Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

reply to post by newworld

Clearly whether you decide to dance on a desk for the money is a decision your mind makes; in fact you might not do it at all if the reward is not convincing enough.
It is up to your free will if you accept a reward or not. Factors such as necessity, wants, and mood will have an effect on your decision, but it is up to your mind if you accept the reward or not.

But how your mind judges those factors is a linear causal process called "choosing". It doesn't make the outcome any less predetermined.



[edit on 2-10-2009 by Welfhard]

Interesting video. so according to this, you responding to my message and showing this video has been predetermined by several factors and in fact is not a decision you made?

reply to post by newworld

Interesting video. so according to this, you responding to my message and showing this video has been predetermined by several factors and in fact is not a decision you made?

That's kinda a matter of semantics. Because I would say that choice, decision, etc. are words that name the linear and causal processes in thinking. So you tell me.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
When psychology and neurology are built on biology and are seen as part of the study of life, they are subject to evolution. There isn't a divide between psych and bio, like there isn't a divide between chemistry and physics - one is built on another.

for the idea that most of our actions are based on instinct and past experience more so than by free will.

There is no such thing as freewill. The outcome to every decision is determined by a myriad of factors.

Scientifically we have not pinpointed consciousness on a biological level.

Progress in neuroscience has certainly revealed that manipulation of the physical brain mechanisms has a direct impact on our mind but they are not the same thing.

There is another side to the equation.

Free will/consciousness exists as a response to the physical world.

All evolution is fueled by the observer's response to reality.

We see more complicated observing entities like human beings with a "complex" consciousness as different from a flower that responds to the sun but biologically we have not found the substance that observes and responds in either.

We can only the see the physical moving pieces.

reply to post by Jezus

Scientifically we have not pinpointed consciousness on a biological level.

If we could have a proper and discrete definition of the word, then we could move on to pinning it down.

Progress in neuroscience has certainly revealed that manipulation of the physical brain mechanisms has a direct impact on our mind but they are not the same thing.

Neurology doesn't even differentiate between the mind and the brain anymore, one is the properties of the other.

Free will/consciousness exists as a response to the physical world.

All evolution is fueled by the observer's response to reality.

We see more complicated observing entities like human beings with a "complex" consciousness as different from a flower that responds to the sun but biologically we have not found the substance that observes and responds in either.

We can only the see the physical moving pieces.

Well maybe but as I see it awareness, intelligence and will are all things that constitute consciousness and all are things of degree. They all vary from species to species and individual to individual. It's pretty clear that these are developed traits of evolution as much as any other.

However going back to freewill for a moment. The method of making choices and decisions is still a linear one whether or not there is an observation problem.

Reflex:
Environmental que -> innate response

Choice:
Environmental que -> deliberation/reasoning -> (in)action.

Reasoning is logic based and linear so there is no room for freewill.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Neurology doesn't even differentiate between the mind and the brain anymore, one is the properties of the other.

Scientifically the mind doesn't exist.

I can not definitively prove you think or have consciousness I only know that your body/brain responds to stimulation.

Stating that you don't believe in free will is the equivalent of claiming to be a biological robot who can not imagine or think.

Ironically I can not prove you are conscious even though I assume you are.

reply to post by Jezus

Stating that you don't believe in free will is the equivalent of claiming to be a biological robot who can not imagine or think.

Ironically I can not prove you are conscious even though I assume you are.

Freewill doesn't have anything to do with imagination and original thought. So not having freewill doesn't make me an imagination-less robot, it makes me a robot of sorts with an imagination. Besides I must have some degree of imagination and consciousness if I can conjure up a response tailored to your posts.

reply to post by Jezus

Scientifically the mind doesn't exist.
I can not definitively prove you think or have consciousness I only know that your body/brain responds to stimulation.

Well, we could start with Descartes' "I think therefore I am", plus the observation that there are many objects similar to each "I" in the world, ie other people alive & whose prior existance we have evidence for.
From there the hypothesis that they may also actually be the same as us, in terms of having the ability to think, can be tested by stimulation & observation, then by comparison of historical evidence. For instance, that Descartes actually wrote "Cogito ergo sum", is good evidence to support the hypothesis that he @least did think. That others can understand & debate the logic of the statement today, also supports it.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Freewill doesn't have anything to do with imagination and original thought.

Imagination is an expression of freewill.

Freewill and thought is what responds to observation.

Without freewill it would be impossible to imagine or even feel emotions.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Besides I must have some degree of imagination and consciousness if I can conjure up a response tailored to your posts.

It would certainly appear that way but I can never really prove to myself or any other person that you have consciousness.

reply to post by Jezus

Imagination is an expression of freewill.

Freewill and thought is what responds to observation.

Without freewill it would be impossible to imagine or even feel emotions.

Why? Imagination has entire lobes in which to be generated. Imagination doesn't defy causality.

It would certainly appear that way but I can never really prove to myself or any other person that you have consciousness.

I did of course say degree of consciousness, because it is a thing of degree, an emergent property of the brain. This is the only way things make sense.

What's more is that one can divide consciousness by dividing the brain between the hemispheres. Suddenly two consciousnesses are formed and can even conflict with one another.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Why? Imagination has entire lobes in which to be generated. Imagination doesn't defy causality.

But where is the fuel to power this generator?

What goes into the function that comes out as novel imagination?

Originally posted by Welfhard
What's more is that one can divide consciousness by dividing the brain between the hemispheres. Suddenly two consciousnesses are formed and can even conflict with one another.

We are only seeing the brain's manipulation of the mind.

We perceive the differences but they both come from the same source.

The observer perceives consciousness through the physical vehicle of the brain, but we are not the consciousness we are only experiencing it as an observer.


