Evolution is basically professed to be a series of succesful accidents. As far as physical characteristics that is all well and good, but what is the theory with instincts that may seem counter-intuitive such as regurgitation feeding. Is it supposed that this sort of thing developed by accident or is there a role for self awareness recognised in the evolution of instincts?
“is there a role for self awareness recognised in the evolution of instincts?”
No
>Is it supposed that this sort of thing developed by accident
No, it’s proposed that it developed by natural selection, a strongly deterministic process.
dv said:
“is there a role for self awareness recognised in the evolution of instincts?”No
How would you test this hypothesis?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
is there a role for self awareness recognised in the evolution of instincts?
huh?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
. Is it supposed that this sort of thing developed by accident ?
What? Like random, heritable mutations in genes that regulate behavioural traits arising spotaneously in individuals? Sure. And if these are non-deleterious genetic mutations which impart advantageous innate behaviours, they could hypothetically increase in frequency in wild populations under directional selection. Or they may increase in frequency under genetic drift. Or they may not be under direct selection but dragged along as coupled with other traits under selection (indirect selection). They certainly have been increased artificially in laboratory populations under selection by experiemental breeders (as is the case with laboratory rats, mice, voles and fruit flies which have gene mutants which affect innate behaviours).
neomyrtus_ said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:is there a role for self awareness recognised in the evolution of instincts?huh?
In the case of regurgitive feeding, how is it thought to have developed? Did the animal intentionally achieve the skill or ???
You don’t think ‘self-awareness’ and ‘instinctual behaviour’ is an oxymoron, let alone the question being .. umm… vague and presumptive?
neomyrtus_ said:
You don’t think ‘self-awareness’ and ‘instinctual behaviour’ is an oxymoron, let alone the question being .. umm… vague and presumptive?
The question aimed to clear up the presumptions and determine which of the two dominate in evolution. I’m sure there have been experiments looking at how autonomous intstinct might be. Some characteristics seem to suggest a level of thought being put into the action. Is there a hypothesis regarding regurgitive feeding? Did a bird think, “aww, I deserve a bit of a taste for carrying this back to bub. It’ll probably be easier to swallow if it’s been swallowed once anyway.” Probably not. How much cognition is necessary to develop a skill like that particular one?
Regurgitation happens in non-feeding contexts, so it’s already an available behaviour that is subject to selective modification. There’s no need for anything to have prior knowledge that regurgitation might prove beneficial in a feeding context. The first regurgitation feedings were accidents, successful accidents.
neomyrtus_ said:
You don’t think ‘self-awareness’ and ‘instinctual behaviour’ is an oxymoron, let alone the question being .. umm… vague and presumptive?
To tell the truth I don’t know if this is an oxymoron. What is instinct and how has it been proven that it is autonomous?
Soso said:
Regurgitation happens in non-feeding contexts, so it’s already an available behaviour that is subject to selective modification. There’s no need for anything to have prior knowledge that regurgitation might prove beneficial in a feeding context. The first regurgitation feedings were accidents, successful accidents.
Well without direct observation there is a level of presumption to that claim, but not one that can be readily argued. If any other examples occur to me I’ll refer them here.
The notion that life falls together in a cascade of ‘succesful accidents’ suggests that not only is there a creative intelligence inherent to the natural universe, but that it indulges in a somewhat profound sense of humor, at least at the philosophical level. How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics and entropy “inevitably” result in lifeforms that demonstrate a perfection of balance that is incomprehensible to the efforts of man?
How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics and entropy “inevitably” result in lifeforms that demonstrate a perfection of balance that is incomprehensible to the efforts of man?
because the ones that didn’t, didn’t survive. you know “survival of the fittest”? fittest being those that produce offspring.
>The notion that life falls together in a cascade of ‘succesful accidents’
Genetic mutations are essentially random (in the context of evolution), but natural selection is a powerful deterministic process that results in complex, well-adapted organisms. No “creative intelligence” is necessary.
How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics…
the earth’s biosphere is not a closed system so no laws are contravened by life arising and evolving.
ChrispenEvan said:
How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics and entropy “inevitably” result in lifeforms that demonstrate a perfection of balance that is incomprehensible to the efforts of man?because the ones that didn’t, didn’t survive. you know “survival of the fittest”? fittest being those that produce offspring.
The fact that a microbe came to exist at all is not answered by that argument. Course, the general question is an old one even if I haven’t gone over it in detail myself. I guess the mathematical question I am asking is how is complexity achieved with laws of physics that minimizes complexity?
>How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics…
It’s actually a long series of accidents efficiently sorted by natural selection, in an environment that is thermodynamically far from equilibrium.
Bubblecar said:
>How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics…It’s actually a long series of accidents efficiently sorted by natural selection, in an environment that is thermodynamically far from equilibrium.
when the cat’s away the mice will play?
>I guess the mathematical question I am asking is how is complexity achieved with laws of physics that minimizes complexity?
Gravity favours complexity, by providing useful reservoirs of energy in the form of stars, which can power all kinds of complex chemistry amongst the planets that orbit them.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
. I guess the mathematical question I am asking is how is complexity achieved with laws of physics that minimizes complexity?
Good-o. So nothing to do with instinctive vs learnt behaviours arising among invertebrate and vertebrate groups?
or among protists or Archaea or eubacteria…
neomyrtus_ said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:. I guess the mathematical question I am asking is how is complexity achieved with laws of physics that minimizes complexity?
Good-o. So nothing to do with instinctive vs learnt behaviours arising among invertebrate and vertebrate groups?
How does putting it mathematically preclude it? Thought you’d enjoy the chance to give it a purely scientific, non presumptive answer, as Bubblecar managed. ;)
neomyrtus_ said:
or among protists or Archaea or eubacteria…
no You Bacteria! :P
Bubblecar said:
>I guess the mathematical question I am asking is how is complexity achieved with laws of physics that minimizes complexity?Gravity favours complexity, by providing useful reservoirs of energy in the form of stars, which can power all kinds of complex chemistry amongst the planets that orbit them.
I like this answer. There is room to be explored here. Not sure if I’ll have a retort quickly though.
good old gravity. we’d be stuffed without that. and i was thinking that when i commented on thermodynamics.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The fact that a microbe came to exist at all is not answered by that argument. Course, the general question is an old one even if I haven’t gone over it in detail myself. I guess the mathematical question I am asking is how is complexity achieved with laws of physics that minimizes complexity?
I think some of what you say/ask is being dismissed too readily, but this statement is easily dealt with.
