|
Post by peachy on Dec 18, 2023 17:04:32 GMT
The original medical books included 'consciousness', but the church leaders ordered it removed. I guess that was going too much into their territory, so they cut it to five senses.
I guess that's why medical science today is still so lacking.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 19, 2023 13:53:29 GMT
The original medical books included 'consciousness', but the church leaders ordered it removed. I guess that was going too much into their territory, so they cut it to five senses. I guess that's why medical science today is still so lacking. Can you back this up with a credible citation, or is this just more nonsense pulled out of your ass?
|
|
|
Post by peachy on Dec 19, 2023 14:19:38 GMT
The original medical books included 'consciousness', but the church leaders ordered it removed. I guess that was going too much into their territory, so they cut it to five senses. I guess that's why medical science today is still so lacking. Can you back this up with a credible citation, or is this just more nonsense pulled out of your ass? Are you going to deny there's such a thing as 'consciousness' now? It wouldn't surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 19, 2023 14:26:22 GMT
Can you back this up with a credible citation, or is this just more nonsense pulled out of your ass? Are you going to deny there's such a thing as 'consciousness' now? It wouldn't surprise me. Of course I'm not going to deny that consciousness exists. And I know that until very recently, many scientists regarded the subject as a controversial one and would avoid talking about it, so there is a tiny, tiny kernel of truth to what you posted, though I'm 99% certain you are factually incorrect in the specifics.
So what is this "first medical book" you are blathering about?
|
|
|
Post by peachy on Dec 19, 2023 14:28:51 GMT
Are you going to deny there's such a thing as 'consciousness' now? It wouldn't surprise me. Of course I'm not going to deny that consciousness exists. And I know that until very recently, many scientists regarded the subject as a controversial one and would avoid talking about it, so there is a tiny, tiny kernel of truth to what you posted, though I'm 99% certain you are factually incorrect in the specifics.
So what is this "first medical book" you are blathering about?
I heard someone say that it was included in the first medical book but the church had it removed. Limiting people to five senses made it easier to control them.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 19, 2023 14:30:48 GMT
Of course I'm not going to deny that consciousness exists. And I know that until very recently, many scientists regarded the subject as a controversial one and would avoid talking about it, so there is a tiny, tiny kernel of truth to what you posted, though I'm 99% certain you are factually incorrect in the specifics.
So what is this "first medical book" you are blathering about?
I heard someone say that it was included in the first medical book but the church had it removed. Limiting people to five senses made it easier to control them. Okay, no source whatsoever, just something you "heard". Because you literally have no standards to speak of.
|
|
|
Post by peachy on Dec 19, 2023 14:36:17 GMT
I heard someone say that it was included in the first medical book but the church had it removed. Limiting people to five senses made it easier to control them. Okay, no source whatsoever, just something you "heard". Because you literally have no standards to speak of. Unlike you, I don't need a book to tell me I have consciousness. It makes perfect sense that ancients would have considered it a sense. What would you call it?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 19, 2023 15:09:33 GMT
It makes perfect sense that ancients would have considered it a sense. No, it makes no sense at all, and you haven't demonstrated that this is what the "ancients" believed. You just heard someone babble about nonsense and you believed it. Consciousness is not a sense. It is what uses the senses to make judgements about what is happening around an organism and react appropriately to that information.
That's hopelessly simplistic, but that's as far as I need to go in this context.
|
|
|
Post by peachy on Dec 19, 2023 15:13:13 GMT
It makes perfect sense that ancients would have considered it a sense. No, it makes no sense at all, and you haven't demonstrated that this is what the "ancients" believed. You just heard someone babble about nonsense and you believed it. Consciousness is not a sense. It is what uses the senses to make judgements about what is happening around an organism and react appropriately to that information.
That's hopelessly simplistic, but that's as far as I need to go in this context.
I know the limitations you give to it. You also believe it's in the brain. Lol Is it the same as 'awareness' in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 19, 2023 15:27:43 GMT
I know the limitations you give to it. You also believe it's in the brain. Lol Not just the brain, the body. That's where the evidence leads. You can use the words interchangeably if you want for most everyday purposes.
