arc

I have to disagree with A man's mind is silent, our minds may be silent to the outside world but they are quite noisy to the individual. I believe Beethoven would have attested to this. And I can only in the most inadequate way imagine the conversations that were going on in Einstein's head. Well, I have bad news for you. Our ability to speak is as natural of an embodiment of evolution as is hearing or seeing or that brain intelligence you referred to. Vocal communication is and was a driver for the success of every human ancestor of man. The simple fact is, it is the product of close interpersonal relations within a core group in human ancestry. Its development lead to larger brain sizes and intellectual capacities, which in turn increased comprehension and imagination, leading to innovations such as tools and weapons. It is as integral to our success as an animal as our opposable thumbs. It is no more unnatural than a cough or a sneeze, and without it we would probably be little more advanced than a pack of wolves or maybe a colony of prairie dogs. On the contrary, language is actually greater than just an individuals mind. The development of verbal communication is to early man what the development of the internet was to personal computers. Remember when you sat at home on a computer and could not be connected to the outside world. How do those days compare to our level of information now, our capacity to communicate our ideas and to cooperate across distances. The human mind can only contain so much information, language has wired all of mankind together into an integrated system of unfathomable capacity. What you speak of is really what is unnatural, as if one was to cut out their tongue or God forbid unplug their modem.

Not that I need to say this but, BINGO you win the prize!

This sounds philosophically familiar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future Kaczynski "attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions." . . . . . Kaczynski goes on to claim that "n modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created drives." Among these drives are "surrogate activities", activities "directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the 'fulfillment' that they get from pursuing the goal". He argues that these surrogate activities are not as satisfactory as the attainment of "real goals" for "many, if not most people". . . . . . He claims that scientific research is a surrogate activity for scientists, and that for this reason "science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research." ​I'm only saying philosophically familiar in an anti science or anti modern societal way, I'm not casting aspersions. O.K.

I posted on this several months ago, this idea has intrigued and occupied my thoughts on many occasions over the years.

Just heard this on NPR on the way home from work. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/10/28/241370496/eeek-snake-your-brain-has-a-special-corner-just-for-them Anthropologist Lynne Isbell turned a chance encounter with a cobra into a discovery that primates possess an evolutionary modification directly connected to our predator and prey relationship with snakes. "We have our forward-facing eyes," she says. "We have our excellent depth perception. We have very good visual acuity, the best in the mammalian world. We have color vision. So there has to be some sort of explanation for it." Primates in parts of the world with lots of poisonous snakes evolved better vision than primates elsewhere. . . .The researchers measured the activity of individual brain cells while showing the monkeys images of snakes, faces, hands and simple geometric shapes. And the researchers found something remarkable in the pulvinar, a part of the brain's visual system that's unique to people, apes and monkeys. "There are neurons that are very sensitive to snake images and much more sensitive to them than the faces of primates," Isbell says of that brain region. That's surprising, she says, because monkeys and other primates have brains that are highly sensitive to faces. "This part of the visual system appears to be the sort of quicker, automatic visual system that allows us to respond without even being consciously aware of the object that we are responding to," she says. What Isbell's study does suggest is that both monkeys and humans have evolved brains that are well prepared to learn to fear snakes, Mineka says. "It's identifying a possible mechanism because there is a distinct neural signature that could then be associated with threat."

In tune with nature in hot arid antiquity usually meant drought, disease, pestilence, famine, punitive wars, slavery and death at the ripe old age of 20 or 30 something. AAH, those were the days!

