25 and 40, so it's not quite an outlier.

Our identities and beliefs, made possible by consciousness, have been the result of millions and millions of deaths. I'm not saying consciousness is a bad thing by the way, just it makes no sense to be an evolutionary adaptation. Evolution is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9811862]

>>9811846
>Wouldn't it make more sense to evolve properties where you're not considered a threat? Or not considered edible? Or the ability to eat almost anything in nature so that food scarcity would never be an issue? Creating consciousness seems like incredibly odd property to evolve when the sole purpose of evolution is to survive.

The way evolution works is that organisms adapt to their environment. Maybe evolving any of the properties you mentioned were not selected for because they were less useful than intelligence, in the case of hominids. But that's a bit besides the point. Organisms that have the properties you mentioned are all conscious (concept of "me") themselves already anyway. It seems that consciousness evolved either first or alongside those other properties, since most animals are conscious, with a concept of "me". Nature just happened to heavily invest intelligence in humans as opposed to other animals. And as I've already pointed out, my argument (in the OP) is that consciousness and a progression in intelligence are mutually inclusive.

>Isn't all of this possible due to consciousness?

Yes, but there are other factors at play. Consciousness is just the foundation they lie on.

>Also, suicide is the biggest killer of men between the ages of 25 and 40, so it's not quite an outlier.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is mostly a cultural phenomenon. Our ancestors survived. They wouldn't have been able to if the majority of people were killing themselves.

>Evolution is bullshit.

Absolutely not. It's a theory supported by mountains of verifiable evidence.

[Anonymous No.9811880]

>>9811862
>And as I've already pointed out, my argument (in the OP) is that consciousness and a progression in intelligence are mutually inclusive.

woops, said that in one of my replies, not the OP.

[Anonymous No.9811885]

>>9811862

>And as I've already pointed out, my argument (in the OP) is that consciousness and a progression in intelligence are mutually inclusive.

woops, said that in one of my replies, not the OP.
>>9811518

[Anonymous No.9811906]

>>9810790
Races that developed in less forgiving climates are more intelligent because the selection pressure of surviving every year is greater and requires planning.

[Anonymous No.9811924]

>>9811906
Certainly possible

[Anonymous No.9811931]

>>9811862
>The way evolution works is that organisms adapt to their environment. Maybe evolving any of the properties you mentioned were not selected for because they were less useful than intelligence, in the case of hominids. But that's a bit besides the point. Organisms that have the properties you mentioned are all conscious (concept of "me") themselves already anyway. It seems that consciousness evolved either first or alongside those other properties, since most animals are conscious, with a concept of "me". Nature just happened to heavily invest intelligence in humans as opposed to other animals. And as I've already pointed out, my argument (in the OP) is that consciousness and a progression in intelligence are mutually inclusive.
>
The way evolution works is that organisms adapt to their environment. Maybe evolving any of the properties you mentioned were not selected for because they were less useful than intelligence, in the case of hominids.
Why only in the case of hominids? Surely every organism would benefit from more intelligence?

>Yes, but there are other factors at play. Consciousness is just the foundation they lie on.
Not a ringing endorsement for evolution.
>I wouldn't be surprised if this is mostly a cultural phenomenon. Our ancestors survived. They wouldn't have been able to if the majority of people were killing themselves.
Culture is the result of consciousness.
>Absolutely not. It's a theory supported by mountains of verifiable evidence.
As well as mountains of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9811936]

>>9811862
>The way evolution works is that organisms adapt to their environment. Maybe evolving any of the properties you mentioned were not selected for because they were less useful than intelligence, in the case of hominids.

Why only in the case of hominids? Surely every organism would benefit from more intelligence?

>Yes, but there are other factors at play. Consciousness is just the foundation they lie on.
Not a ringing endorsement for evolution. The evolutionary adaptation of consciousness is the foundation of people dying unnecessarily.

>I wouldn't be surprised if this is mostly a cultural phenomenon. Our ancestors survived.
>They wouldn't have been able to if the majority of people were killing themselves.
Culture is the result of consciousness.

>Absolutely not. It's a theory supported by mountains of verifiable evidence.
As well as mountains of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9811939]

>>9811931
>Why only in the case of hominids?
Environmental pressures selected for intelligence. No idea what they were.

>Surely every organism would benefit from more intelligence?

Maybe, but they may have benefited greatly from other adaptations over intelligence. YET, as stated earlier, they all still have some level of consciousness.

>Not a ringing endorsement for evolution.
I already mentioned those other factors in another comment.
>>9811825
>Culture is the result of consciousness.
Yes. I fail to see how that is a counter argument.
>As well as mountains of bullshit.
Why on Earth do you believe this?

[Anonymous No.9811968]

>>9811939
>Environmental pressures selected for intelligence. No idea what they were.
Very scientific.
>Maybe, but they may have benefited greatly from other adaptations over intelligence. YET, as stated earlier, they all still have some level of consciousness.
It's as if "evolution" itself is intelligent, picking and choosing at will, what property will benefit an organism the most. Yet somehow, it's only chosen humans to have the consciousness they do, no other organism is allowed to come close. Very fair.
>Yes. I fail to see how that is a counter argument.
Evolution favours survivability
Creates consciousness which has an adverse affect on survivability. Imagine if we never felt anger, hate or greed, would that improve our survival?
>Why on Earth do you believe this?
Because it's illogical and full of assumptions and fluffy, easily faked "evidence". At what point did "evolution" come into existence?

