The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:31 am

landrew wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 6:58 pm
Trying to figure out what the experience of Pain and Pleasure are NOT is the issue of this thread, because it's a non sequitur. You are making a naive assumption that lower life forms experience pain and that they have consciousness. There is simply no evidence to support that. I've already made it abundantly clear why that can't be the case. Only a highly developed brain is capable of consciousness and capable of processing the sensations of pain and pleasure. There's simply no room in the "brains" of simple organisms for consciousness. They are simple biological switching organs, which respond to stimuli.
I'm not assuming anything. We know for sure that Organisms and Animals have acquired the ability to experience Pain at some point. I never say when that happened. In fact I have said that a good question would be: Exactly when did the Pain experience appear?

But the point is not when Pain Evolved but the point is the fact that when Pain did appear it had the effect of increasing Survival Rates and therefore Pain could affect Evolutionary outcomes.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:39 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:15 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Think about the Pain itself as a Conscious experience. It's not just a Biological signal it is a Conscious Phenomenon that exists only in your Mind.
Are you retarded? You claim your magical non-physical consciousness from another dimension....is non-physical.

Are you now claiming it feels pain when it falls over, stubs its toe, burns itself on the stove top?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I don't Claim anything specific like that, even jokingly.

I guess I have to repeat the basic Claim: Conscious Pain can affect the behavior of an Organism or Animal in such a way that they will try to avoid that Pain. I don't claim anything about when the Pain appeared in Evolutionary History. Do not confuse my later Speculations about Consciousness with the basic premise that the experience of Pain can affect the Survival rates of Organisms and Animals.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:45 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:25 am
Cadmusteeth wrote: Which page was that on?
Steve Klinko is copying and pasting his religious "intelligent design theory" from a "manifesto" he wrote in 2012. ( It's also the same site he sells his "Inter Mind t-shirts") :lol: :lol: :lol:

Here is the web page address
http://www.theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen

Here is the entire paragraph where he lays out the "science" for his religion.
"The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience. Any organism that experiences Pleasure will seek out that Pleasure. Any organism that experiences Pain will try to avoid that Pain. Without the existence of these basic Conscious experiences there would be no motivation for any organism to react. There's nothing like a little Pain to motivate you to adjust what you are doing. This applies to simple organisms and to Humans. It would seem that Evolution is directly guided by Conscious experience.

Since Science is unable to say what Consciousness is we can and should speculate what it could be and how it could have developed. We can, for example, speculate that Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang. The Universe might have been created by Consciousness and for Consciousness. We can also speculate that the ultimate goal of Physical Evolution is to provide a better and better host for Consciousness. We can speculate that maybe the very Existence of the Physical Universe is pointless without Consciousness. Maybe the Physical Body is just some sort of incubator for the CM and the CM is the more important part. Maybe the PM creates a Connection to CSp in order to create a CM in that CSp. The CM would then strictly exist only in that CSp. All speculations are still on the table. Remember that the only thing we know about the Physical Universe is through our Conscious experiences. Conscious Experiences are Primary to what we are."

The "manifesto" is absolutely hilarious, contains no scientific citations and is a bad copy of older "intelligent design" arguments for god. :D :D
You are continuing to get yourself all wound up by a single paragraph that is not even in the main section of the Inter Mind Model. This paragraph is flagged up front as highly Speculative and is included as Food for Thought. You just refuse to acknowledge the Special nature of Conscious Experience. It really is perplexing, isn't it, that Science has nothing to say about Consciousness even after a hundred years of trying.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:56 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:25 am
Cadmusteeth wrote: Which page was that on?
Steve Klinko is copying and pasting his religious "intelligent design theory" from a "manifesto" he wrote in 2012. ( It's also the same site he sells his "Inter Mind t-shirts") :lol: :lol: :lol:

Here is the web page address
http://www.theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen

Here is the entire paragraph where he lays out the "science" for his religion.
"The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience. Any organism that experiences Pleasure will seek out that Pleasure. Any organism that experiences Pain will try to avoid that Pain. Without the existence of these basic Conscious experiences there would be no motivation for any organism to react. There's nothing like a little Pain to motivate you to adjust what you are doing. This applies to simple organisms and to Humans. It would seem that Evolution is directly guided by Conscious experience.