The laws of physics to not minimise complexity locally and over short periods of time.
Where locally may be over the extent of a planet or wider, and a short period may be billions of years.
I think some of what you say/ask is being dismissed too readily…
well, put forth your supporting argument.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The fact that a microbe came to exist at all is not answered by that argument. Course, the general question is an old one even if I haven’t gone over it in detail myself. I guess the mathematical question I am asking is how is complexity achieved with laws of physics that minimizes complexity?
I think some of what you say/ask is being dismissed too readily, but this statement is easily dealt with.
The laws of physics to not minimise complexity locally and over short periods of time.
Where locally may be over the extent of a planet or wider, and a short period may be billions of years.
‘nother good answer :)
The fact that a microbe came to exist at all is not answered by that argument.
well that would be abiogenesis. and we’re talking evolution.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
… a creative intelligence inherent to the natural universe …
Meaning?
It is my view that evolutionary process are intelligent processes. However, I should stress that by “intelligent processes”, I mean that the processes themselves are intelligent, not that the processes are overseen by an intelligent force.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics and entropy “inevitably” result in lifeforms that demonstrate a perfection of balance that is incomprehensible to the efforts of man?
Let’s not forget that the ultimate thermodynamic driving force for (most) life on earth is the conversion of relatively low entropy visible light from the sun to relatively high entropy infrared radiation that is radiated from the earth.
ChrispenEvan said:
I think some of what you say/ask is being dismissed too readily…well, put forth your supporting argument.
It doesn’t need a supporting argument. It just needs some discussion of what the question actually means, rather than flat rejection based on one interpretation, which may or may not be accurate.
It just needs some discussion of what the question actually means, …
unfortunately we will probably never find that out from the asker.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics and entropy “inevitably” result in lifeforms that demonstrate a perfection of balance that is incomprehensible to the efforts of man?
One of problems with the arguments creationists tend to use is that they tend to think in terms of the probability of the overall process and neglect that the probabilities of each individual step are not particularly small and are conditional probabilities. Consider the weasel program.
yes kjw, it is not like it is a clean slate for each change.
ChrispenEvan said:
It just needs some discussion of what the question actually means, …unfortunately we will probably never find that out from the asker.
Sure, but it can lead to some interesting discussion nonetheless.
For instance, it is quite clear that there is at least one species on this planet whose evolution has been affected by its self-awareness and learned behaviours.
I think it is an interesting question how widespread similar effects are in other species.
I also think my question about how you would test for the self-awareness of an insect is interesting, although apparently no-one else does.
it is quite clear that there is at least one species on this planet whose evolution has been affected by its self-awareness and learned behaviours….
we aren’t the only ones who learn. what the op is on about is whether instinctive behaviour is learned, and as neo pointed out, this is a bit of an oxymoron.
The Rev Dodgson said:
it is quite clear that there is at least one species on this planet whose evolution has been affected by its self-awareness and learned behaviours
But in the grand scheme of things, is this really significant? For example, it could be argued that the evolution of the elephants has been affected by its long trunk. In other words, I’m reducing the notion of “self-awareness” to just another evolutionary trait like any other.
ChrispenEvan said:
it is quite clear that there is at least one species on this planet whose evolution has been affected by its self-awareness and learned behaviours….we aren’t the only ones who learn. what the op is on about is whether instinctive behaviour is learned, and as neo pointed out, this is a bit of an oxymoron.
Not quite. I’m asking how much intent is available to the development of what becomes an instinctive behavior in the offspring of the originator of a characteristic behavior.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/05/03/songbird.study.cshl.ccny.provides.concrete.measure.biologys.impact.culture
Songbird study from CSHL, CCNY provides concrete measure of biology’s impact on culture
Riff-in-Thyme said:
ChrispenEvan said:
it is quite clear that there is at least one species on this planet whose evolution has been affected by its self-awareness and learned behaviours….we aren’t the only ones who learn. what the op is on about is whether instinctive behaviour is learned, and as neo pointed out, this is a bit of an oxymoron.
Not quite. I’m asking how much intent is available to the development of what becomes an instinctive behavior in the offspring of the originator of a characteristic behavior.
You mean the Baldwin Effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_effect
I think my first post is the best.
ChrispenEvan said:
it is quite clear that there is at least one species on this planet whose evolution has been affected by its self-awareness and learned behaviours….we aren’t the only ones who learn. what the op is on about is whether instinctive behaviour is learned, and as neo pointed out, this is a bit of an oxymoron.
So why go on about it rather than discussing something more interesting then?
KJW said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
it is quite clear that there is at least one species on this planet whose evolution has been affected by its self-awareness and learned behaviours
But in the grand scheme of things, is this really significant? For example, it could be argued that the evolution of the elephants has been affected by its long trunk. In other words, I’m reducing the notion of “self-awareness” to just another evolutionary trait like any other.
I didn’t suggest that it wasn’t an evolutionary trait like any other, but that doesn’t make it non-significant.
The Rev Dodgson said:
I didn’t suggest that it wasn’t an evolutionary trait like any other…
Perhaps not, but there is the tendency out there to see such traits as intelligence, self-awareness, etc, as somehow above the natural world. We do tend to anthropocentically label things as “natural” and “unnatural”.
The Rev Dodgson said:
… but that doesn’t make it non-significant.
I agree that as traits, intelligence, self-awareness, etc are very significant in their effects. I just didn’t want to consider them as fundamentally different to other traits.
KJW said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
… but that doesn’t make it non-significant.
I agree that as traits, intelligence, self-awareness, etc are very significant in their effects. I just didn’t want to consider them as fundamentally different to other traits.
Which isn’t far off stating “intelligence is a fundamental property of the universe”.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Which isn’t far off stating “intelligence is a fundamental property of the universe”.
I don’t actually disagree with your quoted statement, and indeed said something similar when I said that evolutionary processes are intelligent processes. But… What does the statement actually mean? What is “intelligence”? We have an intuitively idea of what it means, but that intuitive idea is difficult to apply to such abstract notions as “the universe” or “evolutionary processes”, so we need to be more specific about what “intelligence” actually means.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Which isn’t far off stating “intelligence is a fundamental property of the universe”.
I don’t actually disagree with your quoted statement, and indeed said something similar when I said that evolutionary processes are intelligent processes. But… What does the statement actually mean? What is “intelligence”? We have an intuitively idea of what it means, but that intuitive idea is difficult to apply to such abstract notions as “the universe” or “evolutionary processes”, so we need to be more specific about what “intelligence” actually means.
roughbarked said:
I’m not sure we really know. I know what we like to think it means..
