Human Intelligence

Well, if you take sound bites without my overall context, you'll never understand the point I'm trying to make. One of your very own, I believe "MrHambre" in another thread/post, stated that we don't really understand human consciousness, and I agreed with that no matter which camp the info comes from. So, you and I debating human consciousness is like my having so many times observed operations managers arguing with industrial engineers over the existence of discretionary effort and never getting anywhere or being able to reduce it to mathematical terms.As I've stated, someone from your camp already pointed out that we don't understand human consciousness, although it does indeed exist (I fully agree). But yet it doesn't seem to fit the ToE, and therefore doesn't "really" exist. Let me try this with a litle different spin; refer to the "industrial engineers" (henceforth called IEs) example of my post #74 (the same post you reference now). The IEs are like the folks in the evolutionist camp, and the ops mgrs are like those in the creationist camp. ToE, is the spreadsheet the IEs use, and "discretionary effort" is the "human consciousness" that we're discussing now. Just for the sake of this example (please work with me, don't take this too deep), let's just assume we've negotiated every other disagreement off the table (in one way or another) and we're down to just "human consciousness". The ops mgrs "see" something in the highly productive workers that they call "discretionary effort". After some verbal combat and skillful maneuvering, the IEs eventually find no choice but to admit that "discretionary effort" does seem to exist. However, upon careful review, the ops mgrs notice that "discretionary effort" does NOT "exist" in the spreadsheet or anywhere else in the written operating plan or procedures. So, does it "exist" or not? The IEs (evolutionists) verbally (ok, orally) admitted that it exists, but were unable to reduce "discretionary effort" (human consciousness) into terms compatible with their spreadsheet (ToE). Upon expressing disapointment over the glaring absence of "discretionary effort" (human consciousness) in the spreadsheet (ToE), the IEs turned the tables on the ops mgrs and demanded that THEY reduce "discretionary effort" (human consciousness) into terms compatible with their spreadsheet (ToE). In a huff, the ops mgrs march the IEs onto the production floor and actually POINT out what they "see" and the results thereof (ref. notes further down this post for examples of what I "see"). The debate eventually ends in bitterness as the ops mgrs accuse the IEs of being blind as a bunch of major league umpires and that THEY are ones who are supposed to be scientific not the ops mgrs. The IEs wind up yelling back that the ops mgrs don't possess engineering degrees and therefore will just never understand, as well as a few choice adjectives for enhanced effect.I can give you several more real life examples that are in line with the example above. If something becomes too glaring, then it gets stamped as a "phenomenon" of some kind. With time, some phenomenons are explained, while others are like a "black box" (I have the book on that, too) that become more and more mysterious the deeper we go.But I'll try to be fair to the purpose of your post, and continue.
I wrote: To which you wrote: It seems circular to you only because you can't reconcile the difference between animals and humans in a way that fits your spreadsheet. It's just like an engineer who can't determine the difference between "effort" and "disrectionary effort". Intelligence is like "effort, and "disrectionary effort" is like the "consciousness" that we're discussing now. "Disrectionary effort" is simply not compatible with your evolution and psychology models. Many moons ago, I gave a presentation on "intelligence" and all my info was from learned and published secular psychologists. All I basically did was present info as it was already documented elsewhere. When I got to a part that referenced an experiment that disagreed with my secular psychology instructor's views, he actually exploded out of his chair and offered a defense (machine-gun style) of his own well publicized position. This instructor taught things like "common sense doesn't exist" (different thread!) and other things that tend to shock ordinary humans, but in more advanced psychology classes I had instruction that was the oppposite. I guess these folks don't all go to the same schools, perhaps (different thread!)? Certainly not alot of agreement as to what is "effort" and "disrectionary effort" might be either.
But bear with me please.Let me, like the ops mgrs did the the IEs above, march you out onto the production floor and show you what I "see" (and answer your question: Well, like the IEs, your asking me to reduce or convert something that does indeed have a signifanct impact on daily operations (whether it be discretionary effort or human consciousness), so it fits into your model or spreadsheet (ToE), is preposterous at best. You have bug-infested software, which doesn't do what the software developer promised you it would, then want claim there's something wrong with what I "see" because its not compatible with your spreadsheet (and yes, a spreadsheet is on the same plane as science). We could more easily provide physical evidence that a geometric line extends in opposite directions to infinity (I do NOT admit hyperbole on THAT one).But let me give you a crude example of what I see, and what other's also see:
In post #9 of the "Saddam Captured" post (now closed), you'll find several horrific examples of what humans are capable of that animals (of any kind) are not. In case my link doesn't take you there for some reason, here are some excerpts from the post: I didn't quote everything for obvious reasons, especially what happened on tape 36.
Animals do not have the ability to perform activities like these simply for enjoyment and entertainment. An adult animal may help train offspring to chase and kill prey or a domestic house cat may do what we call "play" with a mouse before killing it, but that's a different topic, my friend. To cause extreme agony and watch with gleeful enjoyment is not "learned" behavior. It is simply Satanic, and our human consciousness is what makes that possible. Do people "choose" to be exceedingly evil? Not necessarily. But they DO choose to join forces with the enemy, and then one thing leads to another.And I know I still haven't given you anything that is compatible with your bug-infested spreadsheet. Your software developer has uploaded several "patches" over the decades, but those patches just seemed fix some problems, worsened others, and even created a few new ones to boot. You may want to consider switching to another developer.