Since Science is unable to say what Consciousness is we can and should speculate what it could be and how it could have developed. We can, for example, speculate that Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang. The Universe might have been created by Consciousness and for Consciousness. We can also speculate that the ultimate goal of Physical Evolution is to provide a better and better host for Consciousness. We can speculate that maybe the very Existence of the Physical Universe is pointless without Consciousness. Maybe the Physical Body is just some sort of incubator for the CM and the CM is the more important part. Maybe the PM creates a Connection to CSp in order to create a CM in that CSp. The CM would then strictly exist only in that CSp. All speculations are still on the table. Remember that the only thing we know about the Physical Universe is through our Conscious experiences. Conscious Experiences are Primary to what we are."

The "manifesto" is absolutely hilarious, contains no scientific citations and is a bad copy of older "intelligent design" arguments for god. :D :D
I read through the above paragraphs and was amazed that it seemed to be a legitimate copy of two paragraphs from "The Primacy of Consciousness"
section. I read it fast and I could be wrong but, I think this is the first time you copied something I wrote without changing it.

The purpose of "The Primacy of Consciousness", which should be read in it's entirety, was to counter the Physicalist tendency to try to minimize the value of Consciousness. The point was that Consciousness might be more important than the Physicalists give it credit.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:59 am

Poodle wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:55 am
The whole idea is shot to bits by the ninth word in that quotation. Even then, it's the wrong word. In the complete absence of evidence, 'possibly' is as strong as the argument can be.
When it comes to Consciousness everything is only "a Probably" until Science opens its eyes and starts studying the actual Phenomenon of Conscious Experience and not just the Neural Correlates of Consciousness.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:02 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:31 pm
The "science" of evolution makes it abundantly clear that there is no purpose or consciousness guiding evolution. Evolution is a blind watchmaker as explained by author Richard Dawkins. Evolution is not guided by anything at all. It is simply a result. A result of natural selection. "Natural" means unguided by anything at all, and simply the result of a natural process of elimination.
So you are saying that the Conscious experience of Pain would have no affect on Survival Rates for an Organism or Animal?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:14 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:20 am
Cadmusteeth wrote: I'm aware. I've been following this thread for past few months. I just couldn't find when you first asked Steve about his otherworldly entity to link it, like bobbo did, and I gave up.


Steve Klinko actually wrote his "paper" in 2012. I went searching around the internet to see where he had previously posted its claims. I didn't get any hits. I then assumed his first public outing was on our Skeptic forum in 2018. That suggested he hadn't previously had to explain his hilarious claims before.

Essentially he is claiming Intelligent Design and making all the same errors that intelligent design did. I think he is realising, for the first time, in six years, that he has huge holes and contradictions in his claim and skeptics already know all the standard flaws concerning intelligent design.
Is avoidance of Pain Intelligent design? There is no Claim of Intelligent Design on the Website. When I suggest that Conscious Experience might have guided Evolution it is about the experience of Pain and Pleasure. These are Conscious Experiences that seem to scare you. Pain and Pleasure do exist as Conscious Phenomena. Pain and Pleasure are not In any Category of known Scientific Phenomena. I can see I have really hit a nerve with this Evolution thing. Very Good. Keep on ranting and raving. It will not change the Reality of Conscious Experience as a whole separate Category of Phenomena that exists in the Universe and that is unexplained by Science. I am expecting that Science will Explain it some day. Science will Explain it because Consciousness does Exist and Science must eventually Explain everything that Exists in the Universe.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:32 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:22 am
SteveKlinko wrote:I read the Origin of Species cover to cover over 40 years ago, and over the years have read other more modern approaches to Evolution.
Where does Darwin or anyone else say consciousness directed evolution on Earth? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Ummmm…..did you read what was BETWEEN the covers?

BHWAHAHAHAHAH. I LAUGH. I tried to read the tome...got about 10 pages in and as I do with all Great Books: I found satisfaction with a good summary. Makes Dostoyevsky a quick read. I recommend short understandable reads over pretensions of greater accomplishment.

As to more modern approaches...….like what? eg: does consciousness come up in any exposition of punctuated equilibrium?....or what more modern concept/theory are you thinking of?...…………………… anything????
[/quote]
The Origin of Species should be a recommended read for anyone that wants to know how the concept of Evolution was born. When I say Modern Approaches, I am referring to things that Darwin did not know at the time, such as the Genetic basis for Evolution. Darwin brought to light the fact of Evolution but did not really know how it worked.