I suppose it could be said that: the set of all possibilities + the anthropic principle = intelligent design.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Which isn’t far off stating “intelligence is a fundamental property of the universe”.
I don’t actually disagree with your quoted statement, and indeed said something similar when I said that evolutionary processes are intelligent processes. But… What does the statement actually mean? What is “intelligence”? We have an intuitively idea of what it means, but that intuitive idea is difficult to apply to such abstract notions as “the universe” or “evolutionary processes”, so we need to be more specific about what “intelligence” actually means.
Better than simply taking it for granted. But are you assigning intent to this definition of intelligence?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The notion that life falls together in a cascade of ‘succesful accidents’ suggests that not only is there a creative intelligence inherent to the natural universe, but that it indulges in a somewhat profound sense of humor, at least at the philosophical level. How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics and entropy “inevitably” result in lifeforms that demonstrate a perfection of balance that is incomprehensible to the efforts of man?
If your description of evolution was correct, then yes it would be odd… but alas, evolution isn’t an example of “a cascade of succesful accidents”
diddly-squat said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The notion that life falls together in a cascade of ‘succesful accidents’ suggests that not only is there a creative intelligence inherent to the natural universe, but that it indulges in a somewhat profound sense of humor, at least at the philosophical level. How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics and entropy “inevitably” result in lifeforms that demonstrate a perfection of balance that is incomprehensible to the efforts of man?
If your description of evolution was correct, then yes it would be odd… but alas, evolution isn’t an example of “a cascade of succesful accidents”
It is if you look at it as if it is Discworld
diddly-squat said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The notion that life falls together in a cascade of ‘succesful accidents’ suggests that not only is there a creative intelligence inherent to the natural universe, but that it indulges in a somewhat profound sense of humor, at least at the philosophical level. How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics and entropy “inevitably” result in lifeforms that demonstrate a perfection of balance that is incomprehensible to the efforts of man?
If your description of evolution was correct, then yes it would be odd… but alas, evolution isn’t an example of “a cascade of succesful accidents”
are you suggesting it was deliberate?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
diddly-squat said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The notion that life falls together in a cascade of ‘succesful accidents’ suggests that not only is there a creative intelligence inherent to the natural universe, but that it indulges in a somewhat profound sense of humor, at least at the philosophical level. How is it that a long series of accidents governed by laws of thermodynamics and entropy “inevitably” result in lifeforms that demonstrate a perfection of balance that is incomprehensible to the efforts of man?
If your description of evolution was correct, then yes it would be odd… but alas, evolution isn’t an example of “a cascade of succesful accidents”
are you suggesting it was deliberate?
not at all, in fact I’m sugesting quite the opposite. Fore every ‘successful accident’ as you call it, there are countless failed mutations.
diddly-squat said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
diddly-squat said:If your description of evolution was correct, then yes it would be odd… but alas, evolution isn’t an example of “a cascade of succesful accidents”
are you suggesting it was deliberate?
not at all, in fact I’m sugesting quite the opposite. Fore every ‘successful accident’ as you call it, there are countless failed mutations.
I was having a poke.
diddly-squat said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
diddly-squat said:If your description of evolution was correct, then yes it would be odd… but alas, evolution isn’t an example of “a cascade of succesful accidents”
are you suggesting it was deliberate?
not at all, in fact I’m sugesting quite the opposite. Fore every ‘successful accident’ as you call it, there are countless failed mutations.
yep..
A note for KJW. An ongoing tussle with some neighbors cats claw has had me thinking how biological growth reflects a multiverse type mechanism, though one that is doing the opposite of decoherence I guess. Mathematically, what constitutes a universe in multiverse terms?
diddly-squat said:
accidents”
But that’s exactly what it is!
The Rev Dodgson said:
diddly-squat said:accidents”But that’s exactly what it is!
the implication was that the accidents were only successful ones… or at least it seems that way to me
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
diddly-squat said:accidents”But that’s exactly what it is!
the implication was that the accidents were only successful ones… or at least it seems that way to me
I’m still pondering how awareness affects accidents.
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
diddly-squat said:accidents”But that’s exactly what it is!
the implication was that the accidents were only successful ones… or at least it seems that way to me
Why take an incorrect statement as being implied, if it isn’t explicitly stated?
roughbarked said:
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:But that’s exactly what it is!
the implication was that the accidents were only successful ones… or at least it seems that way to me
I’m still pondering how awareness affects accidents.
Awareness affects behaviour and behaviour affects the results of accidents.
The Rev Dodgson said:
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:But that’s exactly what it is!
the implication was that the accidents were only successful ones… or at least it seems that way to me
Why take an incorrect statement as being implied, if it isn’t explicitly stated?
Because the full statement was…
“The notion that life falls together in a cascade of ‘succesful accidents’ suggests that not only is there a creative intelligence inherent to the natural universe, but that it indulges in a somewhat profound sense of humor, at least at the philosophical level. “
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
diddly-squat said:the implication was that the accidents were only successful ones… or at least it seems that way to me
Why take an incorrect statement as being implied, if it isn’t explicitly stated?
Because the full statement was…
“The notion that life falls together in a cascade of ‘succesful accidents’ suggests that not only is there a creative intelligence inherent to the natural universe, but that it indulges in a somewhat profound sense of humor, at least at the philosophical level. “
OK.
But it’s quite interesting that KJW was able to agree with the words up to the first comma, although quite probably with a different interpretation to that intended.
I admit to being unable to see where the profound sense of humour comes in.
The Rev Dodgson said:
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Why take an incorrect statement as being implied, if it isn’t explicitly stated?
Because the full statement was…
“The notion that life falls together in a cascade of ‘succesful accidents’ suggests that not only is there a creative intelligence inherent to the natural universe, but that it indulges in a somewhat profound sense of humor, at least at the philosophical level. “
OK.
But it’s quite interesting that KJW was able to agree with the words up to the first comma, although quite probably with a different interpretation to that intended.
I admit to being unable to see where the profound sense of humour comes in.