[Anonymous No.9811970]

>>9811936
>Surely every organism would benefit from more intelligence?
do you have any idea how much energy it takes to sustain a large brain?
you would benefit from more intelligence, boy.

[Anonymous No.9811979]

>>9811970
The brain accounts for about 2% of caloric intake.

[Anonymous No.9811980]

>>9811968
Very shallow thinking lad.

[Anonymous No.9811983]

>>9811979
Lmaoooooo. Ok guys pack it up we know he's trolling.

[Anonymous No.9811990]

>>9811980
That's evolution for you.

>>9811983
How many calories does the brain eat up?

[Anonymous No.9811995]

>>9811968
OP here, I gotta go kill some more rats but I'll bbl.

[Anonymous No.9812000]

>>9811968
>Because it's illogical and full of assumptions and fluffy, easily faked "evidence". At what point did "evolution" come into existence?

I've got the feeling this guy knows next to nothing about evolution.

[Anonymous No.9812009]

>>9811995
The environment pressure of you trying to kill the rats will cause the rats to gain more consciousness, and will in turn kill you.

>>9812000
Seeing as you're clearly an expert, why not back up your claim?

[Anonymous No.9812018]

>>9810790
none of our behavior requires a subjective consciousness to explain.

[Anonymous No.9812021]

>>9810790
>Consciousness
>conceive of "me"
>abstract their consciousness
No, no, no- not this time, brainlet
Off to >>>/x/ you go.

[Anonymous No.9812025]

>>9812009
Not our job to educate you. Consider that perhaps you're wrong. OR you're smarter than every expert on this subject AND you've debunked decades of science.

[Anonymous No.9812029]

>>9811979
No. Brain is 2% of biomass. Consumes roughly 20% of calories, blood, and oxygen.

[Anonymous No.9812034]

>>9812025
>Not our job to educate you.
Ah, sharing knowledge too much for you?
>Consider that perhaps you're wrong. OR you're smarter than every expert on this subject AND you've debunked decades of science.
Appeal to majority fallacy. There are "experts" in every useless field you can imagine.
>AND you've debunked decades of science.
Wrong. Science is observable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is none of these, everything is based in the past.

[Anonymous No.9812038]

>>9811968
I'm back. Turns out I don't have to leave just yet.

>Very scientific.
I should have said I'm too lazy to say what they are. You can read about it here though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence

>It's as if "evolution" itself is intelligent, picking and choosing at will,
Evolution has no "will." Organisms develop different traits and the individuals with traits that are best suited to the environment survive
and pass on their genes. It's called Natural Selection. There is also something called random mutation that occurs when genes are passed on, as well as genetic drift, both of which determine which genes are expressed and passed on.

>Yet somehow, it's only chosen humans to have the consciousness they do, no other organism is allowed to come close.
Again, evolution doesn't "choose." As stated earlier:
>Maybe, but they may have benefited greatly from other adaptations over intelligence.

>Creates consciousness which has an adverse affect on survivability.
Merely existing has an adverse effect on survivability? I still don't see your point regarding culture.

>Because it's illogical and full of assumptions and fluffy, easily faked "evidence". At what point did "evolution" come into existence?

By this point, you've demonstrated the severity of your ignorance regarding evolution seeing as you don't even know what Natural Selection is. Please consume the following material in descending order:

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHOjC4oxh8

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SCjhI86grU

3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

Okay, g2g. BBL plebs.

[Anonymous No.9812078]

>>9812034
>Wrong. Science is observable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is none of these, everything is based in the past.

Uh. We observe the flu evolve into new strains every flu season dumb dumb. You can see evolution take place in real time (weeks to months) with very fast reproducing bacteria and I believe some insects. Consider modern strains of bacteria that have evolved resistance to our synthetic antibiotics (MRSA).

[Anonymous No.9812093]

>>9812029
20% is hardly impossible. Or, let me guess, only possible for us?

>>9812038
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence
Uses conjecture about things happening millions of years ago as fact. They could literally say anything they want happened millions of years ago and there's nothing you could do to dispute it.
>Organisms develop different traits and the individuals with traits that are best suited to the environment survive
and pass on their genes.
Humans just so happened to be the only organism to develop high level consciousness? Traits just develop randomly? Mutations? Mutations happen randomly? But they have to happen at exactly the right time to be beneficial?
>Merely existing has an adverse effect on survivability? I still don't see your point regarding culture.
Evolutionary traits tend to refer to physical adaptations to the environment. Consciousness is not the same as having an extra thumb, or growing a tail, consciousness is independent of the physical, it exists as something completely different that evolution can have no part in.
>By this point, you've demonstrated the severity of your ignorance regarding evolution seeing as you don't even know what Natural Selection is. Please consume the following material in descending order:
I know what natural selection is, survival of the "fittest". More like survival of the luckiest. Why do we allow handicap people to live? Are we fighting against evolution?

[Anonymous No.9812097]

>>9812078
Strain != specie

[Anonymous No.9812113]

>>9812097
Wew lad you are dumb. Small adaptations over small amounts of time amount to large adaptations over large amounts of time, which eventually results in speciation. You're obviously coming in with a likely religious bias.