Well, that's not really what I'm doing. I'm only quoting parts of your messages because to quote the whole thing would quadruple the length of my posts, and there's no reason to waste the server space when any interested party can just go backwards in the thread to see your whole message. It's rather impossible to take you out of context when your original message is one or two clicks away. Rest assured I'm reading your whole messages. (Lengthy analogy understood.)That's not why I'm questioning the existence of a distinctly human conciousness. I'm questioning it because it sounds too much like "reification", a kind of error where an abstract quality is taken as concrete. For instance, many people reify IQ, assuming that there's a specific biological, deterministic basis to somebody's IQ, when in fact no such basis exists - IQ is merely an abstract scale that measures your ability to take certain kinds of tests.Human consciousness may be a useful term in describing a number of behaviors that seem uniquely human. But I notice that you're having considerable difficulty explaining to me exactly what observable behaviors human consciousness gives rise to that are unique to humans. No, I'm saying that since all the differences I'm aware of are merely differences of degree, there's no difference that my "spreadsheet" can't account for. It's therefore incumbent on you to provide examples of human behaviors that are fundamentally different from any animal behavior. I'm still waiting for you to do that. To the contrary - I'm asking you to describe a behavior that I can't account for evolutionarily or culturally, and that could only be explained by the presence of the soul or spirit that you say exists. Of course, this has to be a behavior that we can readily observe, so we can both agree that it actually occurs. Oh, is it? Sounds like the same thing to me. Of course it's impossible to know exactly what your housecat thinks it's doing to the mouse, since cats don't exactly talk about their motivations.That's why we're talking about behaviors - behavior is objective. I disagree. Clearly this behavior is cultural. Many cultures took enjoyment from cruel bloodsports involving animals. Many cultures in the past saw other cultures as mere animals. Yet their decendants, as a result of cultural change, no longer enjoy these sports. Clearly enjoying the cruel torture of another human being is something you can learn to do. What you've given me is reasoning incompatible with any kind of objective experience. If evolution is really false - really, objectively false - you should be able to do better than this.

quote:

---

"MrHambre" in another thread/post, stated that we don't really understand human consciousness, and I agreed with that

---

Just for the record, I never said any such thing. What an imagination our Skeptick here has.regards,
Esteban

I did no such thing.It is perfectly possible to believe in Darwinian evolution and still be a theist (and specifically: a Christian). I have no interest in your opinion on this; the fact is that there are people who are Christians and hold Darwinian evolution to be true.

A Christian who believes man evolved from animals when the book they believe in says "God created..." and took a rib from Adam to create Eve? Millions of years of death and fighting in the animal world to develop the creatures we see today, when their book states God created the animals from the ground? They choose to believe "natural selection" when the book says that death entered the world by Adam's sin? No, my friend, but those Christians who claim to believe Darwinian evolution have simply buckled to secular pressure, nothing more. The are trying to server two masters, which is truly a sad state of affairs. Theistic evolutionists are easier to debate than Darwinian evolutionists by a longshot. So yes, there is a difference and you've once again demonstrated that you have confused the two, simply because you are seeking support via "power in numbers" ("...sucht sich Kameraden...").
Nothing more. Tell me something new, please.

Hey, pal, I'm not going to replay the whole story about my father, whose missionary dad was shot and beheaded in China, going back to China as a missionary. Caught by the Japanese, he spent three years in a prison camp. He then asked for a post in Japan. He preached and comforted the sick and gave away lots of his money to the poor until the day he died. He had no problem with evolution, or with a less than literal reading of Genesis. He wasn't any sellout, "buckled-under" Christian. Don't start this "My sect is the only true Christianity" horseshit around me, please. I've seen what appeared to be the real thing. 'K?