I_think_the sense of humor bit implies that we st00pidly think it’s a natural process, but in reality it’s actually all some form of ‘grand plan’
So why go on about it rather than discussing something more interesting then?
you have a go at me for being ‘aggressive” but you come out with crap like this. why? you asked me a question to which i replied, if you don’t like the answer well that is tough. i was mearely restating the opinion about the op. where the thread goes to from there is up to the posters.
diddly-squat said:
I_think_the sense of humor bit implies that we st00pidly think it’s a natural process, but in reality it’s actually all some form of ‘grand plan’
Exactly how is that implied? ‘Grand plan’ had nothing to do with the question. Drawing conclusions about the motivaton behind the question only avoids the question and muddys the water on the subject. KJW’s interpretation that requires a fuller definition of intelligence is much closer to the mark of the op. Without a definitive definition of sentience attempts to rule it out as part of the motivating force of the universe is only a biased exercise. As far as I am concerned the concept of a ‘grand plan’ is an entirely contrived notion that mocks the concept of free will.
The Rev Dodgson said:
I admit to being unable to see where the profound sense of humour comes in.
Mostly the line was included for the purposes of creative illustration. I do personally find it amusing that humans spend immense amounts of effort trying to create various ideals while nature just makes the most of every accidental opportunity.
The Rev Dodgson said:
But it’s quite interesting that KJW was able to agree with the words up to the first comma, although quite probably with a different interpretation to that intended.
It’s probably a bit of a stretch to claim intelligence for the universe though I do maintain my claim of intelligence for evolutionary processes. However, the universe is creative in the sense that from the perspective of an observer, it creates information. But in the case of evolutionary processes, I regard the selection process as a form of intelligence. Sure, evolution is based on “trial-and-error”, but ultimately from an information theoretical perspective, how else are clever designs going to emerge?
>but ultimately from an information theoretical perspective, how else are clever designs going to emerge?
I think that’s needlessly anthropomorphic. The evolution of efficient organisms requires no cognitive input, so it’s inappropriate to call them “clever designs”.
Bubblecar said:
>but ultimately from an information theoretical perspective, how else are clever designs going to emerge?I think that’s needlessly anthropomorphic. The evolution of efficient organisms requires no cognitive input, so it’s inappropriate to call them “clever designs”.
I think we can judge a design as “clever” without implying a cognitive input in the design process.
KJW said:
I think we can judge a design as “clever” without implying a cognitive input in the design process.
I don’t think we’re entitled to use the term “design” unless we’re being metaphorical. Design implies the intentional structuring of something for a preconceived purpose.
KJW said:
I think we can judge a design as “clever” without implying a cognitive input in the design process.
Indeed, the context of the statement would indicate the absence of a cognitive input, which is actually the point.
Bubblecar said:
I don’t think we’re entitled to use the term “design” unless we’re being metaphorical. Design implies the intentional structuring of something for a preconceived purpose.
I think your definition of “design” is too narrow. One problem is that given some object, from the object itself, one can’t deduce intention or preconceived purpose. One only has how the object manifests itself.
Bubblecar said:
>but ultimately from an information theoretical perspective, how else are clever designs going to emerge?I think that’s needlessly anthropomorphic. The evolution of efficient organisms requires no cognitive input, so it’s inappropriate to call them “clever designs”.
As closely as it might adhere to the scientific philosophy, this is still a presumptive statement. To begin with it defines ‘cognitive’ from a purely anthropomorphic perspective. Why is it an automatic assumption that humans define the limits of sentience?
This pic provides a good sideline question to this thread that is still related to it. “What is love?” Religion basically defines love as the supreme intelligence. How does science define love? I expect this picture would be explained as two infants enjoying body warmth as they have learnt to from the nursing of their mothers. Seemingly definitive, but is that as far as it goes? Is it only coincidental that an inquisitive and friendly attitude between creatures can be considered the default position of the mind? As far as instinct goes, predatory behaviors are more a learned environmental requirement than an in built default imposition. The tendency for humans to assume their own relative supremacy is also a defense mechanism as fearlessness would predict that an individual would comprehend a condition greater than his own without apprehension.
Just an incidental thought for the day but might provide subject matter to the op.
Why is it an automatic assumption that humans define the limits of sentience?
———————————————————————————-
Ambivalant boorisness.
Mr Ironic said:
Why is it an automatic assumption that humans define the limits of sentience?
———————————————————————————-Ambivalant boorisness.
:D haha
hubris
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Bubblecar said:
>but ultimately from an information theoretical perspective, how else are clever designs going to emerge?I think that’s needlessly anthropomorphic. The evolution of efficient organisms requires no cognitive input, so it’s inappropriate to call them “clever designs”.
As closely as it might adhere to the scientific philosophy, this is still a presumptive statement. To begin with it defines ‘cognitive’ from a purely anthropomorphic perspective. Why is it an automatic assumption that humans define the limits of sentience?
Why is it an automatic assumption that a presumption of the non-cognitive nature of evolution could only stem from an automatic assumption that humans define the limits of sentience?
ChrispenEvan said:
So why go on about it rather than discussing something more interesting then?you have a go at me for being ‘aggressive” but you come out with crap like this. why? you asked me a question to which i replied, if you don’t like the answer well that is tough. i was mearely restating the opinion about the op. where the thread goes to from there is up to the posters.
Shrug, it was just a question.
buffy said:
hubris
that is an awesome word for this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
Hubris /ˈhjuːbrɪs/, also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις, means extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.
Not having to prove something is a position of power that does not determine that there is nothing to prove.
Soso said:
Why is it an automatic assumption that a presumption of the non-cognitive nature of evolution could only stem from an automatic assumption that humans define the limits of sentience?
The statement wasn’t directly derived.
It makes you wonder…
Only a few other animals have shown self awareness with the mirror test.
But 99.9% of them know exactly what a compatible partner looks and smells like…
Mr Ironic said:
It makes you wonder…
Only a few other animals have shown self awareness with the mirror test.
But 99.9% of them know exactly what a compatible partner looks and smells like…
and what they are for ;)
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Soso said:Why is it an automatic assumption that a presumption of the non-cognitive nature of evolution could only stem from an automatic assumption that humans define the limits of sentience?
The statement wasn’t directly derived.
I got why do people assume they are so smart.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
and what they are for ;)
sandwitch fillings.
Skunkworks said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Soso said:Why is it an automatic assumption that a presumption of the non-cognitive nature of evolution could only stem from an automatic assumption that humans define the limits of sentience?
The statement wasn’t directly derived.
I got why do people assume they are so smart.
To give it more depth, is our consciousness the only form of awareness? Relative supremacy is fundamentally redundant.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
To give it more depth, is our consciousness the only form of awareness?
No. Philosophical angst ended.
Skunkworks said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
To give it more depth, is our consciousness the only form of awareness?
No. Philosophical angst ended.