[Anonymous No.9812114]

>>9812093
Not impossible at all, just not immediately advantageous for a variety of ecological niches.

[Anonymous No.9812123]

>>9812113
It's not observable in the present moment. Also, "adaptations" are just random mutations that happened at the right time, aren't they?

[Anonymous No.9812139]

>>9812114
>just not immediately advantageous for a variety of ecological niches.
How is more intelligence not advantageous for every organism? It makes zero sense. Everything should be evolving a bigger brain.

[Anonymous No.9812154]

>>9812123
Yeah, it is. Evolution is observable right now. A non-bacterial example is birds living in areas with highways. Over time those populations have naturally selected shorter wing spans due to their increased ability to make on the fly turns in air. This is a small example of evolution over a small amount of time. Over long periods of time, these changes add up. Evolution is not just about mutation, but of selecting favorable genes in general. Let's consider humans for example. Some of us are tall, some of us are short. Some of us are smart, some of us are dumb. This variability does not require mutation, and when in combination with natural selection can cause a population to move towards certain traits. Let's imagine a contrived scenario where survival depended on being able to lift the most amount of weight possible as efficiently as possible. Shorter humans would be more prosperous due to better leverages and the square-cube law (their bones and muscles would have more bang for their buck effectively). As far as mutations, remember that the majority of mutations have little to no effect at all. Most of the time, that small effect is in fact negative, but sometimes it's not. If the effects are neutral on survival, they'll be bred into populations without consequence. That's partly why it's possible for organisms to have traits that are inconsequential to survival, but that's just an interesting aside, nothing to do with the main point at it.

[Anonymous No.9812155]

>>9811827
>Examples (that awareness and self concept are two different things)?
Conscious awareness can exist just fine during a psychedelic ego death experience.
Also for the other way around thinking involving the self concept can take place without you being consciously aware of it. In fact you usually aren't aware of most thinking or behaving in general that you do, it's only during uncertain / unexpected / alarming circumstances that conscious awareness kicks in.
e.g. The fact you're able to navigate and interact with the world around you is in part something that works because of a self concept where the boundaries of your body are differentiated from the rest of the world.
And at the same time most people are total zombies when making use of that self concept in successfully driving to and from work. It's something you get used to and don't bother paying conscious awareness to most of the time.

[Anonymous No.9812158]

>>9812139
Again, this is a result of your shallow thinking on this subject. First of all, it can be argued that all organisms have developed greater intelligence. They very clearly have, just within the limited scope of their ecological niche. Evolution is not about what is "superior". It's about what is currently optimal and efficient for survival. A small example of the remarkable intelligence of other organisms is the extraordinary intelligence of basic insects. It is truly remarkable that some of them can work in a fashion that is far superior, efficient, and effective than "superior" mammals like ourselves.

[Anonymous No.9812162]

>>9812139
Further, I want you to understand that evolution is not driving towards one singular goal. It is an unthinking process. I think a great analogy for evolution and biological niches is capitalism. Companies will capture every corner of the market where money generation is possible from selling food, to making computers, to selling music, to even the most outlandish things like selling underwear. Just because selling oil is the most profitable or superior course of action for making money, doesn't mean every company is driving towards that one goal. There are multiple avenues to success both in capitalism and evolution. As with both, companies and organisms adapt to maximize their efficacy. Companies make more money, organism survive and proliferate.

[Anonymous No.9812171]

>>9812139
Lastly, the general intelligence humans have is very costly. It's extremely complicated and took hundreds of millions of years to develop. From primates, to early hominids, and finally homo-sapiens it was a long and risky process to develop the level of general intelligence we have now. Consider that intelligence is not an isolated concept. In order to empower the feedback loops necessary for higher level thinking, humans needed to be able to manipulate the world. How could you think about developing a tool or a weapon if you didn't have hands to experiment with the development of such things? Having hands required a drastically different locomotion and body setup (bipedal). So it's not so simple, that's the point I want you to take home here. It's not just like every organism can become like humans EZPZ. The last point I want to mention is how compromising intelligence can be. Consider how small our jaw muscles are compared to primates like gorillas. Those large muscles got in the way of the growth potential of our brain, because we're not free to grow skulls of unlimited size (all women would die in childbirth). Now this is problematic because bite force is the most lethal weapon a primate has. So you're sacrificing A LOT of defensive and offensive capability.

[Anonymous No.9812172]

>>9812154
Your bird example is not evolution because the shorter wing span trait already existed, evolution requires a completely new trait/species coming into existence based on the environment.

We can't mate with apes any more, meaning we must have a trait they do not, which must have come from mutation, random chance.

[Anonymous No.9812174]

>>9812171
And lastly one more point, diet is a big part of it. As far as I understand the human brain requires nutrients that wouldn't be accounted for with a diet that was strictly grass, or insects, or meat. Organisms have no immediate control over the type of food that exists in their environment, so again there is another major obstacle to developing in the way humans did.

[Anonymous No.9812176]

>>9812172
I'm sorry but this is where your lack of knowledge on the subject is problematic. I'm not trying to offend you but evolution is not purely about speciation or never before seen traits. Natural selection is a part of evolution. Natural selection chooses traits that are favorable for the environment based on environmental stressors

[Anonymous No.9812178]

>>9812172
Speciation is a result of evolution, not the end all be all of evolution. Evolution is a process that can be described as the intermingling between genetic mutation, natural selection, and varying trait expressions between generations.

