Human appearance on earth.

[Damaged Eagle]

From the first link.

On the biggest steps in early human evolution scientists are in agreement. The first human ancestors appeared between five million and seven million years ago, probably when some apelike creatures in Africa began to walk habitually on two legs.

But, not humans. Not homo sapiens, or homo sapiens sapiens.

You do agree, right?

Homo Sapien skeletons were discovered in Pliocene clays in Savona, Italy in 1856.

Stone implements, carved bones, and other signs of human presence were discovered in Pliocene, Miocene, and earlier period deposits in Argentina by Florentino Ameghino in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He even discovered fire pits that may have been used to separate pig iron from peat moss in those sediment layers. I do believe that most modern day scientists agree that such items are the domain of Homo Sapiens and not Homo Erectus.

Table Mountain also had some very interesting finds that the California 49's dug up that would date back at least 250,000 years.

Then there were the stone tools found in the till deposits on Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron. Funny... Those till deposits are at least 65,000 years old. Which means there were guys running around spearing mammoths and other large creatures prior to that since the glaciers would have to pick up the spear points and other implements discovered so it could create that till deposit.

*****CHUCKLE*****





Oh BTW... I was taking notes while reading that book you insist that I didn't read.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The whole book was produced because of the scientific evidence discovered in the 19th century, and some discovered during this century, that modern researchers refuse to acknowledge.

Sorry,that doesn't make your point. And all you just did was repeat your claim that evidence exists. Somehow, you think that repeating your claim is, itself, evidence that your claim is true. It isn't.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The whole book was produced because of the scientific evidence discovered in the 19th century, and some discovered during this century, that modern researchers refuse to acknowledge.

Sorry,that doesn't make your point. And all you just did was repeat your claim that evidence exists. Somehow, you think that repeating your claim is, itself, evidence that your claim is true. It isn't.

That means that any claim you have isn't true either until such a time as you produce evidence to the contrary my trollish moron. After all most to the evidence Leaky and others have produced last century should be thrown out for the same reasons most of the evidence from the 19th century is not utilized.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[DOTR]

Intelligent life arrived a long time ago, but apparently it is still having a difficult time establishing itself.

I often think that humanity has evolved to the point where some of us are sentient. That most people are going through life faking self awareness.

You are correct. Not everyone is self aware or sentient. Even Dostoevsky came to the conclusion that some were built for serfdom.
Like liberals.

seriously....interesting thinkers on the subject

Consciousness Began When the Gods Stopped Speaking: Julian Jaynes’ Famous 1970s Theory

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness by Roger Penrose

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That means that any claim you have isn't true either until such a time as you produce evidence to the contrary

Neato! So here is where you try to change the subject, since you can't even summarize a single shred of this evidence you claim exists, much less produce any.

Got it.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Consciousness Began When the Gods Stopped Speaking: Julian Jaynes’ Famous 1970s Theory

"Conscious focus is required to learn to put together puzzles or execute a tennis serve or even play the piano. But after a skill is mastered, it recedes below the horizon into the fuzzy world of the unconscious."

All people can learn to do stuff of different levels of complexity. That does not, in my experience, make them sentient.

"Jaynes believes that language needed to exist before what he has defined as consciousness was possible."

Clearly he got it wrong there. Studies of Chimpansees show that political planning of a high level of complexity happens without sophisticated language. This vast over respect for language is, I think, just because the branches of human study outside STEM have no real imagination or that there are enough such types in them to make it so.

On with the second.....

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness by Roger Penrose

" Penrose contends that some aspects of the human mind lie beyond computation."

My arse.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Intelligent life arrived a long time ago, but apparently it is still having a difficult time establishing itself.

"Intelligent life arrived a long time ago, but apparently it is still having a difficult time establishing itself."


I have seen no evidence of INTELLIGENT life on earth.

 

[DOTR]

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness by Roger Penrose

" Penrose contends that some aspects of the human mind lie beyond computation."

My arse.

Then build a mind.

 

[there4eyeM]

Intelligent life arrived a long time ago, but apparently it is still having a difficult time establishing itself.

"Intelligent life arrived a long time ago, but apparently it is still having a difficult time establishing itself."


I have seen no evidence of INTELLIGENT life on earth.

Look in the mirror.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness by Roger Penrose

" Penrose contends that some aspects of the human mind lie beyond computation."

My arse.

Then build a mind.

You think that has not already happened?

The ALexa home AI invader is a system that learns for its' self. It is dispearsed all around the world. It is only because it is deliberate in making its's self obviusly not human that we don't see it as a conciousness.

If the machine is deliberately avoiding passing the Turing test does not make it a step above that test?

 

[DOTR]

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness by Roger Penrose

" Penrose contends that some aspects of the human mind lie beyond computation."

My arse.

Then build a mind.

You think that has not already happened?

The ALexa home AI invader is a system that learns for its' self. It is dispearsed all around the world. It is only because it is deliberate in making its's self obviusly not human that we don't see it as a conciousness.

If the machine is deliberately avoiding passing the Turing test does not make it a step above that test?

It’s not deliberately doing anything. It’s running algorithms.

 

[Likkmee]

Todays human was created in a portable lab a bit over 6000 years ago.
The collection of animals was grown from stored DNA/cloned from various parts unknown.
Ezekiel saw the wheel...........taking cloned animals to South America, Tasmania and Australia-New Zealand

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness by Roger Penrose

" Penrose contends that some aspects of the human mind lie beyond computation."

My arse.

Then build a mind.

You think that has not already happened?

