dichotomy

If you are linking these two terms as meaning the one item, then I disagree. Intellegence does not need to be conscious. E.g. ants, bees, spiders all achieve intelligent engineering techniques and structures, cooperative and well structured societies. But they are not conscious to the same level as you are. Maybe consciousness is probably best defined as a species being able to adapt, more so than any other species, to the largest range of environments, by using one's mind to realize just how? Yes, but to what level? Do they see a world that has finite resources for example?

I prefer to go back to Siddhartha Gautama enlightenment – approx’ 400 BCE, “Life is stress”. But Darwin’s enlightenment is on solid record I suppose. I think if they came to the realization that the tools they crafted make things easier for them. Then yes, they where conscious at that point. I think technological creativity, and even more so, artistic creativity, are the best indicators of consciousness. The gradual evolution of consciousness sits well with gradual physical evolution. This makes most sense to me. I don’t think consciousness was suddenly delivered like it was to Kubrick’s 2001 apemen. Another (probably subjective) measure of consciousness is the feeling one gets when playing with and observing animals. It’s the feeling that one has the upper hand in controlling their situation. Also, children are a good example of consciousness development. A toddler will walk straight across a busy road to pick-up a ball without thinking about the consequences. This to me is undeveloped consciousness of a situation. When I talk to an adult whose head is in the clouds. Or, someone who is high on marijuana, I get the feeling of having an obviously higher consciousness then they do, at that moment in time. And, when I have too much beer to drink, I can gauge my regular consciousness dropping away. I'd guess as we reach a certain old age, our consciousness will begin to diminish again. cheers.

I don’t agree at all about about the 'a lot slimmer' preference. Why? Models are supposedly the skinny attractive women that men desire. This is not true. Models are great for, well, modeling fashions, clothes horses, and facial shots. While penthouse and playboy girls are generally fuller figured (and freakin’ delicious) in comparison to the fashion girls. The vast majority of men would desire the playboy type girls, and not the boney fashion models, with no arse and no tits. Just ask Heffner, “The unexplored wife is not worth living”. And I always thought it was,” The unexplored life is not worth living." cheers.

Well, you could use a 50cm W x 30cm L masking or gaffer tape then.

More Human-Neandertal Mixing Evidence Uncovered - November 6, 2006? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061103083616.htm http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/8165.html cheers.

10/4 Cin cin

I may have to change, creative to 'usefully creative', tighten it up. Since I can't accuse creationists of not being creative. prosto ? has additional meanings in the language of about 83 million native speakers of Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish; is a ‘true friend’ for about 295.5 million native speakers of Russian, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian. The Kashubian meaning ‘simple, simply’ is shared by R. просто, Blr. проста, Ukr. просто, Pol. prosto, Cz. prostě, Slk. proste, Sln. prosto, Cr. prosto, Bo. prosto, Sb. просто, Mk. просто, Bg. просто. The meaning ‘straight on’ (prost, na prost, za prost) is attested in Blr. проста, прамо, наўпрост, Ukr. просто, Pol. prosto. I'll have to translate proste as being, simple friend. cheers

My, in vain, definition of our general current level of consciousness, for iNOW’s conscious dog’s sake. The ability to comprehend that we, in our current form, must have come from some series of previous forms. And conclude that our form will continue to branch off into other forms, forms that either become extinct, or continue. Depending on environmental variables. To have the realization that the only constant in the material world is change. The ability to conclude, “I think, therefore I am”. The ability of possessing uniquely human creativity. The ability to deduce that the earth is not flat (damn, dolphins probably know this). How did I do? cheers.