[Anonymous No.9812186]

>>9812172
With regard to high level general intelligence, it should be noted that humans are not the only organisms to have evolved with this trait. Dolphins, cuddlefish, and crows are considered to be some of the smartest alive today, and of course there were a variety of cousins and descendants to modern man like neanderthals and homoerectus which also possessed similar levels of intellect. Neanderthals had bigger brains than us even, and I think they might have been more encephalized too.

[Anonymous No.9812190]

>>9812172
And back to this idea that intelligence is the end all be all, consider that the human brain has actually been shrinking over the last 10s of thousands of years. This can likely be attributed to our increased reliance on technology to offload mental tasks.

[Anonymous No.9812193]

>>9812158
>just within the limited scope of their ecological niche
What does that even mean? You're putting a limit, or category upon something that does not have a limit or category.
>It's about what is currently optimal and efficient for survival.
So it's not about being superior, it's about being optimal? I'm failing to see the difference.
>It is truly remarkable that some of them can work in a fashion that is far superior, efficient, and effective than "superior" mammals like ourselves.
Can't wait to see them become humanoids.

[Anonymous No.9812195]

>>9812162
Companies spend billions in marketing, it's hardly an unthinking process.

[Anonymous No.9812196]

>>9812172
Have a nice night I'm heading out of here, but I hope you look into things before forming such strong opinions on this. I take it you're already coming in with a strong bias, probably due to a religious background. It's understandable, but if you choose to disregard science, be honest with yourself about it. The science itself is not flawed, so it's childish to come in and try to disprove science using science by making claims that centuries of science is somehow 'unscientific' even though you not only are not a scientist, but are in fact ignorant with regard to the subjects you're discussing. It's ok not to know things. It's not ok to pretend to know things to undermine other people.

[Anonymous No.9812197]

>>9812171
What came first, the hands, or the intelligence to use the hands?

[Anonymous No.9812199]

>>9812195
Read: Evolution is unthinking. It's unsegmented, does it's own thing. Has no concern for a "higher goal". This would be analogous to companies or individual entities being largely independent from eachother. Oil company has nothing to do with a small business that sells hats. Neither are also working towards a higher end specialization. They do their own thing. Again it's just an analogy, shouldn't be taken too literally.

[Anonymous No.9812200]

>>9812174
What came first, the diet, or the brain?

[Anonymous No.9812201]

>>9812176
Where do the "traits" come from?

[Anonymous No.9812203]

>>9812197
>>9812200
I recommend going to college and working towards a PHD on the subject so you can perhaps answer the questions of the evolution of language, culture, bipedalism, etc.

[Anonymous No.9812207]

if u can't say ur conscious ur not conscious

[Anonymous No.9812208]

>>9812196
I'm not religious at all, that's your bias. And according to you, religion is an evolutionary adaptation, so if you don't like religion, you don't like what evolution leads to.

Again, this is not science, this is theory, conjecture, ideas, beliefs. You can only attack this with logic, and that's where it falls apart.

[Anonymous No.9812214]

>>9812208
Bro. Just stop. It's literally observable. In the past and in the present. Answer these simple questions

>Can genes mutate?
>Is natural selection valid? (Do less capable organism die off?)
>Is sexual selection valid?(Do females of a species breed with the best males)

If you answer yes to all these, than you have become aware of the reality of evolution. What is your alternative to evolution? Intelligent design?

[Anonymous No.9812216]

>>9812199
Evolution is an unthinking process that can create a thinking brain. Interesting...

[Anonymous No.9812218]

>>9812214
All other questions are inconsequential. We can not only observe the phenomenon but it is a logical consequence of three other phenomena, which I will again repeat for you.

>Mutation
>Natural selection
>Sexual selection

In reality, there are more factors that contribute to evolution, but doesn't matter for this discussion. :)

[Anonymous No.9812222]

>>9812216
I don't see how one is connected in anyway to the other. Just because it makes for a cute sentence doesn't mean it lends credence to the idea.

[Anonymous No.9812226]

>>9812208
>you don't like what evolution leads to.

I am indifferent to this. My feelings towards the fruit evolution bears is inconsequential to its validity. I don't like that I, and the rest of this planet is insignificant to the universe, and yet it is so.

But yes I do believe that all personality traits can be attributed to genetic and environmental factors. It's a fact that things like religiosity, anger, kindness, political leaning can be correlated with genetics.

[Anonymous No.9812227]

>>9812214
>Can genes mutate?
I don't know, I've never observed "genes".
>Is natural selection valid? (Do less capable organism die off?)
To an extent, that's logical, but "capable" organisms die off as well.
>Is sexual selection valid?(Do females of a species breed with the best males)
That's somewhat subjective, females are attracted to different males, a "best" doesn't seem possible.

[Anonymous No.9812232]

>>9812222
Without evolution, would there be a thinking brain? Would there be life at all?

[Anonymous No.9812233]

>>9812227
Less capable members of an organism die off at a greater rate than more capable ones. Capable meaning capable at survival given external factors. It might be advantageous for an organism to get smaller, weaker, less intelligent depending on external factors.