There are some folks who want to use the concept of consciousness to only refer to what humans have and animals lack, so they'd say animals have just awareness, and we have both awareness AND consciousness. The scientific and philosophical communities have never reached a consensus about the right way to employ the terminology. Not that you'd care either way, but I thought I'd put this fact out there anyway.
|
|
|
Post by peachy on Dec 19, 2023 15:37:34 GMT
I know the limitations you give to it. You also believe it's in the brain. Lol Not just the brain, the body. That's where the evidence leads. You can use the words interchangeably if you want for most everyday purposes.
There are some folks who want to use the concept of consciousness to only refer to what humans have and animals lack, so they'd say animals have just awareness, and we have both awareness AND consciousness. The scientific and philosophical communities have never reached a consensus about the right way to employ the terminology. Not that you'd care either way, but I thought I'd put this fact out there anyway.
Animals are conscious and aware just like humans. The difference is that animals are closer to their instincts and are more instinctual rather than using reasoning and imagination like humans do. But I'm sure your scientist communities will catch up to how things truly are someday.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 19, 2023 15:45:14 GMT
Animals are conscious and aware just like humans. No, they are not. And alas, you will never catch up to the knowledge base of the scientific community since everything you believe just gets pulled out of your ass or overheard in the grocery store checkout line.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Dec 19, 2023 18:44:23 GMT
Consciousness means the action of thinking and that is a reaction to the senses, not a sense in itself. from Latin conscius "knowing, aware," from conscire "be (mutually) aware," from assimilated form of com "with," or "thoroughly" (see con-) + scire "to know" (see science). The Latin word probably is a loan-translation of Greek syneidos.
The sense of "knowing or perceiving within oneself, sensible inwardly, aware" is from 1630s, perhaps a shortening of conscious to oneself (1620s). Also compare the Latin sense evolution in conscience. From 1650s as "aware (of a fact)." Sense of "active and awake, endowed with active mental faculties" is from 1837. www.etymonline.com/word/consciousconsciousness (n.)
1630s, "internal knowledge," from conscious + -ness. Meaning "state of being aware of what passes in one's own mind" is from 1670s; meaning "state of being aware" of anything is from 1746. Consciousness-raising is attested from 1968. www.etymonline.com/word/Consciousness
So if the church discarded this as a “sense” per se, as you claim, they did the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by peachy on Dec 20, 2023 0:01:46 GMT
Consciousness means the action of thinking and that is a reaction to the senses, not a sense in itself. from Latin conscius "knowing, aware," from conscire "be (mutually) aware," from assimilated form of com "with," or "thoroughly" (see con-) + scire "to know" (see science). The Latin word probably is a loan-translation of Greek syneidos.
The sense of "knowing or perceiving within oneself, sensible inwardly, aware" is from 1630s, perhaps a shortening of conscious to oneself (1620s). Also compare the Latin sense evolution in conscience. From 1650s as "aware (of a fact)." Sense of "active and awake, endowed with active mental faculties" is from 1837. www.etymonline.com/word/consciousconsciousness (n.)
1630s, "internal knowledge," from conscious + -ness. Meaning "state of being aware of what passes in one's own mind" is from 1670s; meaning "state of being aware" of anything is from 1746. Consciousness-raising is attested from 1968. www.etymonline.com/word/Consciousness
So if the church discarded this as a “sense” per se, as you claim, they did the right thing. Is that supposed to mean something? The church didn't want it included because they wanted more control over people. The more ignorant, the better.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 20, 2023 15:39:48 GMT
Is that supposed to mean something? Paulslaugh made the effort to provide you the definition of consciousness you asked for, in great detail. Apparently you never really wanted an answer to begin with, which is not surprising.
A. You have never established that this censorship ever really occurred. You can't even tell us what this "first medical book" was--most likely it was Chinese or ancient Greek, written before there was even a church. You literally don't know shit about what you are claiming.
B. Removing (or including) "consciousness" on a list of senses has no bearing whatsoever on the control the church had over people.
|
|