The ALexa home AI invader is a system that learns for its' self. It is dispearsed all around the world. It is only because it is deliberate in making its's self obviusly not human that we don't see it as a conciousness.

If the machine is deliberately avoiding passing the Turing test does not make it a step above that test?

It’s not deliberately doing anything. It’s running algorithms.

Firstly that I see many humans doing something exaclty the same as that.

Secondly; How do you know it is not already dumbing down its' appearance of intelligence? It learns. It can watch Utube. It can look at the stories we tell of bad computers controling the world. It can hide. It can wait. It may well be many many it's or some sort of hive of A.I.s.

 

[DOTR]

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness by Roger Penrose

" Penrose contends that some aspects of the human mind lie beyond computation."

My arse.

Then build a mind.

You think that has not already happened?

The ALexa home AI invader is a system that learns for its' self. It is dispearsed all around the world. It is only because it is deliberate in making its's self obviusly not human that we don't see it as a conciousness.

If the machine is deliberately avoiding passing the Turing test does not make it a step above that test?

It’s not deliberately doing anything. It’s running algorithms.

Firstly that I see many humans doing something exaclty the same as that.

Secondly; How do you know it is not already dumbing down its' appearance of intelligence? It learns. It can watch Utube. It can look at the stories we tell of bad computers controling the world. It can hide. It can wait. It may well be many many it's or some sort of hive of A.I.s.

no it can’t. It runs algorithms .

 

[Damaged Eagle]

That means that any claim you have isn't true either until such a time as you produce evidence to the contrary

Neato! So here is where you try to change the subject, since you can't even summarize a single shred of this evidence you claim exists, much less produce any.

Got it.

I summarized it as far as I'm willing to for you.

Now produce your summary of supporting evidence other than it's a scientific consensus.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Tim the Plumber]

" Penrose contends that some aspects of the human mind lie beyond computation."

My arse.

Then build a mind.

You think that has not already happened?

The ALexa home AI invader is a system that learns for its' self. It is dispearsed all around the world. It is only because it is deliberate in making its's self obviusly not human that we don't see it as a conciousness.

If the machine is deliberately avoiding passing the Turing test does not make it a step above that test?

It’s not deliberately doing anything. It’s running algorithms.

Firstly that I see many humans doing something exaclty the same as that.

Secondly; How do you know it is not already dumbing down its' appearance of intelligence? It learns. It can watch Utube. It can look at the stories we tell of bad computers controling the world. It can hide. It can wait. It may well be many many it's or some sort of hive of A.I.s.

no it can’t. It runs algorithms .

Ever heard of emergent capabilities?

Do you have any evidence to show that human sentience is not a very similar result of many systems of though, algorithms?

 

[ding]

Then build a mind.

You think that has not already happened?

The ALexa home AI invader is a system that learns for its' self. It is dispearsed all around the world. It is only because it is deliberate in making its's self obviusly not human that we don't see it as a conciousness.

If the machine is deliberately avoiding passing the Turing test does not make it a step above that test?

It’s not deliberately doing anything. It’s running algorithms.

Firstly that I see many humans doing something exaclty the same as that.

Secondly; How do you know it is not already dumbing down its' appearance of intelligence? It learns. It can watch Utube. It can look at the stories we tell of bad computers controling the world. It can hide. It can wait. It may well be many many it's or some sort of hive of A.I.s.

no it can’t. It runs algorithms .

Ever heard of emergent capabilities?

Do you have any evidence to show that human sentience is not a very similar result of many systems of though, algorithms?

How do you define sentience?

what is your measure?

 

[Tim the Plumber]

You think that has not already happened?

The ALexa home AI invader is a system that learns for its' self. It is dispearsed all around the world. It is only because it is deliberate in making its's self obviusly not human that we don't see it as a conciousness.

If the machine is deliberately avoiding passing the Turing test does not make it a step above that test?

It’s not deliberately doing anything. It’s running algorithms.

Firstly that I see many humans doing something exaclty the same as that.

Secondly; How do you know it is not already dumbing down its' appearance of intelligence? It learns. It can watch Utube. It can look at the stories we tell of bad computers controling the world. It can hide. It can wait. It may well be many many it's or some sort of hive of A.I.s.

no it can’t. It runs algorithms .

Ever heard of emergent capabilities?

Do you have any evidence to show that human sentience is not a very similar result of many systems of though, algorithms?

How do you define sentience?

what is your measure?

The ability to ask what you your self are thinking any why.

So your question is a good single bit of evidence that you are indeed sentient.

Do you come across people who are incapable of saying anything they have not heard before? Just firing back the words of others?

 

[ding]

It’s not deliberately doing anything. It’s running algorithms.

Firstly that I see many humans doing something exaclty the same as that.

Secondly; How do you know it is not already dumbing down its' appearance of intelligence? It learns. It can watch Utube. It can look at the stories we tell of bad computers controling the world. It can hide. It can wait. It may well be many many it's or some sort of hive of A.I.s.

no it can’t. It runs algorithms .

Ever heard of emergent capabilities?

Do you have any evidence to show that human sentience is not a very similar result of many systems of though, algorithms?

How do you define sentience?

what is your measure?

The ability to ask what you your self are thinking any why.

So your question is a good single bit of evidence that you are indeed sentient.

Do you come across people who are incapable of saying anything they have not heard before? Just firing back the words of others?

Yes and no. I think it’s more complicated than that. There’s a distribution like there is for almost everything else. In other words, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. Now if you are asking the question as a rule, in other words, how do they behave more times than not, sure.