So according to your evidence it means the subconscious can murder the conscious. So I guess the subconscious needs to work fast to pull it off. Maybe they do it when the conscious is unconscious. This is a problem with your argument, the subconscious terminating itself and taking the unwilling conscious with it. Or is it a double suicide? Is the subconscious capable of this? I would think pretty big questions to answer before making a empirical judgement base on a finger movement. No not convinced, I see what appears to be philosophical bias in this material you posted. And considering how little quantity there is in physical proof, this has a long way to go before it is more than simple conjecture. "It is worth noting that such experiments - so far - have dealt only with free will decisions made in short time frames (seconds) and may not have direct bearing on free will decisions made ("thoughtfully") by the subject over the course of many seconds, minutes, hours or longer. Scientists have also only so far studied extremely simple behaviors (e.g. moving a finger)". This is a different interpretation of an experiment from the same link you posted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will Daniel Dennett also argues that no clear conclusion about volition can be derived from Benjamin Libet's experiments supposedly demonstrating the non-existence of conscious volition. According to Dennett, ambiguities in the timings of the different events involved. Libet tells when the readiness potential occurs objectively, using electrodes, but relies on the subject reporting the position of the hand of a clock to determine when the conscious decision was made. As Dennett points out, this is only a report of where it seems to the subject that various things come together, not of the objective time at which they actually occur. Suppose Libet knows that your readiness potential peaked at millisecond 6,810 of the experimental trial, and the clock dot was straight down (which is what you reported you saw) at millisecond 7,005. How many milliseconds should he have to add to this number to get the time you were conscious of it? The light gets from your clock face to your eyeball almost instantaneously, but the path of the signals from retina through lateral geniculate nucleus to striate cortex takes 5 to 10 milliseconds — a paltry fraction of the 300 milliseconds offset, but how much longer does it take them to get to you. (Or are you located in the striate cortex?) The visual signals have to be processed before they arrive at wherever they need to arrive for you to make a conscious decision of simultaneity. Libet's method presupposes, in short, that we can locate the intersection of two trajectories: the rising-to-consciousness of signals representing the decision to flick the rising to consciousness of signals representing successive clock-face orientations so that these events occur side-by-side as it were in place where their simultaneity can be noted. The others have similar counter arguments. My first post on page 2 was in support of this notion of the unconscious driving the conscious. Posted 24 October 2013 - 11:50 PM I think it shows more than anything that our programming by way of evolution is driving our biological day to day existence more than our emotionally compromised consciousness. I would assume it had something to do with our ancestors preoccupation about sex or other social distractions, so much so that they did not see all of the predators sneaking up on them. Those with a good subconscious "Auto Pilot" would be directed to look around a little more often and benefit from their subconsciously derived precognition. But reading the counter arguments from your link has convinced me that this subject is far from settled. With the possible bias involved I will need better evidence to to convince me this is more than what I stated above.

And from the link you provided as evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will "It is worth noting that such experiments - so far - have dealt only with free will decisions made in short time frames (seconds) and may not have direct bearing on free will decisions made ("thoughtfully") by the subject over the course of many seconds, minutes, hours or longer. Scientists have also only so far studied extremely simple behaviors (e.g. moving a finger)". A truly incredible volume of solid evidence of no free will. Your argument is without reproach! And then there is this. Possibly revealing something about those who easily adopt this view foregoing some objective critical thinking. Again from the link. "They asked their subjects to read one of two passages: one suggesting that behaviour boils down to environmental or genetic factors not under personal control; the other neutral about what influences behaviour. The participants then did a few maths problems on a computer. But just before the test started, they were informed that because of a glitch in the computer it occasionally displayed the answer by accident; if this happened, they were to click it away without looking. Those who had read the deterministic message were more likely to cheat on the test. "Perhaps, denying free will simply provides the ultimate excuse to behave as one likes," Ah yes, it's becoming quite clear. It possibly has to do with whether you view it from philosophic vs an evolutionary/biologic perspective.

Using the objective evidence you supplied I posited a hypothesis . The popular assumption that the subconscious is in control of the conscious, that the outward personality of the person that we all see is not self determinant, and who's observed free choice is simply an illusion, seems to me a conjecture at most. I believe a practical study involving its origin in evolution would reveal an accurate and reasonable answer for this seemingly precognitive aspect. The conscious and subconscious occupy the same mind, and are really two sides of the same coin, there is likely a remarkably simple explanation for this. Could there be a conscious superimposed by a subconscious with the subconscious quickly framing the context in a pre-conscious manner with the majority of the construct taking place in the conscious/subconscious mind, within the evolutionary context that I stated above. A means to quickly initiate a reaction to danger by not involving the more complicated and emotional part of the conscious/subconscious mind. This would seem reasonable considering as the human brain kept enlarging it still faced the same day to day dangers of predators. The evolutionary development of a quick precognitive subconscious lead at the advent of danger would seem a reasonable solution and undoubtedly advantageous to survival.

Rubbish. Let's submit your claim to empiricism. Everyday someone puts a rope around their neck, slips off a chair and strangles themselves. By way of your interpretation is that the subconscious trying to murder the conscious.

Nice Thank you.

