Gary Lineker in a spot of bother

[Triggaaar]

Present Science DOES leave out the effect of awareness on evolution. At the moment Science doesnt even accept that many animals even have rudimentary awareness.

Exactly. That's not left out, that's looked at and dismissed. The suggestion that animals have an unconsciousness of what genes they're passing is, quite frankly, nuts. But if evidence could be found to support that theory, then science would support it. Science doesn't judge how crazy the idea is, find the evidence and science is with you.

 

[Dub-67]

It's left out because there's little conclusive evidence for it. Thinking specifically about the evolution example, if there was a case where natural selection (i.e. survival of the most well-adapted) did not conveniently 'explain' an evolutionary process, then there would be studies into alternative explanations, which may well include a study of collective behaviour. Certainly biologists are well versed on collective behaviour (which is evident across many different kinds of lifeform).

The problem with 'consciousness' in both animals and humans is that there is actually no test for it at all. There is no 'conclusive' evidence that anyone is actaully conscious at all. Look up 'philosophical zombie' for more.

and that is the problem, because we are conscious beings, its very difficult for us (impossible?) to study consciousness objectively, thats why it gets ignored.

Oh and I wasnt quite talking about 'collective behaviour' I was talking about the 'collective unconscious' (which may include humans AND animals.)

 

[Dub-67]

Exactly. That's not left out, that's looked at and dismissed. The suggestion that animals have an unconsciousness of what genes they're passing is, quite frankly, nuts. But if evidence could be found to support that theory, then science would support it. Science doesn't judge how crazy the idea is, find the evidence and science is with you.

again.. science has a very hard time delaing with 'consciousness' In fact there still, today, is no accepted scientific explantion of how consciousness occurs.. or what it is.

Think about it. Where is your consciousness? (dont say inside my brain) If you believe it is produced by the brain, by electromagnetic phenomena then where is it.. Consciousness is not made of 'stuff' You cant put your finger on it.. it is not a thing.. where is it? It seems to exist outside of space and time... This is why science has very little to say on the nature of consciousness.. it is beyond its grasp.

Science doesnt have all the answers..to trust in science to the degree that you believe it does, is in fact.. just the same as religious belief.

 

[LE19]

How about flying squirrels? Ok they technically 'fall with style' but if the creature themselves recognised that those with more prominant bingo wings flew further.. couldnt that possible have an effect on the development of the species. Of course you have to accept that there could be a collective unconscious first.. which may be a leap too far for most.. but I still think its an interesting possibility that cant be totally thrown out.

Wouldn't it be great if flying squirrels worked out how to breed a super-race - hold on, though, they'd probably need a charismatic leader. Could this lead to Nazi squirrels?

 

[Triggaaar]

again.. science has a very hard time delaing with 'consciousness' In fact there still, today, is no accepted scientific explantion of how consciousness occurs.. or what it is.

Our inability to explain something is not science's problem.

Think about it. Where is your consciousness? (dont say inside my brain) If you believe it is produced by the brain, by electromagnetic phenomena then where is it.. Consciousness is not made of 'stuff' You cant put your finger on it.. it is not a thing.. where is it? It seems to exist outside of space and time...

It's in my brain. Sorry, not the answer you wanted, but that's where it is.

This is why science has very little to say on the nature of consciousness.. it is beyond its grasp.

Science doesnt have all the answers..to trust in science to the degree that you believe it does, is in fact.. just the same as religious belief.

Consciousness is not beyond science. Science does have the answers. It is our primitive understanding of science that is the problem. And no, it's not the same as religious belief, that's just ridiculous. Religion requires a leap of faith with no proof. Science requires the opposite. Science requires that you examine your ideas, test them and try to break them, and if you succeed, then the idea was wrong.

 

[looney]

not in science fucktard

what science would that be doofus? scientology?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Topics like this remind me to never get into debates with religious people.

Topics like this remind me that I probably should not get involved in debates with narrow-minded fundamentalist atheists who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject that they are trying to argue against....... but it is intellectually stimulating and quite enjoyable.

As an example of ignorance - and I am using the word ignorance purely in the sense of not knowing so not in any derogatory way - someone else has posted above that we are not here to do what some God wants us to do. Obviously the poster is not aware of the concept of freewill - the basic Christian Belief that we can basically do what we want and things are not pre-planned or pre-destined.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Urgh religion is such a load of shit, we are all part of nature and end up the same way

Oh and the meaning of life is to survive to adulthood and reproduce not whatever some god wants us to do

Ever heard of the idea of free-will. The basic Christian Belief is that it is NOT all mapped out for us, but we are left to make our own mistakes.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

No, he didn't, if this is the normal rubbish about you can't believe in the theory of evolution if you are a Christian because you have to believe that God made the World in Six days. Most sensible people accept the creation story as just that - a STORY.

Now back to the real story, it was a fairly daft thing to say.

The whole fcuking book is fiction,do you realy believe Moses lived to be over 900 years old ffs

 

[Dub-67]

Our inability to explain something is not science's problem.
It's in my brain. Sorry, not the answer you wanted, but that's where it is.
Consciousness is not beyond science. Science does have the answers. It is our primitive understanding of science that is the problem. And no, it's not the same as religious belief, that's just ridiculous. Religion requires a leap of faith with no proof. Science requires the opposite. Science requires that you examine your ideas, test them and try to break them, and if you succeed, then the idea was wrong.