Inspired by the Anthropoid Origins thread. I’m not sure if evolutionary theory deals with the mind, but here goes (move it if you must). When did human consciousness as we know it, get to that point, on the scales of evolution? Do you think that consciousness for early man, as we know consciousness, would have been a very gradual, on – consciousness, off – consciousness, spanning generations, type of development. Until it was constantly in ON position during waking hours? Do you think consciousness was suddenly switched on by enviro pressures and accepted by early man as a new, very handy way of perceiving the world? Your views please. cheers

‘Cosmic unconscious force’ or CUF (it could stand for chimerical unconscious force ). 1. It differs from evolution in that ULF makes evolutionary chance, natural selection and adaptability much more likely to succeed. 2. ULF makes the improbability of life much more probable by unconsciously working away to make it a reality. Like a plant evolving into a Venus flytrap that unconsciously develops a mouth to catch insects, because it unconsciously hopes this will work to it’s advantage. 3. It can possibly be measured by means of probability. That is, how likely is life to evolve from energy and matter (or is it just matter we are really looking at)? If the answer is extremely unlikely, then ULF can be seen to increase the chance dramatically, albeit in a hit and miss, blind, kind of way. Why I reason a cosmic unconscious is at work? The human being is the highest form of conscious matter that we know of. I see our bodies as a microcosm of the greater cosmos. If we have evolved from unconscious beginnings (which I believe we have) to our present level of consciousness, then I see the cosmos operating the same way, except without our current level of evolved consciousness. So, all of matter is unconsciously driven like a trees roots blindly searching for water. Matter then becomes many combinations of things. Combinations that can become life matter (‘life matter’ as in the common human perception of what constitutes an animal or vegetable). This is as far as I can go with this at present. The rest is up to others. Cheers.

Well, I fully dream a future reality before witnessing it's replay in full detail. So, I'm not sure about the "cross-wiring" thing. Cross-wiring would make more sense if one had deja vu without a past dream. I've probably only experienced it 10 times at the most. I do remember some occasions where I felt déjà vu coming on. I panicked and did my best to suppress the rest of what I knew would unfold. I could at times suppress it fully when the first few seconds occur. Possibly, I may only have 3 to 10 second déjà vu, and not minutes of it, because fear sets in, and thus suppression. The fear of totally seeing all things before they actually occur would be completely unbearable to someone like me, whom didn't grow up with a steady stream of pre-cognition from day 1. I really can’t think of a good reason why it occurs with me. Particularly considering how mundane most pre-cognition is. If it was life or death it would be useful at least. I think I'll stick with the evolving consciousness for futre generations thing, that I probably won't get full use of. I speculate this because early man would have, at some point in time, had to deal with shocking flashes of consciousness. Before evolving the consciousness most of us know today. Cheers.

Your description fits my experience of pre-cog dreams. I can't explain it at all. I just assume my unconscious knows things that the conscious doesn't. And merely trivial things too. I'd describe it as a short sequence of reality that initially took place in a dream. It's relatively common. I remember in a secondary school psychology class that about a quarter, or more, of the class had experienced this phenomenon, this made me feel more assured that it was quite normal. My time frames of 1 to 3 weeks are pretty standard for me. I may have had some that trigger a year or more later, but I can't remember for certain any of those occasions. One, "seeing the future" experience I had was in a drugged on magic mushrooms state. This one lasted about 8 seconds. I don't remember a pre-cog dream for this occasion. I only know that I could clearly detail before it happened, move for move, point of view, facial expression, exactly what a friend of mine was about to do. basically, I stood at the door entrance to our hotel room. He simply walked the full space of the room, spun around, walked up to me and shut the door in my face, and immediately opened it again, just for effect. Again, another completely meaningless pre-cognition like the rest of them. Except this time with a mind altering substance. Maybe this feature is not really for my full use, it may be evolving in me for future generations to use more skillfully?

The only thing I have ever considered psychic are my own handful of pre-cognitive dreams (where everything in the dream occurs later in reality, deja vu). All seemed to be completely insignificant life events that lasted from approximately 3 to 10seconds. No drugs, no alcohol involved. They generally occurred about 1 to 3 weeks after the dream. I’m not sure that events like these can be objectively tested? I can't verify anyone elses experience of deja vu. So how can anyone verify mine? cheers.