On the issue of Pain and Pleasure POSSIBLY being able to affect Survival rates and Evolutionary outcomes, all I can say is that it seemed obvious to me that this must be true. I'm not saying that no one has ever thought that before, but for me it was an obvious conclusion. In fact it seems so obvious to me that I am sure someone must have thought of it before. If the Pain and Pleasure concept is not included in Evolutionary literature then Evolutionary Literature needs a Big Update.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:38 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:32 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:39 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:23 pm
Klinko you are anthropomorphizing Science as if Science knew anything, as if it too were conscious. Science is a process that can be applied to anything....and has been applied to everything. But, to be fair I think in the sense you mean it, you are simply wrong. What else is anesthesiology except one part of the study of consciousness and how to remove it and to reestablish it, the risks thereto, the different methods....etc.


What else is "psychology?" Entire departments at university studying consciousness, and subconsciousness and all kinds of other mental processes. This is an error of your private meaning for words and why you should adopt the same language everyone else uses.

Amusing.
If you are going to quibble about anthropomorphizing the word Science then you must be out of ammunition. Everyone says Science does This and Science Knows that.
I'm bored, so backfilling. Ha, ha: No, "everyone" does not say Science does this and knows that. In the main: only NON SCIENTISTS use such terminology. As close as I think you can get is many scientists saying "We know.....". And if they 1% of the time say "Science tells us....." they are speaking loosely for the popular press. You won't find the term or the idea in any published paper ((thats a bald faced assertion.....but prove me wrong???)). And even if it is: its still an anthropomorphication that should be avoided, AND continue to dodge the counterargument made in the same sentence: consciousness has been and is studied across its many aspects. Is everything known? No, of course not. What are you, a silly bunny?
You are arguing Semantics. I like saying "Science does this and that" and will continue. I see no harm and everyone knows what I mean. Science has of course tried to study Consciousness but has failed to come up with any Explanations for it. So therefore Science to this day has Zero Knowledge of what Consciousness is. Science has a lot to say about what Neural Activity is and this is NOT the same thing as Conscious Activity.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Cadmusteeth » Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:06 pm

Yikes

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10095
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:10 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:38 pm
ou are arguing Semantics. I like saying "Science does this and that" and will continue. I see no harm and everyone knows what I mean. Science has of course tried to study Consciousness but has failed to come up with any Explanations for it. So therefore Science to this day has Zero Knowledge of what Consciousness is. Science has a lot to say about what Neural Activity is and this is NOT the same thing as Conscious Activity.
I have a fairly clear idea of what consciousness is, and I have already posted it numerous times. It could be that science can't define something that doesn't have a clear definition as a word. What is your definition of "consciousness" exactly?

Using a computer as an analog to a brain, I liken the number of higher administrative layers to consciousness. The ability "to think about what's being thought about." The ability to over-ride basic impulses for some higher purpose, and the ability to modify behaviors based on reasoning. The ability to recognize one's own behaviors and to devise plans to accommodate them. The ability to place yourself and others within a model of your environment, and make predictions within that model. These are a few of the higher level administrative functions that comprise consciousness in my opinion.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17866
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:32 am

If you go out into your backyard at night, its OBVIOUS we are at the center of the universe on this flat earth of ours.

I mean, common sense. You know?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:09 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Are you retarded? You claim your magical non-physical consciousness from another dimension....is non-physical.

Are you now claiming it feels pain when it falls over, stubs its toe, burns itself on the stove top?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote: I don't Claim anything specific like that, even jokingly.
Yes you did. You specifically claimed consciousness evolved and that your consciousness in another dimension was non-physical. Here you are claiming pain is required for evolution yet your consciousness in another dimension is non-physical and can't feel pain.

You keep contradicting your own zany religion.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:17 am

SteveKlinko yesterday wrote:. Science has of course tried to study Consciousness but has failed to come up with any Explanations for it.
SteveKlinko on his website wrote:Most Scientists believe that Consciousness is not very important and some go so far as to say that it is just an Illusion with no real purpose. Philosophers have invented the Philosophical Zombie as a tool for thinking about Consciousness or the lack of Consciousness. The P-Zombie is supposed to live and interact with the World just like any one else except that it would not be Conscious.
You specifically mention the P-Zombies and science on your website.

