Quote from: Peter Lambert on February 28, 2014, 02:25:04 PM

Quote from: the joint on February 28, 2014, 02:17:42 AM

You have the gist of the two theories I'm struggling with, however I wouldn't describe the alternative theory as one in which there is any "desire" for adaptation, but rather it is the nature of consciousness to adapt. I can't count how many times I've driven a car someplace and I can't even remember the process of driving there. My awareness goes off somewhere else while some subconscious or unconscious process takes over and makes sure that I'm not only capable of driving my vehicle, but also of driving there so well that even the most sophisticated computer simulations would have difficulty calculating and measuring all of the spatial, weather, traffic, and road conditions in real-time so as to keep me from killing myself. For any thing to alter a course of action to avoid destruction or preserve itself is a sign of intelligence and problem-solving, and heck, maybe even self-awareness.

Yes, I'm suggesting that bacteria and plants are conscious agents. If you'd like a more detailed explanation of why I think this and why I think the evidence supports this, I can give it a shot, but it'd be pretty long-winded. There are certain-yet-uncommon assumptions I've formed over the past few years, yet I almost completely forget that most people don't hold the same assumptions, and so I also forget that it's pretty much impossible for me to make a brief statement in these kinds of threads and communicate what I'm thinking. The TL;DR version is that I believe this theory because I think subconsciousness and unconsciousness are actually just subtler levels of consciousness despite their riddled names, that consciousness is misunderstood by being defined too narrowly, and that these subtler facets of consciousness distribute to any living thing. The long-winded version would include a lot of philosophy, and I feel that I'd then have to justify the need for philosophy when talking about a scientific theory that is only supposed to consider empirical evidence, and this would include explaining why I think that the scientific method may not be the best method for comprehensive theory-making about evolution.

To me it sounds like you are wrapping a whole bunch of pseudo-science and mumbo-jumbo around solid scientific theories to make them not only untestable but a whole lot more complicated than they need to be. You are trying to turn a scientific theory based on evidence into a faith based dogma because it makes you feel better. Please stop trying to turn science into religion.

Whoa. I'm not even religious, and I'm certainly not interested in frivolous theories.

I hope you understand that the scientific method carries certain untestable assumptions, e.g. we live in a positivistic universe, that have been proven false for literally thousands of years.

Let me ask you this: If you have a set of empirical data that appears a certain way, but a logical or mathematical proof indicates that your interpretation of the data is flawed, would you dismiss the proof because it is non-empirical?

The introduction of philosophy may render a theory unscientific, but in no way does it imply it is worse. The scientific method is *not* the highest standard for knowledge as it owes an extremely large debt to philosophy and mathematics.