Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SGJ who wrote (7589)	6/26/2001 11:20:51 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Jaynes's, according to your comments, seems to be taking a linear and progressive view toward human evolution. I don't see humans now as any "better" than they were three thousand years ago, just different. And based on the writings of Epictetus, I don't see any difference between my though process and his even though we are separated by 2000 years. Of course I can't be SURE of that. And I am very suspect of theories about something as amorphous as consciousness. We don't understand our own, current, right here right now, consciousness. I really doubt Jaynes has explained consciousness of 3000 years ago. And how can YOU know whether animals are conscious or not? Don't you think that's a might hubristic of you? (hubristic, my own word, thank you very much). Dolphins, apes, not conscious? I certainly wouldn't have the ego to say only man is conscious. You confuse my being amazed by the silliness of a book, with being riled. That's a huge inferential mistake to make, and we are contemporaries. Interesting how wrong you can be, isn't it? Imagine how wrong Jaynes could be! I am.