Why do you lie so much?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:26 am

[quote="Matthew Ellard Where does Darwin or anyone else say consciousness directed evolution on Earth? :lol: :lol: :lol:[/quote]
SteveKlinko wrote: The Origin of Species should be a recommended read for anyone that wants to know how the concept of Evolution was born.
You never read it. Darwin concluded that species evolve to match the environment (Remeber the finches and the different islands). He destroys Lamark's earlier claim that species evolve because of consciousness.

Didn't you know?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote: I am referring to things that Darwin did not know at the time, such as the Genetic basis for Evolution. On the issue of Pain and Pleasure POSSIBLY being able to affect Survival rates and Evolutionary outcomes, all I can say is that it seemed obvious to me
I studied evolution at university and know all the processes.

Explain to me how a species experiencing pain will evolve to feel more of that pain. I want you to show me each step including new gene creation and gene frequency trade-offs in the species gene pool.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17866
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:52 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:26 am
He destroys Lamark's earlier claim that species evolve because of consciousness.
I don't think Lamark said THAT.....but its close enough and what he did say would immediately apply? I recall the one example of Giraffes' necks growing longer becaushe they stretched it to reach the leaves. Getting the leaves would be a pleasure seeking (although everyone but Klinko would call it the Hunger Drive) behavior clearly in the consciousness ballpark?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10095
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by landrew » Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:52 pm
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:26 am
He destroys Lamark's earlier claim that species evolve because of consciousness.
I don't think Lamark said THAT.....but its close enough and what he did say would immediately apply? I recall the one example of Giraffes' necks growing longer becaushe they stretched it to reach the leaves. Getting the leaves would be a pleasure seeking (although everyone but Klinko would call it the Hunger Drive) behavior clearly in the consciousness ballpark?
Conscious intent perhaps, (if a giraffe can have conscious intent instead of a simple hunger response) but still irrelevant to the concept of Lamarckism, which has long been shown to be a failed theory. All the way around; a non sequitur.

One more time: Consciousness and evolution don't belong in the same basket.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17866
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:59 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:08 pm
One more time: Consciousness and evolution don't belong in the same basket.
Of course they do. Its hooman consciousness that is DRIVING THE ANTHROPOCENE. Don't let the fourth dimension cause you to rotate out of context.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10095
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:36 pm

Dictionaries are really not much help:
con·scious·ness
/ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"

the awareness or perception of something by a person.
plural noun: consciousnesses
"her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"

the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"
All of these meanings are a bit too loosey-goosey to be useful. I was defining it as a high state of awareness, made possible by having a highly-developed brain, like that of a human. Someone else was defining it as neural activity. By that definition, an oyster is conscious, and not so different from a microprocessor in a printer.
Science has a reasonable idea of what makes us consciousness, but that's a long way from defining all the higher function of the brain and how they work. A good part of this discussion was simply shouting past each other with different definitions. I don't have much more to add unless someone takes it in a new direction.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17866
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:41 pm

As already stated: consciousness is a continuum.

Float.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:05 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I don't think Lamark said THAT.....but its close enough and what he did say would immediately apply? I recall the one example of Giraffes' necks growing longer becaushe they stretched it to reach the leaves.
Lamark was a very long time ago, back in 1801. He did claim conscious desire caused evolution to happen.
This is the same error Steve Klinko is making with his "conscious pain and please" causes evolution, claim.

How does my conscious thought make my appendix evolve, or for me to evolve sickle ell anemia to counter malaria? Steve Klinko refused to answer that question because his claim is impossible as evolution is all about trade-offs.

Secondly, for me to feel pain, means I already have the genes for me to feel pain. I asked Steve Klinko set set out each evolutionary step of his "pain claim" and he ran away. I think he has just worked out his claim, is 19th century Lamarkian rubbish. :D

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10095
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:05 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I don't think Lamark said THAT.....but its close enough and what he did say would immediately apply? I recall the one example of Giraffes' necks growing longer becaushe they stretched it to reach the leaves.
Lamark was a very long time ago, back in 1801. He did claim conscious desire caused evolution to happen.
This is the same error Steve Klinko is making with his "conscious pain and please" causes evolution, claim.

How does my conscious thought make my appendix evolve, or for me to evolve sickle ell anemia to counter malaria? Steve Klinko refused to answer that question because his claim is impossible as evolution is all about trade-offs.

