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: epicure who wrote (7591)	6/26/2001 2:16:55 PM
From: SGJ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"I don't see humans now as any "better" than they were three thousand years ago, just different" This statement does not argue the point, it is rather agreeable. Better or worse is not the question. Different is the question. How are we different from the men of pre 1000 BC, who were ruled by the voices of the gods? Who were theoretically unconsciousness. That's what the theory attempts to provoke. "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." You should be suspect. Thats healthy. This is a theory we are discussing. Jaynes does not attempt to explain the consciousness of man post 3000 years ago. But rather the theory is about the lack of it. Consciousness being a relatively new invention, according to Jaynes, that first emerged around 1000 BC. The Illiad being the pivot point in his essay. How are we ever going to find out about our "here and now" consciousness if we don't track down every possibility of its origin and composition with an open mind? "I certainly wouldn't have the ego to say only man is conscious." Environmental, physical or behavioral evidence does'nt exist for an animal consciousness. This is provided you don't lump cognition and perception into your definition of consciousness. "Interesting how wrong you can be, isn't it? Imagine how wrong Jaynes could be! I am. " Being wrong is the price one pays for experimenting to learn new things. I don't think being wrong is shameful. But,this is not an issue of right versus wrong. You are slamming a door here using your preconception of the world. This is a theory to ponder. To experiment with using archeology, sociology, psychology, history, literature, and empirical study. Truth my friend is unrefuted error.