Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ??

Hi ParaMoving to the Coffee House seems reasonable -- this is an interesting line of discussion, but a bit far a field from Biological EvolutionI think these last two summarize the situation fairly well.On last comment. One might think of the relationship of the brain to the mind as the relationship between an arm and the throwing of a ball. The arm has the capability to throw a ball, but throwing requires electrical impulses from the brain. These impulses are generated in respond to the mind deciding to throw a ball.Soplar

Hi ParaI think this discussion re the brain and mind is interesting, but, I think it's getting a bit away from the central issue of Evolution vs Creationsism. On the other hand, we use the mind to understand evolution.Soplar

Yes, Of course it was moved. Getting a bit slow -- will try to follow this as well as the Bio evSoplar

Hi QuetzalOne of the interesting things about this forum is that one gets different results depending on how questions are phrased or a subject is referenced. There is no question re the importance of the evolution of the mind to the evolutionary debate, but discussions re whether the mind can represent itself and the extent to which it's an illusion seems a bit off the subject.The book you mention sounds fascinating. I am trying to put together a response that would appear to be along the lines of the book, although I’m sure no where near as well done.One interesting thing about the evolution of the mind and the EvC debate, or the entire science religion (SR) debate for that matter, is that the fact that the mind evolved from a state of essentially non conciousness to a state of conciousness provides the basis for the SR debate. Presumably, the evolution of the mind can be likened to some extent as a person waking from a drunken stupor. At first the person will have only vague awareness of where they are or how they got there. Then slowly, they will become more and more aware and probably begin to have some fear as they may not know how they got into the place they find themselves.So imagine our forebears, sometime between 200 Kya (thousand years ago) and 100 Kya, they began to become aware of their surroundings. They presumably were fearful and had great need for an explanation of what they were beginning to perceive. It would only be natural to ascribe actions of the sun, weather, etc. to supernatural beings. Slowly, this belief structure became codified and when writing was developed, written down. The result is the book of Genesis and similar supernatural inspired writings. Unfortunately, these early explanations were incorrect and slowly science reared its ugly head and challenged the early writings. But the early writings were the work of an infallible, supernatural being; thus the scientists must be wrong. And here we are — the debate continues.Soplar

Hi RobinI'm sure that the early humans who formulated the first ideas re how things work, didn't think of "supernatural beings", they just thought that there must be individuals with the capability to move the sun or cause the rain. At the time, this was the only explanation available. These individuals were given various names --in english, we call them gods.As the dictionary says re supernatural Thus these individuals were, per force, supernatural.Soplar

I believe this is much more detailed discussion of my recent reply So I think we are all on the same page. One of the things I find fascinating is the idea of "an awakening" that occurred somewhere in the last 200 Kya in which evolving humans gradually became aware of the world around them and soon needed an explanation for what they were beginning to perceive. As I mention above, this led to a "religious" explanation in which the explanation of the world becomes associated with an infallible deity. Then when the true explanation appears it comes into conflict with "revealed truth" which leads to the science - religion conflict we are now experiencingSoplar

Hi RobinAn anthropomorphic view is part of it. Also, it is possible that early humans might have thought But that wouldn’t have explained how the sun moved since the sun would apparently have required a mover. Also, how would they have naturally explained rain? Something or someone would have had to move water into the sky so it could fall. Of course they couldn’t see anybody or any thing, so they conjured up Gods to do these things.In general, these early concepts are called animism and are common to all cultures.Soplar