Genetics plus environment are both crucial in determining what athletic ability most suits a person. Athletics covers everything from huge weight lifters to long distance runners, from high jumpers to sumo wrestlers. Of course, one needs the right genes for the job to begin with if one wants to excel in a particular athletic area. So, genes are the foundation I suppose. But genes are totally useless without the right environmental factors such as training, diet, altitude, culture. cheers

I’m keen to read others thoughts on the existence of the unconscious powers of life. Including, in things such as white blood cells, plants, even energy and matter, and the cosmos. Scientists seem to be comfortable with the idea of unconscious intellect operating in bees and ants, etc. They are also comfortable with the human dream life of unconscious problem solving. But, I think my stumbling block is examining it clearly when it comes to matter and energy, the cosmos, herds, plants. The collective, or, greater consciousness. I’m not sure what else to call it since it can’t easily be examined as yet. It’s all at a feeling level really, with my only observation that life needs to be driven into existence rather than magically chancing upon the right matter and energy combinations, in the right environment, at the right time. I can’t help looking at trees as the best example at present of a different consciousness operating, just looking at their motivation to survive and reproduce. And yep, the ‘collective unconscious’ first came to my attention while reading, 'Modern man in search of a soul'. Jung uses it to describe man’s "reservoir of experiences of our species". Through archetypes, dreams, and intuition, and drives the person to make mistakes on purpose in order to evolve. I’m not using it the same way. I’m using it to describe a force that drives life into existence. Like the force of gravity that pulls things down to earth. Maybe I should call it, 'unconscious force', or some such. Does this help, or just confuse?

I'll repeat this with some minor edits - Did you consider that 'all of life' is the ‘favorable variation’ you look for? Why should the ‘unconscious intellect’ of life favor a single species when what it might be doing is unconsciously spreading the risk as fully as it can, and thus reduce the possibility of complete extinction of life? Yes, but N.S. still can be viewed as the unconscious spreading of risk. Either traits work, or they don’t depending on what enviro factors are operating at the time. I think the sheer fact that N.S. operates effectively the way it does, is quite clever, even though N.S doesn't consciously think. It doesn’t think about it like WE do. It unconsciously spreads risk in order to give the best chance of survival. Take a look at my new thread on the collective unconscious and conscious intellect. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=356057#post356057 No, you're in the same boat as me here. Where is your evidence to the contrary? I’d seriously be interested in this one. The methodologies that generally go wrong are – not accounting for the relevant variables, the lab test that really needs to be a life test, the human disease of perpetual incorrect assumption. There was a debate on the incorrect diagnosis of ADHD and perscription of ritalin I was following. I'll try to find some of the dodgy science involved in that one when I get a chance. Cheers (you are making me work you know?). Gee, it must have been hell counting all those dead microbes. No, unconscious nature does that for us. And swithes genes on/off when the right stimuli is applied too. If there was absolutely no method applied by a collective unconscious we wouldn't even see microbes in existance. Life persists because it attempts to. Even though it does not know it is trying to. cheers. Thanks for this updated info. The source docu I watched was probably at least 3 years old, and only speculated interbreeding from a single irregular infant fossil. Of course, the infant may not have been fertile due to it being a hybrid.

Well, with me white table sugar, coffee and chocolate all increase my heart rate more than anything else I use. The more I take the faster it gets. I sometimes need to dilute my blood with water to settle my heart rate down. I generally need to avoid having too much sugary and caffinated foods. I own a heart rate monitor, this proves it to myself. I have normal blood pressure when I'm not high on white sugar. cheers

Yep, this is fine too, if it makes more sense to the scientific mindset. It is essentially what I am saying, i suppose . I just haven't heard it phrased that way. Or maybe simply, non-random behaviour in life? Anyway, I think most would get what I mean. cheers

Athletic advantage is attributed to fast and slow twitch muscle fibres. I believe in certain olympic events like swimming, fast twitch fibers are a disadvantage, due to the fact that they don't 'float' in water as well as slow twitch. I could be wrong here. http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php "For years it was axiomatic that muscles have two types of fibers - white, or fast-twitch, which were thought to be adapted for power movements, such as leaping or sprinting; and red, or slow-twitch, which were adapted for endurance. Now we know the model is more complicated. There are in fact two different types of fast-twitch fibers, one more metabolically efficient. Whites on average have a higher percentage of slow-twitch fibers than West African blacks who generally have more of both types of fast-twitch fibers." cheers

I think my laymans approach to be much more transparent. I’m not sure if randomness truly exists anyway. A random event may just be the result of an unfathomable trail of causes and effects. Maybe the initial cause was random? Or maybe it was caused by an effect? Which was caused by...