If you say so. I haven’t known any of my angsts to be diminished by a solitary syllable ;)
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Skunkworks said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
To give it more depth, is our consciousness the only form of awareness?
No. Philosophical angst ended.
If you say so. I haven’t known any of my angsts to be diminished by a solitary syllable ;)
That’s ok, I was not trying to relieve any of your angsts, just to answer the question.
is our consciousness the only form of awareness?
————————————————————-
Logic says no.
The problem being…
How much spare time does a small brain have to realise it is aware that it is aware.
Considern the butterfly effect, you are navigating fluctuating wind gusts in a aerodynamically super light craft, you have to see/smell your closest relative, match air speed and direction, convince them to copulate while dodging predators on next to no brain.
Hardly leaves any computing time for putting your fist to your head and saying “I think, there for I… oh look a peanut”
Skunkworks said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Skunkworks said:No. Philosophical angst ended.
If you say so. I haven’t known any of my angsts to be diminished by a solitary syllable ;)
That’s ok, I was not trying to relieve any of your angsts, just to answer the question.
and I thought you cared :P
Riff-in-Thyme said:
how biological growth reflects a multiverse type mechanism
As far as I can tell, only quantum physics manifests the multiverse. Classical physics can be explained by considering an ensemble view of reality. An ensemble is mathematically the same as a multiverse (not necessarily the quantum multiverse) but can remain hypothetical. Except at the chemical and possibly microstructural level, biological systems behave classically.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Mathematically, what constitutes a universe in multiverse terms?
A multiverse is a configuration space in which a single configuration (universe) is a single point. This notion was already implicit within the Lagrangian formulation of mechanics, and in the mathematics of the calculus of variations.
Why is it an automatic assumption that humans define the limits of sentience?
because no other creature on earth has shown us their workings. you may have noticed over the years we have changed our understanding and widened our perspective. and now see that other animals show various levels on sentience.
is our consciousness the only form of awareness?
i guess that depends on what level of awareness you mean. at the basic level i would guess it is just a reaction to external stimuli, maybe internal ones too, as in some chemical is deplete (hunger effect say) so stimulates the organism to “hunt” for “food”. all the way up the chain to us who can control this stimulus and identify it as hunger, and put a name to it and convey this meaning to others.
ChrispenEvan said:
Why is it an automatic assumption that humans define the limits of sentience?because no other creature on earth has shown us their workings. you may have noticed over the years we have changed our understanding and widened our perspective. and now see that other animals show various levels on sentience.
I was painting folks with a wide brush. With the tendency for kids to believe in fairies and other creatures it is hardly accurate to apply broadly. It might apply to the opinions that become biased towards asserting their philosophies as naturally superior.
ah, i was going by a scientific definition and progress. i mean that is really the only way to get a coherent and testable viewpoint. imo.
ChrispenEvan said:
ah, i was going by a scientific definition and progress. i mean that is really the only way to get a coherent and testable viewpoint. imo.
i agree entirely
Riff-in-Thyme said:
ChrispenEvan said:
ah, i was going by a scientific definition and progress. i mean that is really the only way to get a coherent and testable viewpoint. imo.
i agree entirely
Thing is.. we only have ourselves to ask.. or do we?
Boris did say that we have noticed responses depending on level of sentinence.. maybe would try taking that communication level further?might as well go have a beer now then.
ChrispenEvan said:
might as well go have a beer now then.
not working today?
roughbarked said:
.. maybe would try taking that communication level further?
learning to interpret what is going on inside my son’s head is definitely interesting
Riff-in-Thyme said:
roughbarked said:
.. maybe would try taking that communication level further?
learning to interpret what is going on inside my son’s head is definitely interesting
there’s a starting point.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
roughbarked said:
.. maybe would try taking that communication level further?
learning to interpret what is going on inside my son’s head is definitely interesting
He probably finds the same, in reverse :)
Evolution is a simple yet highly effective concept based on mutations, which are spread within a population by natural selection. There are at least three types of mutation, the good, the bad and the indifferent.
The good places an advantage on an individual to succeed over others within the group, so his/her good genes are passed onto its offspring via reproduction, as a living standard improvement .
The bad mutations will place an individual at a disadvantage, restricting its ability to reproduce and so in most instances, such bad genes will not be spread through the population and hopefully die out.
The indifferent mutations are those that will neither advantage or disadvantage an individual, but should its habitat change due to a cataclysmic event, then maybe some of these indifferent mutations will come into play to permit certain individuals to survive, reproduce and pass these adapted/changed genes to future generations.
These changes (and others) over time can change an organism until it can no longer be classified as the original species, it has then over time evolved into a different species.
PermeateFree said:
Evolution is a simple yet highly effective concept based on mutations, which are spread within a population by natural selection. There are at least three types of mutation, the good, the bad and the indifferent.The good places an advantage on an individual to succeed over others within the group, so his/her good genes are passed onto its offspring via reproduction, as a living standard improvement .
The bad mutations will place an individual at a disadvantage, restricting its ability to reproduce and so in most instances, such bad genes will not be spread through the population and hopefully die out.
The indifferent mutations are those that will neither advantage or disadvantage an individual, but should its habitat change due to a cataclysmic event, then maybe some of these indifferent mutations will come into play to permit certain individuals to survive, reproduce and pass these adapted/changed genes to future generations.
These changes (and others) over time can change an organism until it can no longer be classified as the original species, it has then over time evolved into a different species.
Hence, so many taxonomic reclassifications.. and the list goes on..
KJW said:
As far as I can tell, only quantum physics manifests the multiverse. Classical physics can be explained by considering an ensemble view of reality. An ensemble is mathematically the same as a multiverse (not necessarily the quantum multiverse) but can remain hypothetical. Except at the chemical and possibly microstructural level, biological systems behave classically.
That is what I was looking for. If there is a link between sentience, multiverse and biological growth that is observable, it should be most obvious in the growth and learning development characteristics of the brain.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
KJW said:As far as I can tell, only quantum physics manifests the multiverse. Classical physics can be explained by considering an ensemble view of reality. An ensemble is mathematically the same as a multiverse (not necessarily the quantum multiverse) but can remain hypothetical. Except at the chemical and possibly microstructural level, biological systems behave classically.
That is what I was looking for. If there is a link between sentience, multiverse and biological growth that is observable, it should be most obvious in the growth and learning development characteristics of the brain.
