Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Consul]

* Subjective idealism is certainly not "illusionistic" or "eliminativistic" about phenomenal consciousness itself (= the sphere of appearance). Extreme non-Kantian idealism denies the existence of a world of (mentally irreducible) physical noumena, but it doesn't deny the existence of a world of mental phenomena. However, if there is nothing physical or nonmental behind or beyond appearances, these are illusory or hallucinatory, because it does seem to me that there is a physical or nonmental world which is perceived by me through my sensory appearances.

Footnote: An illusory or hallucinatory appearance is itself a real, existent sensory occurrence. An illusory appearance is an appearance of something real which doesn't appear as it really is (in itself). A hallucinatory appearance is an appearance of nothing real; so it's a mere semblance, because nothing is perceived through a hallucinatory appearance. To visually hallucinate something is to experience a visual sensation, but it's not to see anything (through it).

[paradox]

I always wondered whether consciousness isn't a biological phenomena?

[Consul]

I always wondered whether consciousness isn't a biological phenomena?

It is a biological phenomenon, a zoological one, to be more precise: natural consciousness is animal consciousness.

[paradox]

I always wondered whether consciousness isn't a biological phenomena?

It is a biological phenomenon, a zoological one, to be more precise: natural consciousness is animal consciousness.

You are saying that human consciousness is something else? such that it's no longer (just) biological phenomenon but more than that?

[Sculptor1]

I always wondered whether consciousness isn't a biological phenomena?

Why on earth would you wonder that?
What living things do is biological.
Consicousness is very common in animals, and there is zero evidence for such a thing outside the animal kingdom

[paradox]

I always wondered whether consciousness isn't a biological phenomena?

Why on earth would you wonder that?
What living things do is biological.
Consicousness is very common in animals, and there is zero evidence for such a thing outside the animal kingdom

I think I made a mistake of equating consciousness with self-awarenes
If not, then how do we distinguish ourselfs from animals? (beside intellect)

[Consul]

[Consciousness] is a biological phenomenon, a zoological one, to be more precise: natural consciousness is animal consciousness.

You are saying that human consciousness is something else? such that it's no longer (just) biological phenomenon but more than that?

No, I'm not saying that. Humans are animals, so human consciousness is a kind of animal consciousness.

[Sculptor1]

I always wondered whether consciousness isn't a biological phenomena?

Why on earth would you wonder that?
What living things do is biological.
Consicousness is very common in animals, and there is zero evidence for such a thing outside the animal kingdom

I think I made a mistake of equating consciousness with self-awarenes
If not, then how do we distinguish ourselfs from animals? (beside intellect)

If you have ever seen a baby born, you know we are animals.
We like to think of ourselves as something special, but there is no doubt humans have nothing unique including "self awareness" which I think is far more widespread than people like to admit.

[paradox]

If you have ever seen a baby born, you know we are animals.
We like to think of ourselves as something special, but there is no doubt humans have nothing unique including "self awareness" which I think is far more widespread than people like to admit.

Interesting, but I think this logic is contradictory to the following logic:

The natural world contains about 8.7 million species, according to a new estimate described by scientists as the most accurate ever.

source

1. How on earth is it possible there are so many different kinds of animals, yet only one kind of people?
Why aren't there super intelligent humans, as little as 10 cm high people, or feathered people and so on?

2. Then if evolution theory (not fact) is taken into account, then why we never observed some sort of human kind to evolve out of animals?
Or why for example can't we turn an animal into a higher state animal or even human, at least a little?
Surely we can train animals but that's not the same thing, we can train ourselves as well.

3. If your answer to evolution theory is that it takes a lot of time for evolution to manifest it self then why
do we observe new kinds of animals coming to existence, but we do not observe new kinds of people?

I think we are very very far from being just a kind of animals, we do not evolve in any way, not even beyond intellect because our discoveries are based on existing knowledge not on evolution of intellect.