Had you simply told me that your Dad believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and everything in the gospel, and THEN that he didn't have a problem with Darwinian evolution, I would simply believe that your Dad is in heaven. Reality will be between him and God, of course, because we don't know any man's heart. But from what you told me, there are NUMEROUS examples in history of godless people who have done the same thing, or even much more, as your Dad but renounced God all the way to their graves. More on this further down. And your Spoke of horse excrement? How do you draw these conclusions? I never claimed such.
(just wanted to straighten that out before going to far in this reply.) Yes. Yes, of course, I see. I'm sure he did very much to EARN his way into heaven. You do know, of course, that the first sin was NOT disobedience. It was unbelief. Think about that. Unbelief is still just as sinful today.Another item to ponder: Matt. 7:21-23Am I judging your Dad. Absolutely not. But I'm led to believe YOU are. You're judging him as "good" even though you can only see the outside. But God looks at the heart. I Sam 16:7b I Cor. 13:3But couldn't "giving all your goods to feed the poor" be a sign of "charity"? Apparently, "charity" means something else. Certainly something to think about.As for working your way into heaven, our Christian culture could be considered an embarassment when compared to, say, the Islamic faith. The way they worship their god, on their faces for days on end, required pilgrimages, self denial like we (most) Christians can't fully imagine in our culture, etc, etc. If we just look at works and deeds, Christians in our culture have about as much religion as an Islamic dog. But that's not what God measures us by. Nothing that we can bring to him can cover the shame of our sin, except the blood of the lamb.But back to your Dad; I think there is a difference between a Christian who "doesn't have a problem with Darwinian evolution" and a Theistic evolutionist. The former simply believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel (and that covers alot of ground not expounded on here) but doesn't find it necessary to spend a great deal of time working through the issues of evolution and creation. He doesn't really understand Darwinian evolution as it exists, rather just a micro-evolution (different thread!) version that he was sold just in passing by. But he does believe, "...in the beginning, GOD...".
But the Theistic evolutionist who has been presented with both sides of the issue and still refuses the word of God as it is, is certainly a different story. Luke 12:47,48And yes, I would make quick work of you in a debate using both Darwinian evolution and the book that Theistic Christians claim to believe, but don't. You cannot serve two masters. Christianity and Darwinian evolution are not compatible. Creation is the foundation for our message. Destroy the foundation, and you'll be in jeorpardy of losing the rest of your faith, a little or alot at a time. Several people on this forum have admitted to once being Christians, but once they allowed the Creation account to be compromised, the rest of the structure crumbled.I could go much deeper than this, but since you used vulgar language on a website that is viewed by under-age kids, I suspect you're far too upset to listen to much more. Perhaps you can reply after you settle down a bit.

You never tire of ad hominem, do you? Experts of grammar useage say this attack chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."
I can understand one or two occurences, but you're making your hopeless position far too obvious.You could have stated, "I never said such any such thing. Please prove me wrong or retract the statement." Then "noseyned" couldn't jump in here and claim you were being "snarky" to me.But I do indeed retract the statement. I got you mixed up with "Mr Jack". He stated in post # 43 in this very topic: I guess that kind of openmindedness shuts out any opposing view. But that's not the point. I thought I was just supporting someone from the other camp in order to open up constructive dialog, which is a good thing. It wasn't a quote, just a friendly reference that I indeed started with "I believe MrHambre...." because I wasn't sure of the name. I figured if I missed the name, I would be corrected; but the referenced statement had indeed been made for all to see. You cut the "I believe MrHambre..." part out of the your quote, which again shows how desperate you are in your position. But it turns out that I mixed up two names and got an ad hominem response. Have you ever mixed up a couple of names before? Maybe the experts of grammar useage are right?

We can observe it. It just doesnt' fit your ToE. Not cultural. Satanic and demonic, my friend. Yes, no doubt. The "father of lies" is the instructor. You're right. As a result of God coming into their lives. There are countless missionaries who have written books describing exactly this. But evolution had nothing to do with it.

Observe what? See, this is the part where I've been expecting you to enumerate some behaviors that can only be explained by the presence in humans of a spirit or soul, but all you keep telling me is "you know what I'm talking about." No, I don't. That's why I keep asking. Unsupported assertion. And you're not my friend. My friends support their claims with evidence. Unsupported. There's no evidence that such a figure exists. Since I wasn't talking about Christians, how could that be?

[qs]Unsupported. There's no evidence that such a figure exists.[qs] No evidence. Right. Oh, but there IS evidence that the superatom existed, right? And created itself? And generated energy from, nowhere I presume? Your position is truly hopeless. You won't believe what I believe because you can't see him. But you believe what you believe because you can see it in a text book. Please wipe your tears, get some sleep, and you can talk it over with your mommy in the morning.

I wouldn't know, since I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I certainly don't know what "superatoms" are, or what you think they have to do with the topic, which, as you'll recall, was currently "what behaviors can only be explained by the existence of a soul or a spirit?"Can I assume that you've conceded the debate, then? That you agree that there's no behavior that requires the actual existence of a soul or spirit to explain?

Once again you show you have an incredible narrow and blinkered view of your own faith. Keep your True Scotsman falacies to yourself.

I'm not upset in the least. Underage kids have just as much need for an ability to detect horseshit as the rest of us do.

That's all you're interest in? Just argue to win? I already explained what you're asking for from a couple of different angles to help you understand that the data, including why it doesn't fit into the bug-infested spreadsheet that you're using. My explanation was on course to nail you right between the eyes, and you purposely ducked. The sad part is, you shouldn't even need it explained to you; the difference is much simpler than I tried to make it (which I had to complicate for you since you don't believe in anything that reasonable humans can deduce by simple observation). But brush up on your arguments a little, just in case the Creator, one day soon, gives you a chance to explain your willful ignorance. Strange, I noticed the same thing. "THE superatom" is the crown jewel of your camp, and it's used to replace God. Check it out; the theory makes even less sense than Darwinian evolution itself and, thus, even more amusing.I know you want to be the judge of this debate, it will not be judged by you or me. But it will indeed be judged, oh yes. The crazy part, though, is that if YOU are right, I will lose nothing but the debate itself. But if I'm right, YOU will lose everything.