As far as the formation of life is concerned, what the multiverse does it guarantee it regardless of how improbable that is (provided that the probability is not exactly zero). Then the anthropic principle makes it look like such an extraordinary event that an intelligence was required.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
KJW said:As far as I can tell, only quantum physics manifests the multiverse. Classical physics can be explained by considering an ensemble view of reality. An ensemble is mathematically the same as a multiverse (not necessarily the quantum multiverse) but can remain hypothetical. Except at the chemical and possibly microstructural level, biological systems behave classically.
That is what I was looking for. If there is a link between sentience, multiverse and biological growth that is observable, it should be most obvious in the growth and learning development characteristics of the brain.
As far as the formation of life is concerned, what the multiverse does it guarantee it regardless of how improbable that is (provided that the probability is not exactly zero). Then the anthropic principle makes it look like such an extraordinary event that an intelligence was required.
I’m not suggesting here that “an intelligence was required”. I am supposing that should sentience be a fundamental creative force of the universe rather than a by-product, then there ought to be observable characteristics. Without comprehensive explanation of sentience, statements like ‘No “creative intelligence” is necessary’ are redundant. The multiverse you describe reminds me of the process of consciousness itself. If there is a connection it should be evident in the manifestations of the brain. I am looking for something to examine, not statements that are essentially a circular logic.
> what is the theory with instincts that may seem counter-intuitive such as regurgitation feeding.
Regurgitation feeding makes perfect sense. Any baby animal who pesters their parents enough will make those parents want to throw up.
mollwollfumble said:
> what is the theory with instincts that may seem counter-intuitive such as regurgitation feeding.Regurgitation feeding makes perfect sense. Any baby animal who pesters their parents enough will make those parents want to throw up.
Not sure why counter-intuitive? Storing food in the stomach is a good solution for a hunting animal to return food to its young and with the benefit most of the chewing has been done.
mollwollfumble said:
> what is the theory with instincts that may seem counter-intuitive such as regurgitation feeding.Regurgitation feeding makes perfect sense. Any baby animal who pesters their parents enough will make those parents want to throw up.
have to pay that
Skunkworks said:
mollwollfumble said:
> what is the theory with instincts that may seem counter-intuitive such as regurgitation feeding.Regurgitation feeding makes perfect sense. Any baby animal who pesters their parents enough will make those parents want to throw up.
Not sure why counter-intuitive? Storing food in the stomach is a good solution for a hunting animal to return food to its young and with the benefit most of the chewing has been done.
Which takes having thought about to appreciate and is the greater point of the op.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
I’m not suggesting here that “an intelligence was required”. I am supposing that should sentience be a fundamental creative force of the universe rather than a by-product, then there ought to be observable characteristics. Without comprehensive explanation of sentience, statements like ‘No “creative intelligence” is necessary’ are redundant. The multiverse you describe reminds me of the process of consciousness itself. If there is a connection it should be evident in the manifestations of the brain. I am looking for something to examine, not statements that are essentially a circular logic.
A fundamental problem with the notion of intention and preconceived purpose as far as the formation of life is concerned is that one has an informational structure that predates another similar informational structure. If one invokes the first informational structure to explain the second informational structure, one still has to explain the first informational structure. If it’s the complexity of the second informational structure that needs to be explained, then the first informational structure doesn’t explain this because the first informational structure is comparable in complexity.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
I’m not suggesting here that “an intelligence was required”. I am supposing that should sentience be a fundamental creative force of the universe rather than a by-product, then there ought to be observable characteristics. Without comprehensive explanation of sentience, statements like ‘No “creative intelligence” is necessary’ are redundant. The multiverse you describe reminds me of the process of consciousness itself. If there is a connection it should be evident in the manifestations of the brain. I am looking for something to examine, not statements that are essentially a circular logic.
A fundamental problem with the notion of intention and preconceived purpose as far as the formation of life is concerned is that one has an informational structure that predates another similar informational structure. If one invokes the first informational structure to explain the second informational structure, one still has to explain the first informational structure. If it’s the complexity of the second informational structure that needs to be explained, then the first informational structure doesn’t explain this because the first informational structure is comparable in complexity.
I am not automatically assigning intention or preconception to the term ‘sentience’ here. I am trying to define whether the nature of our consciousness is a result of the fundamental mechanism of the universe or a sub product of chemistry etc.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
I am not automatically assigning intention or preconception to the term ‘sentience’ here. I am trying to define whether the nature of our consciousness is a result of the fundamental mechanism of the universe or a sub product of chemistry etc.
If multiverse is a valid description of the universe, why wouldn’t there be some evidence in the way brains work?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
I am not automatically assigning intention or preconception to the term ‘sentience’ here. I am trying to define whether the nature of our consciousness is a result of the fundamental mechanism of the universe or a sub product of chemistry etc.
I’m not necessarily attributing such a viewpoint to you, even if your posts suggest to me such a viewpoint. I’m just giving my viewpoint on such notions.
I actually do see a connection between the way the universe works and the way the mind works. However, I don’t take a mystical view of this connection, simply seeing the all-encompassing principle of symmetry applying to both.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
I am not automatically assigning intention or preconception to the term ‘sentience’ here. I am trying to define whether the nature of our consciousness is a result of the fundamental mechanism of the universe or a sub product of chemistry etc.
I’m not necessarily attributing such a viewpoint to you, even if your posts suggest to me such a viewpoint. I’m just giving my viewpoint on such notions.
I actually do see a connection between the way the universe works and the way the mind works. However, I don’t take a mystical view of this connection, simply seeing the all-encompassing principle of symmetry applying to both.
Can you at least try not to suggest I see mystical connections. So do you think mechanisms of the brain might reflect multiverse mechanisms in a way that might be measurable?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
If multiverse is a valid description of the universe, why wouldn’t there be some evidence in the way brains work?
Brains are classical objects, and there is no need for a real (as distinct from conceptual) multiverse for classical physics. Classical physics behaves like there is only one universe because the alternatives universes do not interact (interfere as waveforms) with each other at the classical (macroscopic) level.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Can you at least try not to suggest I see mystical connections.
I actually didn’t suggest that you did. I only said that I don’t.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
If multiverse is a valid description of the universe, why wouldn’t there be some evidence in the way brains work?
Brains are classical objects, and there is no need for a real (as distinct from conceptual) multiverse for classical physics. Classical physics behaves like there is only one universe because the alternatives universes do not interact (interfere as waveforms) with each other at the classical (macroscopic) level.
I thought terms like classical applied to the definition being used for a description rather than actual phenomena.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Can you at least try not to suggest I see mystical connections.