Triggaaar, you aint as up to speed with current scientific thinking as you suppose. I suggest you read some David Chalmers.

Mind you , if the answer 'in my brain' satisfies you , then maybe you dont need to.

However the answer 'in my brain' does show that you have a kind of religious faith in science, as you are believing this without proof.
There is no scientific test to see if a person is actually aware or consciously experiencing things.. have a read of some of the problems science has in determining if people in comas are actually aware.

If as you say, science DOES have the answer to how consciousness and awareness is produced, please tell me. ( you can google all you want there is no answer )

 

[beorhthelm]

There is no scientific test to see if a person is actually aware or consciously experiencing things..

thats must be news to a great many in science, in particular those involved in AI research. i'd say its trivial to test for evidence of awareness or consciousness in a person (comas aside), i reckon you confuse with understanding how consciousness comes to be.

 

[Dub-67]

thats must be news to a great many in science, in particular those involved in AI research. i'd say its trivial to test for evidence of awareness or consciousness in a person (comas aside), i reckon you confuse with understanding how consciousness comes to be.

mate I have read a great deal on the nature of awareness and consciousness, otherwise I wouldnt be spouting off about it. Its not news to many people in science, google 'consciousness the hard problem' and then repost. Also read David Chalmers. You will see that your assetion that its trivial is very far from the facts.

Its certainly not trivial to prove that someone has awareness and is having conscious experience or 'qualia' as it is known.

 

[beorhthelm]

Its certainly not trivial to prove that someone has awareness and is having conscious experience or 'qualia' as it is known.

by the definition offered in your own link, awareness and experience is not the same thing as qualia which is the manner or characteristics of details of experience. so you are confusing understanding of consciousness with basic awareness of consciousness. unless you are a very good turing test experiment, this discourse is proof of consciousness for example.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Hope nobody issues a fatwa on him

twatwa more like

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

The whole fcuking book is fiction,do you realy believe Moses lived to be over 900 years old ffs

No, I don't, and I doubt very much whether the Archbishop of Canterbury does either.

And. to go to more fundamental stuff, I have my doubts about the immaculate conception and the resurrection as well. People who have a faith are capable of questiuoning and thinking about things.

But there is a great deal of Wisdom in the Bible, if people only would bother to think about it. It promotes a way of life, if you were to follow it properly, which would make the world a better place. That comment will no doubt start the normal toprrent of stuff about more wars caused by religion etc etc, but all the Muslims I know abhor Abu Hamza, for example.

 

[beorhthelm]

But there is a great deal of Wisdom in the Bible, if people only would bother to think about it. It promotes a way of life, if you were to follow it properly, which would make the world a better place.

sure there is alot of wisdom, mostly in part II. but to get to it you need to trim away an awful lot of rubbish, pick and chose whats good and whats bad. so it needs damn good eidt, or why not just dispense with it all together and pick up the same wisdom elsewhere?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

sure there is alot of wisdom, mostly in part II. but to get to it you need to trim away an awful lot of rubbish, pick and chose whats good and whats bad. so it needs damn good eidt, or why not just dispense with it all together and pick up the same wisdom elsewhere?

I take your point, and I would be the first to argue "Each to his Own".

A faith inspires large numbers of people to do good. I know large numbers of people as well who do a lot of good in the world who are either of no particularly strong faith, no faith or even fiercely atheist.

 

[pork pie]

Hope nobody issues a fatwa on him and he ends up like Salman Rushdie

Gary Lineker has apologised after describing a prayer celebration by two Muslim Montpellier players on Wednesday night as "eating grass" on Al Jazeera TV.

...

"A terrific effort from Karim Ait-Fana, who scored from just outside the area and then ate grass ... as you do," said Lineker, as the pictures showed the 23-year-old French winger and his Moroccan colleague Younes Belhanda, 25, bending down on their haunches and bowing their heads to the ground.

...

"It's a stupid remark and sheer ignorance," said Ajmal Masroor, a London based imam. "This is very unprofessional from a football legend who is supposed to be a role model.

"The fact it was on Al Jazeera makes it even more unacceptable. The players are not asking anyone else to join in their worship they are making a gesture in thanks to God - saying they are 'eating grass' is outrageous.

"I am stunned - seeing this makes me sick.

"He should apologise or be sacked by Al Jazeera. If someone makes the gesture of the cross and a commentator mocked them I would deem that equally offensive. Its not an outsider's right to belittle or mock players for making a religious gesture."

Haha, does he still live in Leicester? He will be popular there.

 

[Triggaaar]

If as you say, science DOES have the answer to how consciousness and awareness is produced, please tell me. ( you can google all you want there is no answer )

You seem to have completely missed the point between science, and our understanding of science.

 

[Dub-67]

by the definition offered in your own link, awareness and experience is not the same thing as qualia which is the manner or characteristics of details of experience. so you are confusing understanding of consciousness with basic awareness of consciousness. unless you are a very good turing test experiment, this discourse is proof of consciousness for example.

What link... ? I didnt post any links... I'm not confusing qualia with 'being awake', maybe you are?
you sure you're replying to the right person?