Secondly, for me to feel pain, means I already have the genes for me to feel pain. I asked Steve Klinko set set out each evolutionary step of his "pain claim" and he ran away. I think he has just worked out his claim, is 19th century Lamarkian rubbish. :D
Correct, except I'm not sure that Lamarck was saying it was desire itself that was driving evolution, or if it was the the stress being put on the organism as a result of a desire. For example, a giraffe stretched its neck out of a desire to eat leaves that were growing high on a tree. It does seem intuitively correct, but like so many things in science, intuitive ideas have nothing to do with reality.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:41 am

landrew wrote: Correct, except I'm not sure that Lamarck was saying it was desire itself that was driving evolution, or if it was the the stress being put on the organism as a result of a desire. For example, a giraffe stretched its neck out of a desire to eat leaves that were growing high on a tree. It does seem intuitively correct, but like so many things in science, intuitive ideas have nothing to do with reality.
Lamarck's claims were very silly. How does a tree suffer stress or "want" anything yet trees evolve. Lamack also thought that if a species didn't think about or need something it would "fade away" over generations, yet I still have my appendix.

The biggest hole in Lamarckian evolution was that he thought all creature would "want to" be more complex, yet we have species that are billions of years old, that have never changed.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10095
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:57 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:41 am
landrew wrote: Correct, except I'm not sure that Lamarck was saying it was desire itself that was driving evolution, or if it was the the stress being put on the organism as a result of a desire. For example, a giraffe stretched its neck out of a desire to eat leaves that were growing high on a tree. It does seem intuitively correct, but like so many things in science, intuitive ideas have nothing to do with reality.
Lamarck's claims were very silly. How does a tree suffer stress or "want" anything yet trees evolve. Lamack also thought that if a species didn't think about or need something it would "fade away" over generations, yet I still have my appendix.

The biggest hole in Lamarckian evolution was that he thought all creature would "want to" be more complex, yet we have species that are billions of years old, that have never changed.
How does a fish living in a cave underground "wish" to lose its eyes?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17866
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:38 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:05 am

How does my conscious thought make my appendix evolve, or for me to evolve sickle ell anemia to counter malaria? Steve Klinko refused to answer that question because his claim is impossible as evolution is all about trade-offs.
....by choosing to mate with people who have a genetic profile (available for $40 bucks these days and getting cheaper all the time) that you select for.....and soon to be unwrapped from the laboratory: direct genetic engineering/design done on your own desktop. Unconscious drives (ha, ha) but conscious decisions DIRECTING evolution. I know you know this.....youre just stuck on your left foot.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17866
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:05 am

On the BBC just now: Chinese doc edits the genes inutero of twins so they will be immune from HIV. Used crisper technology and did it in secret......evidently a one man job? Looks like conscious willful directed evolution to me...………………..
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:29 pm

landrew wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:10 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:38 pm
ou are arguing Semantics. I like saying "Science does this and that" and will continue. I see no harm and everyone knows what I mean. Science has of course tried to study Consciousness but has failed to come up with any Explanations for it. So therefore Science to this day has Zero Knowledge of what Consciousness is. Science has a lot to say about what Neural Activity is and this is NOT the same thing as Conscious Activity.
I have a fairly clear idea of what consciousness is, and I have already posted it numerous times. It could be that science can't define something that doesn't have a clear definition as a word. What is your definition of "consciousness" exactly?

Using a computer as an analog to a brain, I liken the number of higher administrative layers to consciousness. The ability "to think about what's being thought about." The ability to over-ride basic impulses for some higher purpose, and the ability to modify behaviors based on reasoning. The ability to recognize one's own behaviors and to devise plans to accommodate them. The ability to place yourself and others within a model of your environment, and make predictions within that model. These are a few of the higher level administrative functions that comprise consciousness in my opinion.
I don't have a definition of Consciousness, but rather I point out a specific aspect of Consciousness and try to understand that. The thing I like to talk about is How do we Experience something like the Redness of the Color Red? That experience of Redness is a Conscious Experience. I also talk about all the other Conscious experiences like Sound, Taste, Smell, and Touch. A Computer is nothing like a Brain. A Computer that has 4 cores can execute 4 things at the same time. A Brain has trillions of Neurons that execute simultaneously. So a 4 core Computer effectively has only 4 Neurons.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

The Ellard Delirium Continues

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:45 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:05 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I don't think Lamark said THAT.....but its close enough and what he did say would immediately apply? I recall the one example of Giraffes' necks growing longer becaushe they stretched it to reach the leaves.
Lamark was a very long time ago, back in 1801. He did claim conscious desire caused evolution to happen.
This is the same error Steve Klinko is making with his "conscious pain and please" causes evolution, claim.