I actually didn’t suggest that you did. I only said that I don’t.
sometimes I need to get stuff off my chest also :P
Riff-in-Thyme said:
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
If multiverse is a valid description of the universe, why wouldn’t there be some evidence in the way brains work?
Brains are classical objects, and there is no need for a real (as distinct from conceptual) multiverse for classical physics. Classical physics behaves like there is only one universe because the alternatives universes do not interact (interfere as waveforms) with each other at the classical (macroscopic) level.
I thought terms like classical applied to the definition being used for a description rather than actual phenomena.
My interpretation is that classical is the appearance of things and quantum is the more fundamental reality.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
KJW said:Brains are classical objects, and there is no need for a real (as distinct from conceptual) multiverse for classical physics. Classical physics behaves like there is only one universe because the alternatives universes do not interact (interfere as waveforms) with each other at the classical (macroscopic) level.
I thought terms like classical applied to the definition being used for a description rather than actual phenomena.
My interpretation is that classical is the appearance of things and quantum is the more fundamental reality.
All physics is ultimately quantum, but as the scale of the system increases, quantum behaviour becomes more like what we recognise as classical physics.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Can you at least try not to suggest I see mystical connections.
I actually didn’t suggest that you did. I only said that I don’t.
The only sense I can make of the term ‘mystical connection’ is one that is unexplainable. Anything that can exist can be explained so the idea is kinda meaningless.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:I thought terms like classical applied to the definition being used for a description rather than actual phenomena.
My interpretation is that classical is the appearance of things and quantum is the more fundamental reality.
All physics is ultimately quantum, but as the scale of the system increases, quantum behaviour becomes more like what we recognise as classical physics.
I can accept that. Is there an upper scale limit where things become quantum again?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The only sense I can make of the term ‘mystical connection’ is one that is unexplainable.
I was thinking that suggesting that the mind and universe are connected (as I did) would bring to mind crystal gazers and people smoking too many cones. I wanted to avoid the woo aspect of such a suggestion.
I was thinking that suggesting that the mind and universe are connected (as I did) would bring to mind crystal gazers and people smoking too many cones. I wanted to avoid the woo aspect of such a suggestion
yes, there is all that quantum brain woo to contend with.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The only sense I can make of the term ‘mystical connection’ is one that is unexplainable.
I was thinking that suggesting that the mind and universe are connected (as I did) would bring to mind crystal gazers and people smoking too many cones. I wanted to avoid the woo aspect of such a suggestion.
Sorry. I’ve been trying to avoid that from the start also. Have been trying to find something to examine the idea and all I can thin is that the brain might give something away here. I’d need to know a fair bit more about the brain to answer that though.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
KJW said:
All physics is ultimately quantum, but as the scale of the system increases, quantum behaviour becomes more like what we recognise as classical physics.
I can accept that. Is there an upper scale limit where things become quantum again?
No. The scale of the system is in terms of its action in units of the Planck constant. The “classical limit” is by definition the limit of infinite action. But given that the Planck constant is approximately 6.626×10–34 J·s, ordinary objects encountered in everyday life have a large enough action to be considered “classical”.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
KJW said:
All physics is ultimately quantum, but as the scale of the system increases, quantum behaviour becomes more like what we recognise as classical physics.
I can accept that. Is there an upper scale limit where things become quantum again?
No. The scale of the system is in terms of its action in units of the Planck constant. The “classical limit” is by definition the limit of infinite action. But given that the Planck constant is approximately 6.626×10–34 J·s, ordinary objects encountered in everyday life have a large enough action to be considered “classical”.
But are there actions on the universal scale that have to be classified as quantum?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Have been trying to find something to examine the idea and all I can thin is that the brain might give something away here. I’d need to know a fair bit more about the brain to answer that though.
A major technical difficulty in constructing a quantum computer is quantum decoherence. Avoiding this requires that the quantum system be completely isolated from the surrounding environment (including thermal radiation, requiring cryogenic temperatures). When the microscopic system does interact with the environment, it becomes entangled with it and the system must now be regarded as not only the original microscopic system, but also include the macroscopic environment (in the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction collapses even though there was no deliberate observation). The structure of the brain is very far removed from what is required of a quantum computer.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
But are there actions on the universal scale that have to be classified as quantum?
The term “action” refers to a specific physical quantity just like energy, momentum, length, time, mass, etc. Its SI units are kg·m2·s–1 (abbreviated to J·s, as in the case of the Planck constant). It is the quantity referred to in the “least action principle”, and is the central quantity in Lagrangian mechanics.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Have been trying to find something to examine the idea and all I can thin is that the brain might give something away here. I’d need to know a fair bit more about the brain to answer that though.
A major technical difficulty in constructing a quantum computer is quantum decoherence. Avoiding this requires that the quantum system be completely isolated from the surrounding environment (including thermal radiation, requiring cryogenic temperatures). When the microscopic system does interact with the environment, it becomes entangled with it and the system must now be regarded as not only the original microscopic system, but also include the macroscopic environment (in the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction collapses even though there was no deliberate observation). The structure of the brain is very far removed from what is required of a quantum computer.
can learning variables and curves be compared to decoherence principles?
KJW said:
and is the central quantity in Lagrangian mechanics.
Delete that. The Lagrangian is the central quantity in Lagrangian mechanics. Action is the integral of the Lagrangian with respect to time over a given path.
KJW said:
A major technical difficulty in constructing a quantum computer is quantum decoherence. Avoiding this requires that the quantum system be completely isolated from the surrounding environment (including thermal radiation, requiring cryogenic temperatures).
The oft discussed tendency for the imagination to provide baseless explanations might indicate that the imagination is isolated from the surrounding environment. ;)
Riff-in-Thyme said:
can learning variables and curves be compared to decoherence principles?
No. Forget quantum mechanics with regards to the brain. The brain is a classical object.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
can learning variables and curves be compared to decoherence principles?
No. Forget quantum mechanics with regards to the brain. The brain is a classical object.
The mechanics of the physical brain, sure. The mechanics of awareness and comprehension is more what I am looking at, if we are mis-communicating at all.
KJW said:
No. Forget quantum mechanics with regards to the brain. The brain is a classical object.
However, to be fair, the well-known mathematician Roger Penrose did hypothesise a quantum mechanical nature to consciousness.
KJW said:
KJW said:
No. Forget quantum mechanics with regards to the brain. The brain is a classical object.
However, to be fair, the well-known mathematician Roger Penrose did hypothesise a quantum mechanical nature to consciousness.