We are truly unique and non changing at all.
As for consciousness it's still possible that's just a biological thing that is very specific to human kind.

[Steve3007]

1. How on earth is it possible there are so many different kinds of animals, yet only one kind of people?

There were different sub-species of humans until (on evolutionary timescales) very recently. One of the possible reasons for the recent extinction of these close relatives (homo erectus etc) is the success of homo sapiens. It's a subject that's been discussed many times before here, but this is one the more recent topics on it.

[Steve3007]

3. If your answer to evolution theory is that it takes a lot of time for evolution to manifest it self then why
do we observe new kinds of animals coming to existence, but we do not observe new kinds of people?

Name one of the new species of animals we've seen coming into existence.

[Sculptor1]

If you have ever seen a baby born, you know we are animals.
We like to think of ourselves as something special, but there is no doubt humans have nothing unique including "self awareness" which I think is far more widespread than people like to admit.

Interesting, but I think this logic is contradictory to the following logic:

The natural world contains about 8.7 million species, according to a new estimate described by scientists as the most accurate ever.

The number of species is not relevant. SInce my claim is not numerical but about perception.
Humans love to think of themselves as special, but there is no doubt that unnumbered mammal species are self aware and have been so long before homo sapiens started polluting the world with their poisonous presence.

[Sculptor1]

1. How on earth is it possible there are so many different kinds of animals, yet only one kind of people?
Why aren't there super intelligent humans, as little as 10 cm high people, or feathered people and so on?

2. Then if evolution theory (not fact) is taken into account, then why we never observed some sort of human kind to evolve out of animals?
Or why for example can't we turn an animal into a higher state animal or even human, at least a little?
Surely we can train animals but that's not the same thing, we can train ourselves as well.

3. If your answer to evolution theory is that it takes a lot of time for evolution to manifest it self then why
do we observe new kinds of animals coming to existence, but we do not observe new kinds of people?

I think we are very very far from being just a kind of animals, we do not evolve in any way, not even beyond intellect because our discoveries are based on existing knowledge not on evolution of intellect.

We are truly unique and non changing at all.
As for consciousness it's still possible that's just a biological thing that is very specific to human kind.

Let's take this a point at a time.
1. There are several types of people. Millions of types. It would depend on how you choose to sunder them. We have plentiful evidence of a long evolution of human types, even different enough to be called different species that co-existed for thousands of years. At the moment one species has dominated by destroying all the rest.

2. You misunderstand the word "theory". Evolution is not a conjecture. The theory is a body of factual evidence which is under continual interpretation, and open to revision and refinement. Over the last couple of decades it has been modified to indluce epi-genetics. But at no time in the last 180 years has to basic fact of natural selection has never been seriously challenged.

3. We have observed new animals and new people through palaeontology.

We are still evolving. Since we have developed communication and social interaction with extrasomatic means of adaptation, our evolution is more rapid that we can control and are liable of not only destroying ourselves but possibly all life on earth.

Consciousness is obvious in many species such as Cetaceans, primates, elephants, cats, dogs. In fact all mammals can easily be argued to have consciousness. I would also add birds and some reptiles, though in lesser amounts.
But science would also suggest consciousness in hive species.

How do you account for bees and wasps recognising sources of food, nests, and danger and telling the rest of the hive if they have not achieved consciousness?

[paradox]

3. If your answer to evolution theory is that it takes a lot of time for evolution to manifest it self then why
do we observe new kinds of animals coming to existence, but we do not observe new kinds of people?

Name one of the new species of animals we've seen coming into existence.

Honestly I don't know what conclusions and hypothesis do scientists draw nor do I follow or study new animal species, but obviously it's not like we live in stone age such that we are not aware of our surroundings of planet earth.

For example:

7 New Animals Discovered in 2021 So Far

Surely you will say

[paradox]

Oh, btw. ignore my last sentence, I forgot to remove it lol (can't edit my post)