How does my conscious thought make my appendix evolve, or for me to evolve sickle ell anemia to counter malaria? Steve Klinko refused to answer that question because his claim is impossible as evolution is all about trade-offs.

Secondly, for me to feel pain, means I already have the genes for me to feel pain. I asked Steve Klinko set set out each evolutionary step of his "pain claim" and he ran away. I think he has just worked out his claim, is 19th century Lamarkian rubbish. :D
You are Delirious. There is nothing Lamarckian about saying that Pain can help an Organism avoid injury and therefore lead to a greater survival rate for the Organism. From the Lamarckian point of view an Organism would have to wish it had Pain so that it could avoid injury. If you think this then it would fit right in with all the other Shallow thoughts you have had in the past.

Obviously the Pain experience came to be because of random Genetic Mutations that are happening continuously. If the experience of Pain gave an Organism a survival advantage then the Pain experience capability would be passed down to later generalizations, and as a result of millions of years of Evolution, where Pain was important, we then end up with Pain to this very day.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10095
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:51 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:29 pm
landrew wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:10 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:38 pm
ou are arguing Semantics. I like saying "Science does this and that" and will continue. I see no harm and everyone knows what I mean. Science has of course tried to study Consciousness but has failed to come up with any Explanations for it. So therefore Science to this day has Zero Knowledge of what Consciousness is. Science has a lot to say about what Neural Activity is and this is NOT the same thing as Conscious Activity.
I have a fairly clear idea of what consciousness is, and I have already posted it numerous times. It could be that science can't define something that doesn't have a clear definition as a word. What is your definition of "consciousness" exactly?

Using a computer as an analog to a brain, I liken the number of higher administrative layers to consciousness. The ability "to think about what's being thought about." The ability to over-ride basic impulses for some higher purpose, and the ability to modify behaviors based on reasoning. The ability to recognize one's own behaviors and to devise plans to accommodate them. The ability to place yourself and others within a model of your environment, and make predictions within that model. These are a few of the higher level administrative functions that comprise consciousness in my opinion.
I don't have a definition of Consciousness, but rather I point out a specific aspect of Consciousness and try to understand that. The thing I like to talk about is How do we Experience something like the Redness of the Color Red? That experience of Redness is a Conscious Experience. I also talk about all the other Conscious experiences like Sound, Taste, Smell, and Touch. A Computer is nothing like a Brain. A Computer that has 4 cores can execute 4 things at the same time. A Brain has trillions of Neurons that execute simultaneously. So a 4 core Computer effectively has only 4 Neurons.
It seems unbelievably insignificant to me whether someone perceives the color red differently from someone else. I honestly don't see the relevance.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17866
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:13 pm

landrew wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:51 pm

It seems unbelievably insignificant to me whether someone perceives the color red differently from someone else. I honestly don't see the relevance.
Gosh, its a most interesting question. Does Red 'exist" other than as a creation of the brain? Klinko is saying yes, all high school graduates with good attendance say: No. Now....RED may not be of interest to you.......but it just demonstrates that all the other "conscious" processes are a take off from this. One of my favorites: what has happened to you in your life? What have done, what have you seen, what has been done to you. Like Red....do these things exist independently, or are they manufactured by the brain?..................Or ......... the combo plate? How do you see Red? How do you THINK? All about how the brain works.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:54 am

Dodgeball.jpg
SteveKlinko" wrote: There is nothing Lamarckian about saying that Pain can help an Organism avoid injury and therefore lead to a greater survival rate for the Organism.
There is also nothing in Darwinian scientific evolutionary theory saying consciously avoiding pain helps the species evolve one way or the other.

The creature must already have the gene to feel pain.....to feel the pain.


