more complex brains produce higher levels of consciousness. just as more complex eyes produce higher abilities to see. theres nothing special about one over the other.

i highly doubt this is so. but, as it stands, you have no way to make a statement like this, atleast not without a source. also, its unlikely to be true since you are using conciousness very openly here, and not in its strictest sense.

But there's a common theme to both organs. Higher ability to see translates to higher (visual) awareness. Meaning you're more conscious overall, more aware. And like you said brains produce higher level of consciousness in their own way.

You are looking at evolution like it is a pyramid, while in reality evolution branches like a tree in every direction. There is no "top". You can define what is top by pretty much any measure you deem fit. Like total biomass - where humans suck, or as another poster suggested you could put hamsters on top.

Not too mention as others have said you are playing around with the terms much too loosely. It seems you want some pretty sentences with a some poetic semblance of meaningfulness to them instead of actual content.

i dunno why you so badly want this correlate to exist.

Sure it branches in many ways, but there's one way which is more important than any quality of a single organ. Sure there are species bigger than us, faster than us, have better eyesight than us, etc. But why have we achieved so much, and continue to achieve more and more each year, with faster and faster pace. I do think there's a top to the tree.

i think im starting to have some idea...

Uh. Because it exists?

I have tried my best to answer all questions you had in a logical manner. Everything I have said can be based on data from fields of research such as biology or archeology.

Sure it all boils down to the very definition of consciousness. In the way I have defined it, I see no conflict in this correlation.

if you think theres a top to the tree, you dont understand much about evolution or conciousness.

and to answer your question, why have you accomplished so much? because we're smarter.

ive never come across such data. nor been presented any.

It looks like Robert Wright got a 2p2 account.

You guys know he got Daniel Dennett to concede that some sort of teleological interpretation of evolution was not necessarily ridiculous in and of itself?


http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?sp...topic=complete

You're defining achievement from a human perspective. Gaining knowledge about the world around us may be nifty for us, but it's hardly an objective measure of success.

To give an example, bacteria have conquered every animal on the planet to the point that no animal could live without them. Humans have not come close to this achievement.

We dominate a large part of the planet's resources and in the process have caused the extinction of large numbers of these other species.

I'd say I agree with the OP that there is a directional tendency in biological evolution towards complexity and a directional evolution in human culture to global integration.

the claim wasnt that there was a direction, but a purposeful direction.

In my first post, the rough years and what began to develop from that time beyond, can be backed up by science (archeological and anthropological evidence).

Any cell biologist can tell you that cells react to their enviroment. They have a simple consciousness in that sence, if we don't take the rigid definition that rules out everything except humans.

About eyesight, hearing (senses in general) translating to more awareness, I think that's self-explanatory (just close your eyes if you want proof).



Now of course the conclusions drawn from there on, can't be directly backed up by any data. Like evolution itself, was first considered a theory, even though the evidence was there. It took Darwin to make it accepted. To me, this is what seems logical after piecing together the evidence, and I'm not alone on this.

Awareness is hardly consciousness, and if you are talking about self-awareness then I don't think a blind man has less self-awareness than a seeing man.

Yet again you still have no indicator of consciousness somehow objectively being a "better" trait than say...rockiness.

"Awareness is a term referring to the ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or patterns."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness

"Consciousness is a word often used in everyday speech to describe being awake and aware – responsive to the environment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Quite interconnected if you ask me.

Consciousness is not exactly a trait. I hope you can see the difference. Every living thing is conscious to some point, having a rough skin (for example) is only a physical property of that organism.

Consciousness in that regard refers to being conscious/not asleep. "The patient regained consciousness".

I fail to see how being awake is the epitome of evolution you describe in your arguments in this thread.

I'm not going to say it is. You pinpoint on 'being awake', I would rather pinpoint on 'being aware'. And "how aware?" or "how conscious?" is the question in regards to evolution.

Well in that case I have misunderstood you throughout the thread. I thought you meant conscious as in "aware of self".

Not that I think either interpretation lends credibility to a position on top of some evolutionary chart.

Well evolution obviously exist even though the Darwin THEORY of evolution is absolutely wrong and nuts.

So if there is a hidden purpose for evolution within species and within genus it is to bring the cream of the crop to the top.

The Believers/Christians will/have already prevailed.....!!!!

Jump on the bandwagon if you are not already on...

Pletho

why do conclude that Darwin's theory is wrong even though you describe it so well as 'bringing the cream of the crop to the top'?

and why did you capitalise the word 'theory'?

because he thinks a theory is a guess, and is clueless on how science works, the meaning of the word theory, or what the theory of evolution by natural selection says. other than that though, pletho is dead on!

I was going to argue, but then I realized that you are not actually making an argument but merely concluding. I wondered why you did that, then it dawned on me that this is simply revealed religion. Raw and unrefined revealed religion showing its true colours.

There is no logic, no argument and no case; merely belief and complete lack of perspective.

i don't get how you can use purpose of evolution and conciousness/higher brain power in the same sentence when the most optimal solution evolution has thrown up for Earth was the era of the dinosaurs

there has never been a known case of any cell mutating and gaining information. which means that the first cell to spontaneously exist on earth was also the most efficient one.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm