• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The evolution of the brain and nervous system, and the mind and consciousness

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
After life arose through chemical evolution to self=replicating and self sustaining organisms. Life evolve from single celled organisms, to multi-cellular organisms, to organisms with symmetry and primitive nervous nervous systems to more complex organisms with brains and nervous systems. The objective verifiable evidence provides the foundation for the hypothesis of the 'emergence' pf the mind and consciousness through evolution.

This thread proposal like the previous one on the science of abiogenesis will focus on the science, but like before some posters will avoid the science for more subjective anecdotal arguments.
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
After life arose through chemical evolution to self=replicating and self sustaining organisms. Life evolve from single celled organisms, to multi-cellular organisms, to organisms with symmetry and primitive nervous nervous systems to more complex organisms with brains and nervous systems. The objective verifiable evidence provides the foundation for the hypothesis of the 'emergence' pf the mind and consciousness through evolution.

This thread proposal like the previous one on the science of abiogenesis will focus on the science, but like before some posters will avoid the science for more subjective anecdotal arguments.

Only if you believe in evolution as in the beginning there was only Eve, God only needed the ''chicken'' to lay the ''egg''.

The ''rooster'' is a mutation, who needs ''eggs'' when I had ''chickens''.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Our bodies and minds naturally evolved to fit the situations we found ourselves in. We're African plains apes, optimized for hunting-gathering.

What's to discuss?
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Only if you believe in evolution as in the beginning there was only Eve, God only needed the ''chicken'' to lay the ''egg''.

The ''rooster'' is a mutation, who needs ''eggs'' when I had ''chickens''.
the evidence is very clear that we are a product of evolution. Why would God mountains of evidence that tells us we evolved and none for a literal interpretation of the Bible?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The following article is a good introduction that outlines some of the supporting evidence for the evolution, and the present issues and limits of the present research. This is the first section of the article.

From: Evolution of Consciousness: Phylogeny, Ontogeny, and Emergence from General Anesthesia - In the Light of Evolution - NCBI Bookshelf

3Evolution of Consciousness: Phylogeny, Ontogeny, and Emergence from General Anesthesia
GEORGE A. MASHOUR* and MICHAEL T. ALKIRE†‡.

Author Information

Are animals conscious? If so, when did consciousness evolve? We address these long-standing and essential questions using a modern neuroscientific approach that draws on diverse fields such as consciousness studies, evolutionary neurobiology, animal psychology, and anesthesiology. We propose that the stepwise emergence from general anesthesia can serve as a reproducible model to study the evolution of consciousness across various species and use current data from anesthesiology to shed light on the phylogeny of consciousness. Ultimately, we conclude that the neurobiological structure of the vertebrate central nervous system is evolutionarily ancient and highly conserved across species and that the basic neurophysiologic mechanisms supporting consciousness in humans are found at the earliest points of vertebrate brain evolution. Thus, in agreement with Darwin's insight and the recent “Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals,” a review of modern scientific data suggests that the differences between species in terms of the ability to experience the world is one of degree and not kind.

Evolutionary biology forms a cornerstone of the life sciences and thus the neurosciences, yet the emergence of consciousness during the timeline of evolution remains opaque. As the theory of evolution began to eclipse both religious explanations and Enlightenment doctrines regarding the singularity of human consciousness, it became clear that consciousness must have a point of emergence during evolution and that point likely occurred before Homo sapiens. “How,” Darwin questioned, “does consciousness commence?” His post-Beagle research on this question evidently caused him violent headaches. One such headache can be expressed as the 20th century philosophical distinction of phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness (Block, 2007). Phenomenal consciousness relates solely to subjective experience, whereas access consciousness includes (among other processes) the ability to report such experiences verbally (other distinctions related to consciousness can be found in Table 3.1). Thus, the scientist looking for objective indices of subjective events is primarily limited to humans manifesting access consciousness, an obstacle in studying the evolution of consciousness antecedent to our species. We could, however, take solace in the dictum that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and search for clues in developing humans. Unfortunately, Haeckel's theory of recapitulation is not scientifically sound and, even if applicable in this case, we would still be constrained by the high probability that babies develop phenomenal consciousness before access consciousness. To overcome the limitations in identifying the birth of consciousness, we need a reproducible experimental model in which (i) consciousness emerges from unconsciousness at a discrete and measurable point, (ii) phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness are closely juxtaposed or collapsed, and (iii) assessment of neural structure and function is possible. In this chapter, we consider top-down and bottom-up approaches to consciousness, nonhuman consciousness, and the emergence of consciousness from general anesthesia as a model for the evolution of subjectivity.

 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
the evidence is very clear that we are a product of evolution. Why would God mountains of evidence that tells us we evolved and none for a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Why would you refer to a book written by man that only has the ''truth'' of the author?

Why not , neither evolution or God ?

I give you option C, we are not from earth.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Why would you refer to a book written by man that only has the ''truth'' of the author?

Why not , neither evolution or God ?

I give you option C, we are not from earth.
Sorry, the evidence is undeniable we are from here. And you do not seem to understand that you are implying that God has to plant false evidence for some reason. Why would he do that?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Only if you believe in evolution as in the beginning there was only Eve, God only needed the ''chicken'' to lay the ''egg''.

The ''rooster'' is a mutation, who needs ''eggs'' when I had ''chickens''.

There never was a time when there was only Eve. The supposed Eve hypothesis involves the evolution of a population.

This is fundamentally in accurate. The mutations occur in the sperm and the female egg, and the resulting egg than chicken was a variation of the parents.