I have now asked you seven times to show us each evolutionary step on how a creature's conscious activity can make it evolve. You keep running away.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 852
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Dimebag » Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:23 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:54 am
Dodgeball.jpg
SteveKlinko" wrote: There is nothing Lamarckian about saying that Pain can help an Organism avoid injury and therefore lead to a greater survival rate for the Organism.
There is also nothing in Darwinian scientific evolutionary theory saying consciously avoiding pain helps the species evolve one way or the other.

The creature must already have the gene to feel pain.....to feel the pain.


I have now asked you seven times to show us each evolutionary step on how a creature's conscious activity can make it evolve. You keep running away.
I May be wrong, but it seems evolution tends to deal with behaviours, not with the conscious events which might trigger those behaviours. The language used in evolutionary descriptions tends to be a third hand account, and seems to not deal with internal precepts and states. This makes sense, because they cannot be observed. It doesn’t mean an organism under description may lack those internal states, just that they are not accessible to the observer. They might be inferred from behaviour, but it’s a difficult task to do with dissimilar species to humans.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17866
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 01, 2018 2:36 pm

Humans are conscious......and its only after discovery of genes and development of gene therapy that consciousness even CAN play a role in evolution. Spartans lets their deformed kiddies die as eskimoes did with the old...…..but was this to influence heredity or for other social goals?

Darwin: evolution is DRIVEN BY adaptation to the environment.

Simple.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:13 am

Dimebag wrote: I May be wrong, but it seems evolution tends to deal with behaviours, not with the conscious events which might trigger those behaviours.
Evolution was working for 3,3 billion years before the first animal with a central nervous system, to allow any form of "consciouness", even evolved. Evolution then evolved innate behaviour in animals that also didn't require consciousness at all.

Steve Klinko didn't know about innate evolved behaviour, when he wrote his Lamarckian "pain claim". If, alternatively, he had done basic research he would have discovered "fight or flight" is innate evolved behavior that does not require consciousness.

This is why I keep asking Steve Klinko to show me all the evolutionary steps in his "pain claim" and why he keeps refusing to do so, Steve Klinko knows he has huge problems with his "pain claim."
:D

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10095
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:54 am

Dimebag wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:23 am
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:54 am
Dodgeball.jpg
SteveKlinko" wrote: There is nothing Lamarckian about saying that Pain can help an Organism avoid injury and therefore lead to a greater survival rate for the Organism.
There is also nothing in Darwinian scientific evolutionary theory saying consciously avoiding pain helps the species evolve one way or the other.

The creature must already have the gene to feel pain.....to feel the pain.


I have now asked you seven times to show us each evolutionary step on how a creature's conscious activity can make it evolve. You keep running away.
I May be wrong, but it seems evolution tends to deal with behaviours, not with the conscious events which might trigger those behaviours. The language used in evolutionary descriptions tends to be a third hand account, and seems to not deal with internal precepts and states. This makes sense, because they cannot be observed. It doesn’t mean an organism under description may lack those internal states, just that they are not accessible to the observer. They might be inferred from behaviour, but it’s a difficult task to do with dissimilar species to humans.
Yes, connecting consciousness with evolution is like connecting horseradish with horsepower.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17866
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:57 am

Out of Context: but I keep thinking about this question for Klinko: Your concept of "RED" existing as something other than a material emergent property of the BRAIN...……..is it any different, if so how, than my own contemplation of building a bird house in my back yard? iow: is "BIRD HOUSE" the same inchoate non-material reality that Science has failed to deal with?

Two: Have you read anything about Brain/Cognitive development in humans?.....or emergent properties? Or did you stop with Darwin?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:23 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:13 am
Dimebag wrote: I May be wrong, but it seems evolution tends to deal with behaviours, not with the conscious events which might trigger those behaviours.
Evolution was working for 3,3 billion years before the first animal with a central nervous system, to allow any form of "consciouness", even evolved. Evolution then evolved innate behaviour in animals that also didn't require consciousness at all.

Steve Klinko didn't know about innate evolved behaviour, when he wrote his Lamarckian "pain claim". If, alternatively, he had done basic research he would have discovered "fight or flight" is innate evolved behavior that does not require consciousness.