Genes can't mutate cause you've never observed them? How do you know the Sun isn't a giant light bulb, you've never actually seen the sun in detail. You can't even look at it without burning your retinas. Truly we are all being deluded if we haven't personally stepped on the surface of the sun ourselves.

[Anonymous No.9812238]

>>9812227
>That's somewhat subjective, females are attracted to different males, a "best" doesn't seem possible.

You're right, best is not objective. That's one of the whole reasons we're having this argument. Intelligence is not objectively superior. Females will choose from the pool of applicants (many of which have died off and will not be passing their genes). Among those surviving members, they choose the mates they believe to be best with whichever criteria they have programmed in mind.

[Anonymous No.9812239]

>>9812232
Evolution is not a thing, it is a word that encompasses natural processes like mutation and natural selection. Your question is impossible to answer because if there is life, there is evolution of said life.

[Anonymous No.9812244]

>>9812226
>>9812226
>I am indifferent to this. My feelings towards the fruit evolution bears is inconsequential to its validity. I don't like that I, and the rest of this planet is insignificant to the universe, and yet it is so.
Yep, you're nothing but a glob of slime that has evolved over millions of years. You're fucking worthless.

>But yes I do believe that all personality traits can be attributed to genetic and environmental factors. It's a fact that things like religiosity, anger, kindness, political leaning can be correlated with genetics.
Genes have their own personalities? Bizarre.

[Anonymous No.9812245]

>>9812227
Keep in mind I'm oversimplifying everything for you since you're not educated on the subject (which is okay). Sexual selection is not as simple as females picking males (it goes both ways), and the word "best" is a great way to truncate a paragraph of reiterating what I mean. If you were well versed on this subject, you would have an intuitive understanding of what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.9812247]

>>9812244
No need to be facetious. Your genetic code contains a blueprint for everything about you. Your propensity to be aggressive or kind, left leaning or right leaning is hard-coded into you. Upbringing and other environmental factors can change this, just as they can change all traits. If you're predestined by your genes to be tall, and yet you are malnourished, you will end up short.

[Anonymous No.9812249]

>>9812244
>You're fucking worthless.

Worth and meaning are abstract concepts developed by humans. Though, I'm sure other intelligent forms of life out there too develop these concepts. On the scale of the universe, we are inconsequential, and yet we can still seek great meaning in our lives.

[Anonymous No.9812253]

>>9812233
>Less capable members of an organism die off at a greater rate than more capable ones. Capable meaning capable at survival given external factors. It might be advantageous for an organism to get smaller, weaker, less intelligent depending on external factors.
If that's the case, then you cannot have an opinion on what's best for anyone. If all that matters is survival, and survival has no set conditions, then you don't even know if the theory of evolution could be bad for survival.

I don't know if the sun isn't a giant light bulb, I don't believe it's a ball of helium and hydrogen in a vacuum either.

[Anonymous No.9812257]

>>9812253
>then you don't even know if the theory of evolution could be bad for survival.

Lol, can't respond to that seriously because it's really stupid. You have an infant's grasp on the subject. By the way, go google the distinction between "Scientific Theory" and the colloquial use of the term theory. Theory =! not fact. Theories are collections of facts, observations, formulas, hypotheses. Laws are not facts either. Laws are just mathematical formulas describing phenomena. Laws and theories are equally valid.

>I don't know if the sun isn't a giant light bulb, I don't believe it's a ball of helium and hydrogen in a vacuum either.

lolllllllllllllllllll


The earth is flat, gravity is an illusion, and all political members are reptilians.

[Anonymous No.9812264]

>>9812238
What a tiresome loop of pointlessness. No wonder people are committing suicide in droves. This is a cult belief.

[Anonymous No.9812268]

>>9812245
I understand evolution very well, which is why I'm able to critique it, unlike you who is simply under its spell and cannot criticise your religious belief regarding things you have simply absorbed and regurgitated without critical, independent thought.

[Anonymous No.9812270]

>>9812268
You're a free thinking genius of our times

[Anonymous No.9812273]

>>9812247
>Your genetic code contains a blueprint for everything about you.
A "code" that was shat out of a big bang. Got you.

>>9812249
>On the scale of the universe
Spacecuck, why don't you actually go outside and look at the stars for once, very quickly you will realise they are not trillions of miles away.

[Anonymous No.9812277]

>>9812257
>Laws and theories are equally valid.
What's the law of evolution?

>The earth is flat, gravity is an illusion, and all political members are reptilians.
Evolution is directly tied to all other theoretical theories regarding life and the universe. If evolution is wrong, then all of it is. Which you seem terrified of.

[Anonymous No.9812278]

>>9811525
The peppermint of the species

[Anonymous No.9812280]

>>9812277
Your ideas are very powerful I foresee you singlehandedly rewriting history and science books. You are a man among blind sheep!

[Anonymous No.9812281]

>>9812270
Is there any aspect of evolution you can criticise?

[Anonymous No.9812285]

>>9812280
Quiet apeboy, I'm thinking.

[Anonymous No.9812286]

>>9812281
No it's a tried, tested, observable phenomena that has stood centuries of scrutiny. Remarkably we also have genetic science which corroborates the details precisely. Can specific details of evolution be debated? Absolutely! We learn more everyday.