:)
roger does come up with some left field stuff though.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The mechanics of the physical brain, sure. The mechanics of awareness and comprehension is more what I am looking at, if we are mis-communicating at all.
I don’t think we can regard consciousness as separate from the physical brain. Quantum mechanics may have some relevance to individual neurons, but the mind is not in the individual neurons, but in the brain as a whole.
ChrispenEvan said:
roger does come up with some left field stuff though.
Yes, including his interpretation of quantum mechanics.
should have stuck to being a tiler.
ChrispenEvan said:
should have stuck to being a tiler.
I don’t think so. :-P
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The mechanics of the physical brain, sure. The mechanics of awareness and comprehension is more what I am looking at, if we are mis-communicating at all.
I don’t think we can regard consciousness as separate from the physical brain. Quantum mechanics may have some relevance to individual neurons, but the mind is not in the individual neurons, but in the brain as a whole.
I’d say yes and no. Various cognitive applications might step outside of the boundary. I pursue the question as the mind is a predictive tool. If the quantum world determines the limitations of the physical why should cognition not have access to the quantum in some manner?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
If the quantum world determines the limitations of the physical why should cognition not have access to the quantum in some manner?
The workings of a silicon crystal semiconductor at the molecular level is quantum mechanical, but a PC is still based purely on classical physics and classical logic. Because consciousness is based on the brain as a whole, it must also be as classical as the brain as a whole. And it must be classical because it is a macroscopic object.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
If the quantum world determines the limitations of the physical why should cognition not have access to the quantum in some manner?
The workings of a silicon crystal semiconductor at the molecular level is quantum mechanical, but a PC is still based purely on classical physics and classical logic. Because consciousness is based on the brain as a whole, it must also be as classical as the brain as a whole. And it must be classical because it is a macroscopic object.
It does not seem automatic that consciousness is based on the brain. What determines it is not vice versa?
It does not seem automatic that consciousness is based on the brain.
i don’t see any other option. i don’t believe consciousness is “mysterious”, rather little understood. would be odd for consciousness to be outside of us.
ChrispenEvan said:
It does not seem automatic that consciousness is based on the brain.i don’t see any other option. i don’t believe consciousness is “mysterious”, rather little understood. would be odd for consciousness to be outside of us.
Outside of us? I see the physical world as being outside of the consciousness, at least in the sense that what we experience of it is essentially a decoded transmission.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
It does not seem automatic that consciousness is based on the brain. What determines it is not vice versa?
I’ll let this Wikipedia article answer that:
“One argument against Dualism is with regard to causal interaction. If consciousness (the mind) can exist independently of physical reality (the brain), one must explain how physical memories are created concerning consciousness. Dualism must therefore explain how consciousness affects physical reality. One of the main objections to dualistic interactionism is lack of explanation of how the material and immaterial are able to interact. Varieties of dualism according to which an immaterial mind causally affects the material body and vice-versa have come under strenuous attack from different quarters, especially in the 20th century. Critics of dualism have often asked how something totally immaterial can affect something totally material — this is the basic problem of causal interaction.”
ChrispenEvan said:
It does not seem automatic that consciousness is based on the brain.i don’t see any other option. i don’t believe consciousness is “mysterious”, rather little understood. would be odd for consciousness to be outside of us.
I sort of agree. I reckon when (or maybe if) instruments get sensitive enough you will probably find consciousness in insects and plants.
KJW said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
It does not seem automatic that consciousness is based on the brain. What determines it is not vice versa?
I’ll let this Wikipedia article answer that:
“One argument against Dualism is with regard to causal interaction. If consciousness (the mind) can exist independently of physical reality (the brain), one must explain how physical memories are created concerning consciousness. Dualism must therefore explain how consciousness affects physical reality. One of the main objections to dualistic interactionism is lack of explanation of how the material and immaterial are able to interact. Varieties of dualism according to which an immaterial mind causally affects the material body and vice-versa have come under strenuous attack from different quarters, especially in the 20th century. Critics of dualism have often asked how something totally immaterial can affect something totally material — this is the basic problem of causal interaction.”
hmm. There seems to be a degree of presumptive interpretation there, bit not an argument I’m up for tonight. Good material for thought however. ta
ChrispenEvan said:
It does not seem automatic that consciousness is based on the brain.i don’t see any other option. i don’t believe consciousness is “mysterious”, rather little understood. would be odd for consciousness to be outside of us.
The only real mystery to me is how non-physical is interpreted as being ‘immaterial’. There are different manifestations of energy. Photons are less substantial than particles but are they classified as immaterial?
The only real mystery to me is how non-physical is interpreted as being ‘immaterial’. There are different manifestations of energy. Photons are less substantial than particles but are they classified as immaterial?
photons aren’t immaterial or non-physical.
ChrispenEvan said:
The only real mystery to me is how non-physical is interpreted as being ‘immaterial’. There are different manifestations of energy. Photons are less substantial than particles but are they classified as immaterial?photons aren’t immaterial or non-physical.
so why should there not be manifestations of energy that have no ‘space’ element?
do photons take up “space”?
ChrispenEvan said:
do photons take up “space”?
to be operating in spacetime they are part space and part time aren’t they?
don’t think so. they are either a wave, and how can that take up “space”? or a particle of what volume? if that is even applicable.
I should remark that consciousness can be regarded as the abstract information associated with the state of the brain. In this sense, it is non-physical, but it is completely dependent on the physical state of the (physical) brain, and is therefore not the same as “dualism”.
ChrispenEvan said:
don’t think so. they are either a wave, and how can that take up “space”? or a particle of what volume? if that is even applicable.
If my internet was working I’d get some links to explain what I meant but hopefully KJW will know what I was referring to and cough up. Thanks for the discussion. Will get back to it when fresher.
KJW said:
I should remark that consciousness can be regarded as the abstract information associated with the state of the brain. In this sense, it is non-physical, but it is completely dependent on the physical state of the (physical) brain, and is therefore not the same as “dualism”.
An analogy is that the numerical value stored at a computer memory address is a non-physical abstract notion compared to the corresponding electrical state within the memory chips.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
so why should there not be manifestations of energy that have no ‘space’ element?
Energy and momentum are fundamentally linked to time and space. In general relativity, energy-momentum is equivalent to a particular form of spacetime curvature. Noether’s theorem says that energy-momentum are the conserved quantities associated with spacetime symmetry. Quantum mechanics says that energy-momentum are the conjugate variables of spacetime variables (it is worth remarking that more than anything else, the symplectic nature of quantum mechanics has convinced me of the many-worlds interpretation).