I didn't say it was an argument in favor, quite the contrary. But your misunderstanding leads me to several observations. We view these two states as somewhat separate with the subconscious directing the conscious, but how much. Our breathing is subconscious yet we can control it at will if we choose. But then research shows the conscious as just an illusion. Here's a good one; According to the research when you consciously decide to control your breathing it was your subconscious that ultimately made this decision. I think this process may simply be that the subconscious is providing a "prompt" to the shared mind's conscious decisions that previously not long ago was considered entirely free will. My view on this is from an evolutionary why and how perspective. The need to react quickly to danger would seem to be a diver in this and a reason to keep the conscious from the initial but not necessarily the following portion of the process. An animal that shows any indecision in reaction to a predator will not likely procreate. A instinctual subconscious prompt of specific instructions to the conscious would give an edge for survival. An information packet, so to speak, of critical information. Since the subconscious has always been there, it is the original "mind" after all, it possessed the compact thought process that would seem ideal to be refined through evolutionary means. A subconscious mechanism. I see this simply as a survival trigger device, and as the conscious mind grew the subconscious just continued its roll as a gate keeper. Prompting every thought in the unified subconscious/conscious mind, a stamp of approval if you will, from the original mind. This could be why the research shows the results that they do, a slight delay between the prompter and the prompted.

I think it shows more than anything that our programming by way of evolution is driving our biological day to day existence more than our emotionally compromised consciousness. I would assume it had something to do with our ancestors preoccupation about sex or other social distractions, so much so that they did not see all of the predators sneaking up on them. Those with a good subconscious "Auto Pilot" would be directed to look around a little more often and benefit from their subconsciously derived precognition.

I tend to under estimate how long it will take me to answer. Once I start I will pause, edit, reedit, I lose track of time. I did use Word on some big posts out of fear of losing them when the connection to the forum was a problem.

Yup, done that a lot. Always when I'm tired. Restart a post and go to "More reply options" you will see a "Last auto saved" in the lower left corner. It should recover all or most all of your content. It usually works well unless you are slow and take your time to write like I do. Sometimes I lose the connection to the forum and don't realize it, I will write for an hour or so, a lot of editing, did I mention I'm really slow? And then I try to post and lose everything from that last hour or so. AHHHH! No fix for that as far as I know. Though someone who is computer savvy could probably recover it. It hasn't happened in quite a while though, maybe since the big fix done here a while back. It became serious enough to me that I copied the bigger posts to note pad first before posting, just in case.

Concerned for his safety! Hollow words from a man who associates with vampires!

I would say the evolutionary purpose would be to furnish a release, a safety valve if you will, to redirect the emotional and chemical response that our distant ancestors had to the earliest experiences of a false fight or flight reflex. It may simply be that a smaller brain may handle these subconscious and sudden reactions better than a larger more complex brain. As the Hominids reached a certain critical mass of brain complexity there may have surfaced a vulnerability to the sudden stresses that is missing in the preceding, smaller and less complex brain structures. If you consider there could have been numerous false triggers in a typical early Hominids day. Birds suddenly rushing from an overhead tree, small animals flushed from the nearby grass. A large brain's increased capacity for imagination could possibly have overwhelmed itself from this stimuli. This humorous response we experience to sudden surprise now, may have redirected a destructive level of stress back then. Giving the hominid the ability to continue to react to survive and not become, trough repeated incidences, either desensitized or over reactive. And over the intervening time humans have gained more control over this emotional response, even figuring how to elicit it in others, through the use of clever physical gags or language skills, a sudden and uncontrollable response of laughter.

I think it may be that the sudden surprise that initiates the greatest laughs is possibly closely related to the same part of the brain that is stimulated during a scary movie or a wild amusement ride. You will see more smiles then frowns on a really good roller coaster, its almost impossible to ride one and not smile. The riders seem to go from laughs to screams and back in a seamless progression. I think these two emotion's main commonality is the surprise response. The scary and comedic movies look to attract the same emotion junkies.

That link above disclosed that they are using cookies, and by staying you are agreeing to them doing so. You can view this article above for free at the mantle plumes website; http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Anderson2013.pdf It is very interesting by the way.