I thought I might move the Unconscious and Collective Unconscious debate out of the Biology forum. Ok, I hope you do realize my comments on the ‘unconscious intellect’ are purely for hopefully interesting discussion and deeper insights, they are not considered by me as solid science at all. Honest. 1. The ‘unconscious intellect’ has no reason why it should drive anything; it just does, like the sun shines, like the cosmos exists. It is the primal force that drives matter into becoming life forms. It isn’t a divine consciousness. It is best seen as a tree that grows, simply because IT CAN. It has the resources around it, the evo pressures that are available to aid healthy growth. The unconscious intellect (like the conscious intellect) is not always right in its decisions. I see it as something that spreads the risk to avoid all of life’s possible demise. Rather than something that logically chooses the correct option every time. If the unconscious did ‘consciously think’, it would see that the more life form options out there, the more likely life is to persist. Evolution (inc. technological evo), as shaky as it is, is the most solid vehicle for the development and perpetuation of healthy life. The unconscious energy is propelled along by evolutionary pressures. And here we may have measurable unconscious energy at work, in the minds of countless animals. 2. There is an unconscious intellect (let’s just use unconscious, as people are rightly confused with the use of intellect as it is seen as conscious); it is the same unconscious that humans use to problem solve in dreams with, to intuit with. Bees use it to build honey cones, spiders to build webs, forager ants to do complex spherical trigonometry. 3. Plants have an unconscious. I see proof in this by the way a tree moves towards the sun in search of greater light. If this unconscious is considered photosynthesis by science, I can go with this term. But underneath (or, embedded in) photosynthesis, is an unconscious at work driving this action. 4. I recently watched a docu on white blood cells in action. It was the clearest vision I have yet seen of them at work. Amazing vision. They to me resembled starfish or jellyfish at work. Again, the unconscious of whiteblood cells going into action. Sperm have an unconscious to get to the eggs. As do the ever rapidly evolving virii we think we know so well. 5. The greater ‘collective unconscious’ that Lucaspa reasonably needs proof of a housing for. Ok, now it gets really difficult [Dichotomy breaks into nervous sweat:eek: ]. I watched a docu of walruses playing follow the leader straight off a cliff to their deaths. Like dominos they went, one after the other. Tragic. Is this ‘collective unconsciousness’, i.e. a herd collectively thinking this is the correct thing to do and following suit, or, is it the individual’s unconscious and it’s deadly blind faith in leaders? I’ll say for the sake of argument that the herd’s ‘collective unconscious’ is transmitted between members. Like codes that can be transmitted by light, sound and odors. It maybe a spectrum, level, intensity that we have yet to discover. Like the stories of identical twins in very separate locations, somehow knowing that their twin needs help, or is in grave danger. This can not be easily explained by science because it is not easily testable. To test it correctly one of the twins needs to be in clear and present danger. This is of course is unethical. So, you see there can be other methods of receiving information from a collective unconscious. I didn’t say that they are easy to test and measure, particularly with our still very primitive knowledge. Cheers.

That is shaped via environmental pressures and opportunities. Cheers.

What about the other factors that decide athletic talent - Afro-american ancestors where hand picked by those looney slave traders for their good health and physical strength. Male and female slaves where coupled like thoroughbreds, dramatically increasing the chances of producing very healthy offspring. Surely this distorts the figures. Also, lifestyle is a huge factor. Physical activity, length of activity, type of activity, diet, rest, etc. These are huge factors. Intellegence would work the same way - genetics and environment (as has been pointed out). cheers.

Here’s a site that has loads of good advice on Buddhist meditation (and practice). Just use the search engine there. http://www.accesstoinsight.org A direct link to a practical start - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel116.html#ch2 cheers.

Well, if there are schools of thought on naming. I’d side with the school that doesn’t hand out names like, Neanderthal and Australopithecus africanus, to an obviously all too massive line of evolving human forms. It seems to me much more logical to simply identify specimens by the approximate time of their living activity and geographic location (e.g. specimen 54, approx’ 3 million years old, global coordinate location blah, blah, blah). cheers