Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instead of baiting freefall about his/her theory of bytes rearranging themselves in our brains and the weight of full vs. empty hard drivesfor another 3 pages, I thought I would bring the topic back to evolution....I know, shocking!
For those following the evolution thread...What would be the evolutionary selection for early man to develop what has become our perception of "life-force" or "spirit"? I'm assuming a) that a supernatural being did not provide us with such a perception, and b) that other less evolved mammals do not have such a perception.
So why would man have evolved such feelings? I have some ideas but I'd like to hear yours...
It doesn't does it? There is a fairly strong relationship with primates increased cranium size relative to other mammals and their intelligence.
This increased intelligence can be measured. For example primates show an increased intelligence with their ability to fashion tools. Very few (if any, I cannot think of any) less evolved mammals have this ability. There is also differences in their ability to communicate, manipulate their environment, etc.
As Logic correctly points out, spirit has nothing to do with it as there is no scientific evidence for it.
Actually, there are many animals that use tools. Sea otters are a classic example. It's a skill that's not even limited to mammals. There are birds that are known to trim off cactus spines and use them to dig grubs out of tree bark.
'Scientists who study these questions on a daily basis'? You mean my question 'does thought change matter'? No, not really, they not many 'peer reviewed books and journals' on that topic.
You did not ask me that you asked how emotions were stored in the brain. And there are plenty of scientists who study that, and there are actually plenty of books on it. Maybe you should ask the right question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freefall
The experiment I talked about, where the electrodes placed in the brain can recall memory, is all I needed. The rest anyone with a brain can figure out that brain matter has changed in order to store memory. So what, you might say - the brain is just a super vcr, recording what you see and smell - got nothing to do with thought changing matter. Ok, can you remember your dreams from the past? Did your brain record what your eyes saw and heard? Maybe your spirit was flying around, or you just had thoughts that were recorded in your brain.
So as long as you are alive, you are 'real', just poke an electrode in the brain and relive your life, but when the lights go out, and your brain is rotting in a box 12 ft under, I guess you never really existed.
I'm not sure why this is on this thread, but you seem to have a huge misunderstanding of the way memory works. I don't think this is the thread for your discussion.
To answer the thread title, I'm going to go with "It's been around an awfully long time and it's still a theory."
Laura,
Apparently you haven't read through the thread, so I will reguritate the answer to your statement:
A scientific law is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise language, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Such as the law of gravity g = 9.8 m/s2 -- one equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
You are defining the term theory as meaning guess or conjecture, which is wrong.
Most controversial subjects are used by political strategists as tools.
It is important for them to separate the arguement into two different facets that do not directly attack the other position.
This allows for lots of money and lots of votes on both sides. Although it does annoy many people and some take it too far. Kind of like the anger and revelry at a jets dolphins game. Some take it too far and personal and fight. Not many, but enough.
Abortion is like that...one arguement says 'kills baby' other says 'womans right'.
Both are right and neither attacks the other position. Endless supply of money, votes, and hate. Great for politicians.
Evolution and creationism same thing. One is based on observable events and methods, the other on faith.
One says God created the universe and the other says the 'data shows this is what happened'
Neither one is really attacking the other's position. One says the data shows this is what might have happened and does not even mention god. The other says god created everything and does not mention science..
So, to argue god does not exist because of big bang theory makes no sense. Big bang theory does not exist because there is a god makes no sense either.
But it sure do make for some hate, which brings in money and votes. Hurrah for political strategists....keep drinking the kool aid everyone and fight the fights that do not need fighting.
Funny how the strageists never bring up real issues...slavery, abuse, stalking, water, food, genocides, getting rid of dictators, etc...
Nope, abortion, evolution...and can you name more kool aid topics?
Most controversial subjects are used by political strategists as tools.
It is important for them to separate the arguement into two different facets that do not directly attack the other position.
This allows for lots of money and lots of votes on both sides.
Evolution and creationism same thing. One is based on observable events and methods, the other on faith.
One says God created the universe and the other says the 'data shows this is what happened'
Neither one is really attacking the other's position. One says the data shows this is what might have happened and does not even mention god. The other says god created everything and does not mention science..
But it sure do make for some hate, which brings in money and votes. Hurrah for political strategists....keep drinking the kool aid everyone and fight the fights that do not need fighting.
Nope, abortion, evolution...and can you name more kool aid topics? [End Quote]
Mr Floyd replies...
Very interesting points. Careful with the "outside the box" thinking. You might lose your lemming / sheep status and be branded a societal heretic.
At age 18, I made a conscious decision to stop watching network news. Some 40 years later, I feel I am much better for it. Over the years, discussions of my decision, and reasoning behind it, have been met with mostly disbelief. "Don't you want to be informed?" they ask. I say that I have alternative ways to get "news" and that much of it comes to me so I really don't have to seek it.
What does this have to do with this thread? I suppose it demonstrates the aspect of our evolving that is less physical science and more behavorial in nature. Certain choices such as diet, activities, interests etc. influence who we are and ultimately what we become. I believe those who fill their days with the wonder that is network news are a clear majority of our society. Filled with negativity and misinformation. But like an addict, they need it. Maybe they are conditioned further to think within the mainstream. Perhaps a form of control through fear. Perhaps these are the true kool aid drinkers referred to by Thatguywho.
Why is the topic of evolution so controversial? Because it pits science, and its countless studies and tests, against faith. Tangible against intangible. Extremes if you will. That will always produce a wild ride. Yee haw!
You did not ask me that you asked how emotions were stored in the brain. And there are plenty of scientists who study that, and there are actually plenty of books on it. Maybe you should ask the right question.
I'm not sure why this is on this thread, but you seem to have a huge misunderstanding of the way memory works. I don't think this is the thread for your discussion.
Oh really? Name some books on 'how emotions are stored in the brain', or some of the 'plenty of scientists' working on that. "I have a 'huge misunderstanding of how memory works"? Let's hear your educated self then - how do thoughts physically altered your brain - miracle?
Among those with an interest in and understanding of nature, there is no controversy over evolution. Among those who cling to ancient Middle Eastern creation tales, there's a lot of resistance to looking at reality. But, in a way, that resistance is natural. Some always see progress as bothersome and threatening. "The old ways" are best, in their estimation. Progress? Who needs it?
But in the end, nature doesn't have any interest in anyone's opinion on any subject. Nature just is the way it is and does those things that it does in the manner it has always. It isn't a matter of opinion.
Freefall, if you are so adamant about this, why don't you post some links that support whatever it is you're trying to say, cause quite frankly I have no idea what it is you're saying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alternative thinking
Why is the theory of evolution so controversial??
