Originally posted by Robtard
It's more pagan psychobabble, that and it sounds like something cool to say.
I wouldn't go that far
"consciousness" as an individual or particular thing does not exist. The coherent stream of what we would call "consciousness" is very much separated from the real stimuli in the world, or even what is going on at lower levels of processing in the brain.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Consciousness is a byproduct of a complex interaction of trillions of neurons. An image of the world is constructed in your mind, and the interaction with that imaginary world is what we call consciousness. We never interact directly with the true nature of reality; we interact with an illusion. The closer we can get that illusion to reality, the less delusional we are.
It still exists though....
Ofcourse we cannot comprehend the true nature of this world, there are colors we can't see, sounds we can't hear, energies we cannot feel. Our senses are limitted.
Our thoughts, emotions, and biases shape our perspectives. That is why I think it's important to take control of your mind, and decide to shape your perspective affirmatively.
I do truly beleive that we create our own reality, whether we realize it or not. Two people can look at one object, and see two completely different things.
Life for me is different from how it is for you. My Life is the composition of my experiences and feelings. I have the power to manipulate my feelings, and choose my experiences.
So do you.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
It still exists though....Ofcourse we cannot comprehend the true nature of this world, there are colors we can't see, sounds we can't hear, energies we cannot feel. Our senses are limitted.
Our thoughts, emotions, and biases shape our perspectives. That is why I think it's important to take control of your mind, and decide to shape your perspective affirmatively.
I do truly beleive that we create our own reality, whether we realize it or not. Two people can look at one object, and see two completely different things.
Life for me is different from how it is for you. My Life is the composition of my experiences and feelings. I have the power to manipulate my feelings, and choose my experiences.
So do you.
An illusion exists.
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-10-12-06.ram
I felt like this was pertinent. It's a video debate (about an hour long) between a leading evolutionary biologist (Michael Shermer) and an academic advocate for ID (Jonathan Wells).
I'm obviously on teh side of Shermer. However, the video itself gives them both equal amounts of time so isn't inherently biased one way or the other.
Another great article:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/071009-upright-early.html
Origin of Vision Discovered
By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 18 October 2007 08:21 am ET
You are reading these words right now because 600 million years ago, an aquatic animal called a Hydra developed light-receptive genes—the origin of animal vision.
It wasn't exactly 20-20 vision back then though.
Hydras, a genus of freshwater animals that are kin to corals and jellyfish, measure only a few millimeters in diameter and have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara studied the genes associated with vision (called opsins) in these tiny creatures and found opsin proteins all over their bodies.
Though they don't have eyes or any specific light-receptive organs, researchers think that the light-sensing proteins concentrated in the mouth area of the Hydras help them to use light sensitivity to search out prey.
Because studies of animals that evolved earlier, such as sponges, don't show the same light sensitivity, scientists were able to pinpoint the Precambrian date that animal vision first started to evolve.
"We now have a time frame for the evolution of animal light sensitivity," said study leader David Plachetzki, a UC Santa Barbara graduate student. "We know its precursors existed roughly 600 million years ago.
These findings, detailed in a recent issue of the online journal PLoS ONE, counter arguments by anti-evolutionists that evolution can only eliminate traits and cannot produce new features, the authors say.
“Our paper shows that such claims are simply wrong," said co-author Todd Oakley, also a UC Santa Barbara biologist. "We show very clearly that specific mutational changes in a particular duplicated gene (opsin) allowed the new genes to interact with different proteins in new ways. Today, these different interactions underlie the genetic machinery of vision, which is different in various animal groups.”
http://www.livescience.com/animals/071018-vision-origins.html
Survey: 61 Percent Agree with Evolution
By LiveScience Staff
posted: 02 January 2008 11:57 am ET
Americans would rather hear about evolution from scientists than from judges or celebrities, according to a new survey that finds a majority agree that evolution is at work among living things.
A coalition of 17 organizations reacted today to the survey by calling on the scientific community to become more involved in promoting evolution and other aspects of science education.
The coalition, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Physics and the National Science Teachers Association, released this statement:
"The introduction of 'non-science,' such as creationism and intelligent design, into science education will undermine the fundamentals of science education. Some of these fundamentals include using the scientific method, understanding how to reach scientific consensus, and distinguishing between scientific and nonscientific explanations of natural phenomena."
Irony of reason
The statement was included in an article in the January 2008 issue of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology's FASEB Journal.
"In an age when people have benefited so greatly from science and reason, it is ironic that some still reject the tools that have afforded them the privilege to reject them," says Dr. Gerald Weissmann, the journal's editor-in-chief.
The article is based on a new national survey of 1,000 likely U.S. voters. Respondents favored teaching evolution over creationism or intelligent design.
Respondents also were more interested in hearing about evolution from scientists, science teachers and clergy than from Supreme Court Justices, celebrities or school board members. A key finding from the survey: There is a relationship between people's understanding of science and their support for teaching evolution.
Respondents were asked three science questions: one related to plate tectonics, one related to the proper use of antibiotics and one related to prehistory. Those who accurately answered questions on these subjects were far more likely to support the teaching of evolution in schools.
Skewed answers
The report points out that Americans' views on evolution vary depending on how questions are asked.
In a previous Gallup poll, people were asked to choose whether humans developed over millions of years, with or without guidance from God (as in one Gallup poll question). More selected evolution with guidance (38 percent) than without guidance (13 percent).
But in a previous Pew Research Center poll, respondents were first asked, without reference to a supreme being, if they thought humans evolved or were created in their present form. Those who accepted evolution were then asked if they thought it occurred through natural processes or with guidance. When asked this way, 18 percent reported that evolution occurred with guidance, and 25 percent accepted that it occurred through natural selection.
The new poll
In the new FASEB poll, researchers asked half of the respondents about their views on the evolution of "all living things" and found that 61 percent accepted that "all living things have evolved over time." Of those, 36 percent thought all living things "evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection," and 25 percent thought "a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating life in the form it exists today."
The researchers asked the remaining respondents to consider human evolution and found that 53 percent accepted that "humans and other living things" evolved. This majority included 32 percent who accepted that humans and other living things evolved through natural processes and 21 percent who thought they had evolved with guidance.
Scientists accept evolution as the best and only theory that accurately explains how humans and other species came to be so diverse. The theory is supported by many studies in many different fields of science. Intelligent design is a thinly veiled creationist argument designed to make the public doubt the theory of evolution, according to nearly all scientists and a 2005 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
"The bottom line is that the world is round, humans evolved from an extinct species and Elvis is dead," Weissmann said. "This survey is a wake-up call for anyone who supports teaching information based on evidence rather than speculation or hope; people want to hear the truth, and they want to hear it from scientists."
http://www.livescience.com/history/080102-evolution-teaching.html
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Wait, so you're saying that most Americans believe that humans changed over time due to naturalistic processes? WHAAAAAT?!
I know you find that hard to believe it because America has a Christian majority and a dominant belief in evolution, but it isn't a sin for Christians to agree with science every once in a while. I support evolution. Of course, lots of people like to contend that I'm not a Christian because Mormonism isn't a branch of Catholicism, but I've also met pious Catholics and zealous Baptists who don't see a conflict between religion and evolution.