Understanding the Anxious Mind

www.nytimes.com...

Check out this article.

reply to post by Jezus

But where is the fuel to power this generator?

What goes into the function that comes out as novel imagination?

You can ask that of any part of the brain, even sensory parts. Considering the incomprehensible complexity of the brain, the processes going on are going to be equally complex, with no discrete features or functions but an interweaves mesh of properties. Novel imagination isn't miraculous just because it's mysterious.

We perceive the differences but they both come from the same source.

The observer perceives consciousness through the physical vehicle of the brain, but we are not the consciousness we are only experiencing it as an observer.

How is it that we perceive consciousness when our perception is dependant on it. Perception itself is a function of the brain. Why is self awareness so impossible?

Check out this article.

k. check out my thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Welfhard]

I think that creativity can be explained by uncosciouss part of brain randomly creating some ideas, and then discriminating among them, so the one that passes the test is conscioussly realized, but it is not always the best.
If you remember your dreams, you can consioussly evaluate this brains ideas, thats why great and creative ideas often come from dreams.

The brain are just complex biochemical processes, and as such they can be simulated “in silico” with enough computational power and memory.
Maybe in the future, there will be artificial personalities that will be indistinguishable or even far surpass human abilities, living completely in virtual space...

nextbigfuture.com...
www.cs.stir.ac.uk...

Originally posted by Welfhard
You can ask that of any part of the brain, even sensory parts. Considering the incomprehensible complexity of the brain, the processes going on are going to be equally complex, with no discrete features or functions but an interweaves mesh of properties. Novel imagination isn't miraculous just because it's mysterious.

The fuel for the sensory parts of the brain are the external environment.

I'm talking about the source of you. Imagination reveals the adding of a variable to the information your body and brain receive from the outside world. That variable is you. You responding to the physical reality.

Consciousness is the constant experience but the observer/mind/soul/source is what feels and respond to it.

Originally posted by Welfhard
How is it that we perceive consciousness when our perception is dependent on it. Perception itself is a function of the brain. Why is self awareness so impossible?

We are simply perceiving the variables created by our brain. But something has to do the perceiving.

Freewill is what creates self awareness.

The physical reality, including our physical body, is not capable of feeling, it can only send the message. The message has to be received by something.

Originally posted by Welfhard
k. check out my thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am very familiar with those issues but that only reveals how the brain manipulates our perception of consciousness and self. Of course physically altering the brain is going to do strange things to our perception and consciousness because the brain is itself the physical connection of the mind to the physical world.

It is like water being poured through a filter.

The brain is the mold but something has to be poured into it.

When you alter the brain something remains constant.
We are the constant.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Jezus]

Charles Darwin is a raciest pile of trash from the 1800's and he should burn in hell.

Here's a quote from Darwin in his own words.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...The break between man and his nearest allies will be then wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state...and some Ape as low as a Baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the Gorilla."

Charles Darwin, 1890


This guy thinks Negros are some kind of Ape and you guys are taking him seriously?

Come on guys move past Darwin he's nothing but white wash trash to brainwash the nation of raciest's to be more ignorant.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by buds84]

reply to post by buds84

Here's a quote from Darwin in his own words.

What is that from? From what I can find, he stood in contrary to the racism of the time. Social Darwinism in his views were that cooperation would strengthen the species.

Virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.

Source

And more, what difference would it make if he were racist? It doesn't change the science nor evolution.

"He can burn in hell." Yea, very Christian.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


That quote you took is from some crappy webpage made by some unknown.

You really think Negro's are a type of Ape and you call it Science.
And your asking me where I got the quote from? If you ever read Darwin's work you would find it but I guess you haven't.
Wow some people will believe anything an old white man with a beard says even if it was over 100 years ago. LOL.

All this cover up crap on Darwin like he really had any wisdom.

Oh I'm not Christian.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by buds84]

reply to post by buds84

Talk origins is a representation of mainstream science all cited and such. Not just a no-body. But here's another.

"...there seem to be absolutely no grounds for pillorying Darwin as a racist. On the contrary... he shared...principled hatred...for Negro slavery"
- Antony Flew

You really think Negro's are a type of Ape and you call it Science.

Actually all humans are apes in the same way BMWs are cars. You could say that humans are monkeys too, in the same way BMWs are land vehicles.

Wow some people will believe anything an old white man with a beard says even if it was over 100 years ago. LOL.

Well what Darwin said 150 years ago was inaccurate, he didn't know about genetics for instance. Darwinism is wrong and outdated with evolutionary theory.

Oh I'm not Christian.

Yet you believe in hell?

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


Since when did we prove Humans evolved from Apes?

We still haven't found the "Missing link".
You're a little too sure on that thing.

It' doesn't matter what Paul G. Humber thinks about Darwin's raciest agenda, his opinion is as good as anyone else who has read Darwin's crap.

Even after I quote Darwin's own raciest words you're in denial.
The original title of the book is "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Preservation of Favoured Races"
Hello? anyone home?

You know Gandhi was a big time raciest too and people praise him like a god when he really should be shot and pissed on.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by buds84]

reply to post by buds84

Since when did we prove Humans evolved from Apes?

No, we are apes, by definition. Hominid is part of a group of species called apes.

The original title of the book is "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Preservation of Favoured Races"
Hello? anyone home?

Haven't read it. it's Darwinism, not Evolutionary Theory and as such not issued as a text book. But once again, Darwin's racism doesn't somehow invalidate the science in the same way the Egyptian Sun worship doesn't invalidate any Astronomy.

You know Gandhi was a big time raciest too and people praise him like a god when he really should be shot and pissed on.

And Gandhi wasn't a scientist.