[Anonymous No.9812288]

>>9812285
Your thoughts send ripples throughout the collective unconsciousness

[Anonymous No.9812290]

>>9812286
>No it's a tried, tested, observable phenomena that has stood centuries of scrutiny.
Nonsense, no one has observed a species evolving from another species.
>Remarkably we also have genetic science which corroborates the details precisely.
Oh yes, genetic science, I thought CRISPR was supposed to be changing the world by now? Genetic science has done jack shit but spam the pages of pop-sci magazines.

[Anonymous No.9812291]

>>9812290
>Nonsense, no one has observed a species evolving from another species.

Evolution is not speciation :P git guud

[Anonymous No.9812292]

>>9812288
All I hear is monkey noises.

[Anonymous No.9812293]

>>9812292
We r apes not monkeys

[Anonymous No.9812295]

>>9812291
>Evolution is not speciation
What is speciation?

[Anonymous No.9812302]

>>9812293
According to the scripture of Scientism.

[Anonymous No.9812304]

>>9812295
When an organism evolves to the point where it can't successfully reproduce with an original member of the species. It should be noted that organisms of different species can be extremely similar like tigers and lions. When enough DNA has changed, they just become incompatible. The differences don't have to be drastically evident. Just needs to be enough of them. Differences can also seem to be pretty huge while still remaining within the same species. For example, all domesticated dogs are the same species and can breed with eachother even though humans have forced their evolution hugely so.

[Anonymous No.9812306]

>>9812302
According to genes. You can sequence your own genome for cheap these days. try it.

[Anonymous No.9812312]

>>9812304
>When an organism evolves to the point where it can't successfully reproduce with an original member of the species.
And where has that observably happened? That would be proof of evolution.
>For example, all domesticated dogs are the same species and can breed with eachother even though humans have forced their evolution hugely so.
That's not evolution. Show me dogs that can't breed with each other.

[Anonymous No.9812315]

>>9812306
>You can sequence your own genome for cheap these days.
And do what exactly?

[Anonymous No.9812319]

>>9812312
Um, again evolution is not strictly about speciation. If you want evidence of species consult the fossil record and the sequences genomes of a variety of organisms.


>>9812315
Download more brain power AND THEN compare that genome with the genome of other organisms for some interesting findings. Of course, scientists have already done this but they're unreliable and evil and lying and wrong!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.9812322]

>>9812319
>consult the fossil record
No thanks, bunch of fraudulent bullshit that is. Same with bones. I bet you actually believe T-Rexes are real and have those stupid little arms don't you?

>Download more brain power AND THEN compare that genome with the genome of other organisms for some interesting findings. Of course, scientists have already done this but they're unreliable and evil and lying and wrong!!!!!!!
Come on, when's CRISPR going to change the world?

[Anonymous No.9812327]

>>9812322
it's all faked by the powers that be (illuminate reptilians) and they've done a perfect job and tricking the world and all nations that have dug up fossils because they r lluminate aliens. Prove me WRONG.

Dude what the HE CK does CRISPR have to do with A N Y T H I NG lma0.

[Anonymous No.9812331]

>>9812327
>it's all faked by the powers that be (illuminate reptilians) and they've done a perfect job and tricking the world and all nations that have dug up fossils because they r lluminate aliens. Prove me WRONG.
It's not some "illuminati" you brainlet, just a bunch of fraudulent "paleontologists" who have found a way to easily scam money out of the public. They put those arms on the T-Rex to mock you.

>Dude what the HE CK does CRISPR have to do with A N Y T H I NG lma0.
Genetics? The genetic "code"? Why isn't CRISPR being used commercially? The science behind it is real, right?

[Anonymous No.9812336]

>>9812331
So every "paleontologist" in the world is scamming the public out of money by creating fake bones? And every other independent scientist that tests these bones are in on it? And this is a world-wide phenomenon and none are the wiser, except you. Makes me think lad.

Ok lad, first of all CRISPR is not "genetics' or the "genetic code". CRISPR is a mechanism for editing genes that we stole from Bacteria. We didn't invent it, we discovered it. Why isn't it commercial? What the actual butt fuck are you talking about.

[Anonymous No.9812344]

>>9812336
I mean I know what you're talking about with regards to commercial applications but I kinda wanted to wait for your reply before talking about it more, but your replies are devoid of anything intelligent so what the hell..

Like I said CRISPR is a method for editing genes. We've been editing genes in labs for decades, but it's not very effective and VERY expensive. Crispr is more effective, and much much cheaper. Please note that more effective does not mean perfect. Editing genes with CRISPR leads to off-target effects (editing wrong genes by accident). As you can imagine this is catastrophic. We've dicked around with CRISPR in lab rats over the last 6 years, and the Chinese have even attempted to fuck with human fetuses recently (to no success).

Now even if a modified version of CRISPR or some successive technology made gene editing PERFECT there is still the problem that we don't have a PERFECT understanding of genes and their interactions! Basically, we have no idea what we're changing and what effects it'll have. Human testing would be extremely unethical. So we'll continue to test on animals for a while, but let me inform there are already a handful of FDA approved human trials happening right NOW involving CRISPR. But the FDA is an organization of fraudulent health administrators that have found a way to easily scam money out of the public so it's all fake oh nooo

[Anonymous No.9812349]

>>9812336
>So every "paleontologist" in the world is scamming the public out of money by creating fake bones?
Is that what I said? Talk about straw man. Scammers exist, they exist in science, they exist in medicine, they exist in every field where money can be made. Dinosaurs are based on one bone, and constructed around that bone. They're fake as fuck, T-Rex arms should be a dead giveaway they're fucking with you.

