- #141
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
I think you'll find that you're wrong.Zero said:I think very few QM folks believe an observer has to be conscious...but you see how quickly this conversation leaves the discipline of evolutionary biology?
Not in my opinionThe problem with this is, if I understand Canute's point, is while instinct will mimic human behavior,
I prefer the term consciousness. Human beings are conscious.humans also have a "magical fairy dust" which allows us to be conscious.
Is that your opinion? It's not mine.The "magical fairy dust" only exists in those species with developed minds,
Pardon? Perhaps you'd like to point out where I said that.and if your brain is damaged, you get less "magic fairy dust".
The brain is physical, and the orthodox view of neuroscience is that changes in brain states affect conscious states. Perhaps you have a better theory.Whenever something physical happens to your brain, the difference in your personality or intelligence is not due to the physical, but due to your brain affecting the "magic fairy dust".
Neuroscience suggests otherewise. It is thought that brains cause consciousness.In other words, while the brain behaves exactly like there is actually NO "magic fairy dust",
You want to lay off the weed mate. Who mentioned death for goodness sake. Where do get all this stuff? You're tilting at windmills.the "magic fairy dust is necessary, because otherwise humans can't live after death,
Ah, now I get it. You didn't read what I wrote. I thought not. I don't happen to believe in God, not that it's relevant whether I do or don't.and there might not be a "God",
Now it's morals! Is your paradigm really so fragile that you have to invent all this stuff? These are interesting issues, it's a shame it's impossible to discuss them with you. I'll leave you to your fantasies of Gods and supernatural beings. Byeand the supernaturalists won't know where morals come from.