It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Neuroscientists discover 'engine of consciousness' hiding in monkeys' brains

page: 3
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

I'm not posting articles like this to be overwhelming or convince people of things, I'm doing it to show the latest developments in evolutionary science


How is this evolutionary science? Random mutation could never have created the intricate neural circuitry required to generate consciousness. They found a neural circuit involved with consciousness, so therefore evolution? Doesn't make any sense.


More talk, no substance.


I wasn't arguing the discovery in the OP. I was arguing that its not proof of evolution. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the validation of evolutionary theory.


Where did I argue that this one study comprehensively proves evolution? The section is called origins and creationism. Origin of consciousness is a valid area of inquiry based on the evolution of the brain. Don't like it? I don't care. Your pretentious crusade against science needs to stop. You only make yourself look foolish.
edit on 2 26 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Where did I argue that this one study comprehensively proves evolution?


You said:


originally posted by: Barcs
I'm not posting articles like this to be overwhelming or convince people of things, I'm doing it to show the latest developments in evolutionary science


And notice what you say here:



The section is called origins and creationism. Origin of consciousness is a valid area of inquiry based on the evolution of the brain. Don't like it? I don't care.


You see how you assume evolution to be true, and then try to fit all observations to that theory? It's backwards science. Show me a paper where new functional neural circuits are generated that are interconnected to the components that they innervate. I'll save you time, it doesn't happen. That's not how genes and morphology work. It's not like there's a "this makes the hypothalamus gene"... it's quite the opposite... All organisms have interconnected components that rely on each other to function as a whole. This fact was predicted by Darwin himself to be the Achilles' heel of his own theory.




Your pretentious crusade against science needs to stop.


You are trying to convince people that they're ancestors of mutant apes and there's no evidence to prove it. Stop spreading your deranged lies.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

I don’t mind why you are posting your information
Just seems underwhelming and wanted to know why I should be interested in scientists finding the power lines to consciousness

No doubt a piece of a jigsaw but it’s not earth shattering or anything as I understand and to be clear, not even sure that the scientists are sure


No individual study is earth shattering by itself. It paints us a picture along with all the other evidence and data. Do you really think that some study is going to come out that completely accounts for every single aspect of evolution on earth? Science builds on existing data, if you're expecting some earth shattering knowledge to come out that will totally change your perspective, don't hold your breath. Besides, you'll deny it, even if it does.


No Barcs, I don’t think that anyone will find any information that proves evolution because mankind from space dust and space dirt is stupid

I also think claiming that finding a power cable to consciousness is proof of anything, absolutely not evolution

Desperate men grasping at little straws and claiming a victory, a victory about who knows what

Desperate men and tenuous links



posted on Feb, 28 2020 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
You see how you assume evolution to be true, and then try to fit all observations to that theory? It's backwards science.


Are you capable of honesty? This is absolutely not what I did, stop whining like a baby. If you don't like the information I post, then ignored instead of crying over your silly religion.



posted on Feb, 28 2020 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
No Barcs, I don’t think that anyone will find any information that proves evolution because mankind from space dust and space dirt is stupid


Then you're a liar because it's already been proved and has nothing to do with space dust. LMFAO @ your ignorant straw man.


Desperate men grasping at little straws and claiming a victory, a victory about who knows what

Desperate men and tenuous links


Look in the mirror. This is exactly what the religious hypocrites do. You don't see me going into the religion section and bashing every single article that's posted. Grow up.



posted on Feb, 28 2020 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
No Barcs, I don’t think that anyone will find any information that proves evolution because mankind from space dust and space dirt is stupid


Then you're a liar because it's already been proved and has nothing to do with space dust. LMFAO @ your ignorant straw man.


Desperate men grasping at little straws and claiming a victory, a victory about who knows what

Desperate men and tenuous links


Look in the mirror. This is exactly what the religious hypocrites do. You don't see me going into the religion section and bashing every single article that's posted. Grow up.


Barcs, run hide, cry to mummy,
Just get the science, repeatable observable and testable evidence, stop spooking like a child

I, unlike you, have no issues to accept evolution if science proves evolution.
Unlike you I am not threatened by causality, no fear for me barcs
Unlike you barcs, I understand science and how it works
Unlike you barcs, I don’t need to lie, ( but I don’t think you are lying, I think you just don’t understand science)



posted on Feb, 29 2020 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Being asleep is not the same as being unconscious. A sleeping person will respond to loud noises or gentle shaking. An unconscious person will not.
...
Unconsciousness is when a person is unable to respond to people and activities.

Source: Unconsciousness - first aid: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Definition of Consciousness by Merriam-Webster

1 a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : awareness especially : concern for some social or political cause
// The organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers.
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life
// regained consciousness
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

In all those definitions, can anyone find or come up with any justification for the use of the word "consciousness" in the title of the article in the OP given what the article is actually about and keeping in mind what I quoted from the encyclopedia at the start of this comment? Let alone the use of the term "engine of consciousness".

As some have demonstrated in this thread by talking about the subject of self-awareness (or using the word consciousness as such), isn't it a little misleading to use the word "consciousness" in relation to the research discussed in the article the OP is based on? It seems to give some people the wrong impression what this article is about, or rather, what it's not about.
edit on 29-2-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2020 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: peter vlar

I wasn't arguing the discovery in the OP. I was arguing that its not proof of evolution. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the validation of evolutionary theory.

Unless you can show that the random mutation of a protein-coding gene could somehow add a totally new functional neural circuit that seamlessly interconnects with the rest of the nervous system. But you can't, because the theory is not based in reality.


This was just a study in the nature of consciousness and how psychology interacts with neurology.

See my comment above, perhaps you can explain how this is "a study in the nature of consciousness", as you put it? What is this mysterious thing that connects the subject discussed in the article with the subject of consciousness, other than the usage of that word in the title? What justifies the use of the word "consciousness" (other than for marketing purposes, getting some attention from those interested in that subject)?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

So prior to this amazing discovery
What did those scientists think?
That monkeys didn’t have something to wake them into consciousness from sleep, ...

As established in my previous comment, being asleep is not the same as being unconscious, therefore the expression "wake them into consciousness from sleep" does not compute:

edit on 29-2-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2020 @ 04:20 PM
link   
We know a lot more about biology than we do about consciousness. We've only dissected the tip of the iceberg. The origin of consciousness is a hard bug to pin down when you are talking about this intangible machine that wants to pull its own guts out and measure them. Hopefully no animals are harmed in this quest.

a reply to: whereislogic

I already explained it earlier, see my previous posts
edit on 29-2-2020 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2020 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
No Barcs, I don’t think that anyone will find any information that proves evolution because mankind from space dust and space dirt is stupid


Then you're a liar because it's already been proved and has nothing to do with space dust. LMFAO @ your ignorant straw man.


Desperate men grasping at little straws and claiming a victory, a victory about who knows what

Desperate men and tenuous links


Look in the mirror. This is exactly what the religious hypocrites do. You don't see me going into the religion section and bashing every single article that's posted. Grow up.


Barcs, run hide, cry to mummy,
Just get the science, repeatable observable and testable evidence, stop spooking like a child

I, unlike you, have no issues to accept evolution if science proves evolution.
Unlike you I am not threatened by causality, no fear for me barcs
Unlike you barcs, I understand science and how it works
Unlike you barcs, I don’t need to lie, ( but I don’t think you are lying, I think you just don’t understand science)


More ignorant spew, no substance. Not a surprise. It's what you do.



posted on Mar, 2 2020 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Everyone here needs to grow up



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join