>Ok lad, first of all CRISPR is not "genetics' or the "genetic code". CRISPR is a mechanism for editing genes that we stole from Bacteria. We didn't invent it, we discovered it. Why isn't it commercial? What the actual butt fuck are you talking about.
Editing genes is supposed to be extremely powerful and beneficial, is it not? It could treat pretty much anything. We've all heard so much about it. So what's taking so long?

[Anonymous No.9812351]

>>9812344
Gene editing being commercialized for enhancing human qualities (being smarter, or taller, etc) is decades off. It's very much still in the sci-fi territory. Even if it's possible there will be A LOT of ethical debates and possibly even bans on genetically engineering designer babies.

[Anonymous No.9812353]

>>9812351
All the ethical debates and bans wouldn't matter, people would just do it illegally. Science just happens man and it changes everything. It's an unstoppable force.

[Anonymous No.9812354]

>>9812349
>Dinosaurs are based on one bone, and constructed around that bone.

Can you please dive into detail on this a little more since it's not making sense. Are these scamming paleontologists and all the scientists that are in on it world-wide creating fake bones? T-rex arms are a dead giveaway why exactly? Cause they look funny to you?

Is it not funny to you that whale skeletons have hand and finger bones even though they have flippers? (which by the way is direct evidence of evolution, and further, speciation). Oh wait, that's faked too right.

And what about some species of snakes. Why do they have hip bones if they have no legs!! ;ooo its fakeddddd

[Anonymous No.9812357]

>>9812353
Gene editing has been around for a long time. It is only extremely powerful when combined with perfect tools and knowledge. Currently our tools are imperfect and so is our knowledge. It's like when the transistors and early computers were invented. It took decades for those technologies to mature to the point where they were game-changing. Genetics is a relatively new field of science, gene-editing evne more so, and CRISPR even MORE so (6 years old).

[Anonymous No.9812358]

>>9812353
Everything that disagrees with your world view is an elaborate conspiracy. Why has all our fake science been able to produce things that WORK. You'd be living in a mud hut if it wasn't for science bud. Please tell me the Earth is flat too.

[Anonymous No.9812362]

>>9812344
>We've been editing genes in labs for decades, but it's not very effective and VERY expensive.
Science bitch!
>Crispr is more effective, and much much cheaper. Please note that more effective does not mean perfect. Editing genes with CRISPR leads to off-target effects (editing wrong genes by accident). As you can imagine this is catastrophic. We've dicked around with CRISPR in lab rats over the last 6 years, and the Chinese have even attempted to fuck with human fetuses recently (to no success).
CRISPR is much more effective in that it edits wrong genes by accident. We've moved from a really expensive, useless technology, to a really cheap, useless technology. Science bitch!
>Now even if a modified version of CRISPR or some successive technology made gene editing PERFECT there is still the problem that we don't have a PERFECT understanding of genes and their interactions!
What a surprise. More excuses.
>Basically, we have no idea what we're changing and what effects it'll have. Human testing would be extremely unethical. So we'll continue to test on animals for a while, but let me inform there are already a handful of FDA approved human trials happening right NOW involving CRISPR. But the FDA is an organization of fraudulent health administrators that have found a way to easily scam money out of the public so it's all fake oh nooo
>Human testing would be extremely unethical
>a handful of FDA approved human trials happening right NOW involving CRISPR
Oh really? Wow the world's gonna change, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.9812366]

>>9812362
You've got a MASSIVE chip on your shoulder. Not once did I say CRISPR was going to change the world. I didn't even say I was a proponent of the technology. This is completely irrelevant to the topic we were discussing which was evolution. Now it's dived down into a discussion of you being angry at clickbait articles not matching up with the actual pace of science and also some weird conspiracy nonsense. Think you've been drinking the koolaid a bit too much bud.

CRISPR being effective, game-changing, relevant, has NOTHING to do with whether or not it's real or another invalid conspiracy. I have put forth no personal opinions about the technology. You're baiting me hard and I'm falling for it.

[Anonymous No.9812369]

>>9812354
>Are these scamming paleontologists and all the scientists that are in on it world-wide creating fake bones?
Why would they need to create fake bones? They can use real bones, and piece them together to create some supposed "dinosaur" "die no saw".

>whale skeletons have hand and finger bones
Kek, again, that's mocking. Have you ever actually seen a whale skeleton?

>And what about some species of snakes. Why do they have hip bones if they have no legs!! ;ooo its fakeddddd
They're not hip bones.

[Anonymous No.9812371]

>>9812369
Kek xD whale skeletons disagree with my world view so whale skeletons are part of my contrived conspiracy :PPPP DIE NO SAW


Might be mistaking hip for pelvis woops

[Anonymous No.9812373]

>>9812366
>Not once did I say CRISPR was going to change the world.
If genes were actually real, if there really was a "genetic code", CRISPR would change the world. That's what we were told, that's what the discoverer of the technology said. Complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9812375]

>>9812369
You are dropping TRUTH BOMBS left and right. Please write a book. You see through all the delusion that the rest of the world cannot break. Be the guiding light for the rest of humanity.