D. L. ANDERSON*, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (2013): The persistent mantle plume myth, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, DOI: 10.1080/08120099.2013.835283 Published online: 26 Sep 2013. * Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2013.835283 Seismology, thermodynamics and classical physics—the physics associated with the names of Fourier, Debye, Born, Gr€uneisen, Kelvin, Rayleigh, Rutherford, Ramberg and Birch—show that ambient shallow mantle under large long-lived plates is hundreds of degrees hotter than in the passive upwellings that fuel the global spreading ridge system, that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth and that deep mantle low shear wave-speed features are broad, sluggish and dome-like rather than narrow and mantle-plume-like. The surface boundary layer of the mantle is more voluminous and potentially hotter than regions usually considered as sources for intraplate volcanoes. My model is predictive of the statement highlighted above; The thermal expansion will displace the mantle and release strain energy in the form of heat during its outward movement. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension. As the mantle is displaced outward the divergent plate boundaries are slowly separated, and as they do magma created from the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary is forced under pressure into the slowly opening gap. The strain energy thermal content is produce as the mantle is forced to expand against gravity and its own viscosity, tearing its outer surface area and releasing the thermal energy. This part is really important to note. This heat is not migrating from the core, which would take considerable time, this thermal content is produced at the crust/mantle boundary. The mantle makes up 85% of the Earth's volume, its thickness requires its outer surface to expand in proportion to its distance from the core creating tremendous strain energy in very small amounts of outer core/mantle boundary displacement. This means that the level of strain energy thermal content produced anywhere throughout the mantle is greater the farther from the core its place of origin resides. And thus makes it in agreement with and predictive of the article’s statement above. [that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth] [surface boundary layer of the mantle is more voluminous and potentially hotter than regions usually considered as sources for intraplate volcanoes.]

The delightful reaction of a baby comes to mind. A loud sudden noise like a dog bark or a parents sneeze startles the infant who then reflexes into a frozen shocked expression, arms outstretched and stiff, head thrown back with his/her eyes bulging out. The baby's expression is still frozen and seems to last forever, you wait for the recovery of breathing and the expected scream of terror. But instead you are delighted with the loudest and most enthusiastic laugh you have ever heard come out of that little one. What is going on in that amazing little brain?

par·ty an·i·mal nouninformal

I am not putting myself down. I have Aspergers. I am neither ashamed nor sorry for it. It has made me very good at my job. And intuitive of many things that interest me. I do find it hard to follow some people's direction of thought. And I have a sense that this idea has confounded many people here. And yes, if that is acceptable to you I am fine with it. And to anyone out there following this, I hate to beat a dead horse but those 14C graphs need to be addressed by someone or I'm going to start thinking I'm right about this thing.

What can I say, I'm a square peg trying to fit into a round holed world. There is nothing I can do about that.

Mantle Plumb Theory was suggested shortly after plate tectonics acceptance to accommodate the phenomenon of the Hawaiian Island Arc-Emperor Sea mount Chain. It was further developed in the 1990's to maintain convection as the central energy source for massive scale plate movement, explaining that the dividing of continents such as North America and Europe, required large scale plumbs to rise from greater depths, possibly the outer core, with smaller plumbs explaining smaller phenomenon. As inconsistencies developed modifications were proposed that include; mantle wind, westward plate drift, Euler pole jerks, mantle roll, magma tunnels, hidden plate boundaries, lithosphere drift, superplumes, lateral flow, group motions of "hot spots", plume head decapitation. This is all unseen and by that unconfirmed, it would seem to be a more than strong indication that your original idea is in trouble if you keep having to add mechanisms (modify) like a Rube Goldberg machine to stay ahead of its inability to explain reality. These mantle dynamic forces are said to provide basil drag to "convey" motion into the overriding plate. Similar to a smaller scale slab suction that is said to provide a downward frictional pull on plates in subduction zones. Plate movement caused by gravity is thought to be because of ridge push or slab pull. I've read the arguments, Its up for grabs, each group can discount the other claims. Geology seems content or at least stuck in ambiguity. There is considerable interest in demoting plumb theory to a lesser classification as defined by Dutch (1980) to a frontier theory. http://www.mantleplumes.org/P%5E4/P%5E4Chapters/JordanP4AcceptedMS.pdf Then there are these lesser children of this science; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics Tidal drag due to the gravitational force the Moon (and the Sun) exerts on the crust of the Earth, Shear strain of the Earth globe due to N-S compression related to the rotation and modulations of it; Pole flight force: equatorial drift due to rotation and centrifugal effects: tendency of the plates to move from the poles to the equator ("Polflucht"); Coriolis effect acting on plates when they move around the globe; Global deformation of the geode due to small displacements of rotational pole with respect to the Earth crust; Other smaller deformation effects of the crust due to wobbles and spin movements of the Earth rotation on a smaller time scale. Then if you really want to get off the beaten path you can read these contributors. Who by the way exist because of the ambiguity above. http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php These people have the alternative views that are not accepted nor even acknowledged by main stream sources. (They are anti-plate tectonics, it is a fun read) I for one believe an absolute accurate dynamical model of plate tectonics is possible. One that has little room for argument, and by that save a lot of wasted time and money looking for more attachments to plumb theory and such. I hope this wasn't to long.