This is why I keep asking Steve Klinko to show me all the evolutionary steps in his "pain claim" and why he keeps refusing to do so, Steve Klinko knows he has huge problems with his "pain claim."
:D
Are you seriously asking me to provide the exact chain of Evolutionary steps that led to the first experience of Pain? This is a disingenuous Diversion from the point of the original statement that the Pain experience probably gave early Animals and Organisms a survival advantage with the effect that the Conscious experience of Pain affected Evolutionary outcomes. The issue of how and when Pain Evolved is another topic. The answer to your question is nobody knows.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10594
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Poodle » Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:28 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:23 pm
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:13 am
Dimebag wrote: I May be wrong, but it seems evolution tends to deal with behaviours, not with the conscious events which might trigger those behaviours.
Evolution was working for 3,3 billion years before the first animal with a central nervous system, to allow any form of "consciouness", even evolved. Evolution then evolved innate behaviour in animals that also didn't require consciousness at all.

Steve Klinko didn't know about innate evolved behaviour, when he wrote his Lamarckian "pain claim". If, alternatively, he had done basic research he would have discovered "fight or flight" is innate evolved behavior that does not require consciousness.

This is why I keep asking Steve Klinko to show me all the evolutionary steps in his "pain claim" and why he keeps refusing to do so, Steve Klinko knows he has huge problems with his "pain claim."
:D
Are you seriously asking me to provide the exact chain of Evolutionary steps that led to the first experience of Pain? This is a disingenuous Diversion from the point of the original statement that the Pain experience probably gave early Animals and Organisms a survival advantage with the effect that the Conscious experience of Pain affected Evolutionary outcomes. The issue of how and when Pain Evolved is another topic. The answer to your question is nobody knows.
No, it isn't, Steve (a disingenuous diversion, that is).. It's your claim, so get on and explain it. Oh - I see you ducked out and now say that no one knows. So your claim is up the Swanee. Yet here you still are claiming that you DO know these things. Make up your mind, Steve, or I may begin to suspect that you actually don't know what you're talking about and simply pretend to be annoyed when challenged to cover up your ignorance.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:39 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:57 am
Out of Context: but I keep thinking about this question for Klinko: Your concept of "RED" existing as something other than a material emergent property of the BRAIN...……..is it any different, if so how, than my own contemplation of building a bird house in my back yard? iow: is "BIRD HOUSE" the same inchoate non-material reality that Science has failed to deal with?

Two: Have you read anything about Brain/Cognitive development in humans?.....or emergent properties? Or did you stop with Darwin?
Of course I have read about emergent properties. How on earth is the Redness of Red any kind of Emergent Property of Neural Activity? Physicalists usually like to talk about Emergent Properties because it is their last hope for any kind of coherent concept of Physicalism. They go to bed at night Praying for the Scientific Revelation to be discovered that will release Emergent Properties from the realm of Belief. Physicalists cannot just say Red is an Emergent Property without Explaining what they mean. But up to this point in time I see no Expalanations for how something like the Redness of Red comes out of Neural Activity.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:43 pm

Poodle wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:28 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:23 pm
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:13 am
Dimebag wrote: I May be wrong, but it seems evolution tends to deal with behaviours, not with the conscious events which might trigger those behaviours.
Evolution was working for 3,3 billion years before the first animal with a central nervous system, to allow any form of "consciouness", even evolved. Evolution then evolved innate behaviour in animals that also didn't require consciousness at all.

Steve Klinko didn't know about innate evolved behaviour, when he wrote his Lamarckian "pain claim". If, alternatively, he had done basic research he would have discovered "fight or flight" is innate evolved behavior that does not require consciousness.

This is why I keep asking Steve Klinko to show me all the evolutionary steps in his "pain claim" and why he keeps refusing to do so, Steve Klinko knows he has huge problems with his "pain claim."
:D
Are you seriously asking me to provide the exact chain of Evolutionary steps that led to the first experience of Pain? This is a disingenuous Diversion from the point of the original statement that the Pain experience probably gave early Animals and Organisms a survival advantage with the effect that the Conscious experience of Pain affected Evolutionary outcomes. The issue of how and when Pain Evolved is another topic. The answer to your question is nobody knows.
No, it isn't, Steve (a disingenuous diversion, that is).. It's your claim, so get on and explain it. Oh - I see you ducked out and now say that no one knows. So your claim is up the Swanee. Yet here you still are claiming that you DO know these things. Make up your mind, Steve, or I may begin to suspect that you actually don't know what you're talking about and simply pretend to be annoyed when challenged to cover up your ignorance.
So are you seriously trying to imply that the experience of Pain did not exist millions of years ago in for example the Dinosaurs?