[Anonymous No.9812376]

>>9812371
>whales have hands
There's no hope.

[Anonymous No.9812377]

>>9812373
Ok so genes are fake, it's just a conspiracy meme. And the reason that is, is because a new technology has not changed the world in 6 years. Roger that.

[Anonymous No.9812378]

>>9812375
no u

[Anonymous No.9812381]

>>9812378
I know this skeleton iS FAkE d !!!

But check those fingers boiiii. Whales are mammals by the way ;PPP they have lungs xDDD oh no its fakeee oopss

[Anonymous No.9812383]

>>9812377
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830500-400-editing-life-a-guide-to-the-genetic-revolution-on-our-doorstep/
>CRISPR is evolving incredibly fast,” says Waseem Qasim of University College London, whose team recently used an older form of gene editing to save the life of a baby with leukaemia. “We can’t keep up.”
They saved the life of a baby with leukaemia with OLDER gene editing tech, back in 2015, so CRISPR in 2018 must be doing even better than that, right? They did save a baby, right? I read it, so it must be true.

[Anonymous No.9812384]

>>9812381
How about a whale skeleton in nature, not a museum with fake hands added to it?

[Anonymous No.9812385]

>>9812383
It has been a game-changing tool in research, that's for sure. As far as what you mentioned, what you're describing is illegal human experimentation since CRISPR has yet to complete human trials and approval. Like I said, they're currently underway. But you already know this and are just trolling me, but I have nothing better to do rn.

[Anonymous No.9812390]

>>9812384
Surely you can appreciate the difficulty of me finding a picture of a whale carcass decomposed to the point where its skeleton is visible. You could still claim it was staged, fake, photoshopped, etc. Pointless. I wonder why there's been this sudden rise in conspiracy based thinking. Whether its aliens on earth, Illuminati, science conspiracies, flat earth, etc the issue has become so wide spread. I wonder if the internet has just empowered people to spread these ideas or if the average american is genuinely becoming dumber. Either reason is terrifying. I hope you go to college. Or I guess you don't have to. Until AI/automation advances further, we still need fast food workers.

[Anonymous No.9812396]

>>9812385
>what you're describing is illegal human experimentation
So the "scientists" are in prison?

[Anonymous No.9812397]

>>9812396
CRISPR is not being used medically at this point in time.

[Anonymous No.9812398]

>>9812397
Well save for the ongoing FDA trials. ;P

If those go well it will be an FDA approved method for treating whatever illness those trials are for (probably some last stage medelian disorder

[Anonymous No.9812400]

>>9812398
late stage mendelian*

im gonna go eat see u in 30 minutes

[Anonymous No.9812633]

>>9812369
OP here back from a night of fucking sluts and whores while you kissless virgins got trolled by this retard.

And if it's not trolling, may God have mercy on his extra chromosomes.

[Anonymous No.9812670]

>>9812139
Except many organisms regress in complexity by evolution. Fuck off with your fatalistic and teleological thinking, you dumb cunt.

[Anonymous No.9812967]

>>9812633
That's not an accomplishment lad

[Anonymous No.9813199]

>>9812967
neither is having extra chromosomes

[Anonymous No.9813695]

>>9813199
don't let an extra chromosome get you down buddy

[Anonymous No.9813706]

>>9813695
:)

[Anonymous No.9813855]

Very interesting topic, but a lot of useless talk between brainlets who have no clue what the fuck they are even talking about. Sad thing is that at the moment even best neurobiologists also have no clue how this works or if it is even useful... For starters:

Thomas Metzinger- philosophical approach.
Oliver Sacks- neurological approach.
Peter Watts- sci-fi approach by biologist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4uwaw_5Q3I

[Anonymous No.9814171]

>>9810790
>brain evolves to detect threats
>threats evolve so brain has something to detect
>the universe decides to become alive one day so it can struggle not to die
>when things fuck its a wholly conscious effort in which the animals run a 35 point checklist for eligibility, thus evolution
t.facilebrainletwholiketothinkheunderstands

[Anonymous No.9814186]

>>9814171
Sure, the brain may have evolved in response to threats in the environment.

The rest of your comment I don't understand, other than the condescension.

Furthermore. I threw out a nascent comment for discussion. I never claimed it as fact.

[Anonymous No.9814901]

Reading this thread gave me cancer

[Anonymous No.9814998]

>Holding that evolution is valid, and that other life exists in the universe, that other life, given enough time, must have evolved for consciousness as well. Consciousness seems to be an inherently natural side effect of survival.

Not even brainlet, but fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.9815004]

>>9814998
Consider college

[Anonymous No.9815007]

>>9814998
Why is it always the idiots that claim other people are idiots?

[Anonymous No.9815107]

>>9815007
Maybe because truly smart people don't even bother to read such garbage as this thread and convince others they have some kind of brain deficiency.

[Anonymous No.9815853]

>>9811502
>>9810790

umwelt

But you're ignorant and proven to be so all of your life so why the fuck would this rational composition not be anything but utter misleading nonsense like most or all things in your life?

[Anonymous No.9815884]

>>9815853
what in the fuck are you talking about