All this does not take into consideration that evolution takes place in populations, and that it is populations that evolve to varieties and subspecies, and than species.
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
Sorry, the evidence is undeniable we are from here. And you do not seem to understand that you are implying that God has to plant false evidence for some reason. Why would he do that?

He? You are assumptious in thinking God has a sexuality and you make falsifiable statement by referring to books as any true meaning of the word God, the greatness of doing.
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
There never was a time when there was only Eve. The supposed Eve hypothesis involves the evolution of a population.

This is fundamentally in accurate. The mutations occur in the sperm and the female egg, and the resulting egg than chicken was a variation of the parents.

All this does not take into consideration that evolution takes place in populations, and that it is populations that evolve to varieties and subspecies, and than species.

My apologies sir, you have just made that up unless you have insight to a prequel , i.e the beginning of humanity.

There is nobody alive this day who can tell us the truth, perhaps we will never know the truth but I am one for sure who will not just make up things and say that is so .
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The following article is a good introduction that outlines some of the supporting evidence for the evolution, and the present issues and limits of the present research. This is the first section of the article.

From: Evolution of Consciousness: Phylogeny, Ontogeny, and Emergence from General Anesthesia - In the Light of Evolution - NCBI Bookshelf

3Evolution of Consciousness: Phylogeny, Ontogeny, and Emergence from General Anesthesia
GEORGE A. MASHOUR* and MICHAEL T. ALKIRE†‡.

Author Information

Are animals conscious? If so, when did consciousness evolve? We address these long-standing and essential questions using a modern neuroscientific approach that draws on diverse fields such as consciousness studies, evolutionary neurobiology, animal psychology, and anesthesiology. We propose that the stepwise emergence from general anesthesia can serve as a reproducible model to study the evolution of consciousness across various species and use current data from anesthesiology to shed light on the phylogeny of consciousness. Ultimately, we conclude that the neurobiological structure of the vertebrate central nervous system is evolutionarily ancient and highly conserved across species and that the basic neurophysiologic mechanisms supporting consciousness in humans are found at the earliest points of vertebrate brain evolution. Thus, in agreement with Darwin's insight and the recent “Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals,” a review of modern scientific data suggests that the differences between species in terms of the ability to experience the world is one of degree and not kind.

Evolutionary biology forms a cornerstone of the life sciences and thus the neurosciences, yet the emergence of consciousness during the timeline of evolution remains opaque. As the theory of evolution began to eclipse both religious explanations and Enlightenment doctrines regarding the singularity of human consciousness, it became clear that consciousness must have a point of emergence during evolution and that point likely occurred before Homo sapiens. “How,” Darwin questioned, “does consciousness commence?” His post-Beagle research on this question evidently caused him violent headaches. One such headache can be expressed as the 20th century philosophical distinction of phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness (Block, 2007). Phenomenal consciousness relates solely to subjective experience, whereas access consciousness includes (among other processes) the ability to report such experiences verbally (other distinctions related to consciousness can be found in Table 3.1). Thus, the scientist looking for objective indices of subjective events is primarily limited to humans manifesting access consciousness, an obstacle in studying the evolution of consciousness antecedent to our species. We could, however, take solace in the dictum that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and search for clues in developing humans. Unfortunately, Haeckel's theory of recapitulation is not scientifically sound and, even if applicable in this case, we would still be constrained by the high probability that babies develop phenomenal consciousness before access consciousness. To overcome the limitations in identifying the birth of consciousness, we need a reproducible experimental model in which (i) consciousness emerges from unconsciousness at a discrete and measurable point, (ii) phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness are closely juxtaposed or collapsed, and (iii) assessment of neural structure and function is possible. In this chapter, we consider top-down and bottom-up approaches to consciousness, nonhuman consciousness, and the emergence of consciousness from general anesthesia as a model for the evolution of subjectivity.

Interesting approach.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
He? You are assumptious in thinking God has a sexuality and you make falsifiable statement by referring to books as any true meaning of the word God, the greatness of doing.
No, no such assumption, it is merely convention. I am just as happy with her or it.

the question was the origin of man And to me it seems you think that God is dishonest for some reason.
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
No, no such assumption, it is merely convention. I am just as happy with her or it.

the question was the origin of man And to me it seems you think that God is dishonest for some reason.

Humanities description and books of God are dishonest, the purity of the greatness of doing , is God.

Wrong doing is not greatness.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Why would you refer to a book written by man that only has the ''truth'' of the author?

Why not , neither evolution or God ?

I give you option C, we are not from earth.

I believe God's Creation is by Natural processes as in this universe and all possible universes. What science describes as abiogenesis and evolution are the natural processes of Creation. There is no contradiction between God 's Creation and science.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My apologies sir, you have just made that up unless you have insight to a prequel , i.e the beginning of humanity.

There is nobody alive this day who can tell us the truth, perhaps we will never know the truth but I am one for sure who will not just make up things and say that is so .
But we have volumes of evidence about the beginning of humanity....
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe God's Creation is by Natural processes as in this universe and all possible universes. What science describes as abiogenesis and evolution are the natural processes of Creation. There is no contradiction between God 's Creation and science.
Perhaps no contradiction, but no evidence for one of them, either.
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
I believe God's Creation is by Natural processes as in this universe and all possible universes. What science describes as abiogenesis and evolution are the natural processes of Creation. There is no contradiction between God 's Creation and science.

Your statement would be contradicting sir, something natural cannot be created or that would make it unatural. Is'nt the actual absolute Godly truth, the universe is all a natural occurence of itself and in the beginning there was no thing but nothingness itself ?

God can't reside beyond infinity so where does God reside within infinity ?
 
Top