Consciousness and Evolution

[tar]

not at all correct

I am saying that ALL we care about is within human consciousness.   

There is no reason to think we are doing it wrong.  We are doing it right.

We might evolve further.  We might run into a hidden race,  We might discover or be discovered by another race.  We might find ways to augment our consciousness as we already have and build in better senses and better memory.

But the one thing I have that you have on a fairly equal footing as I have it, is a human consciousness.   Everything wonderful about the place is noticed through a human consciousness, everything bad about the place is noticed through a human consciousness.  Anything worth noticing and doing anything about is noticed by a human, and done for a human.   Our self is the primary point of focus we are aware of, and our self is the primary item we strive to maintain.   

It is like Einstein's observers that he places all over the universe, in different frames of reference traveling at different velocities relative to each other.  They are all human observers.  And they are all imaginary.   The fact that Einstein put them out there does not make them actually be out there.  And the best and only reference point that we actually have, is the Earth.

We are rather well insulated from the beginning of the universe and rather well insulated from the end, by tremendous amounts of space and time.

If we were not separate from the place in the point of focus fashion that we are, then we would be something else.  God, or the force, or Mother Nature, or Allah or something.  But we are not. We are point of focus lifeforms on the Planet Earth, and everything we do, everything we think, everything we care about is done in relationship to being that self.  You cannot claim you have a way to step out of your body/brain/heart group and sense the place in any other manner than you do.

Regards, TAR

Edited September 23, 2017 by tar

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, tar said:

There is no reason to think we are doing it wrong. 

You're the only one suggesting there's anything wrong with it. 

4 minutes ago, tar said:

You cannot claim you have a way to step out of your body/brain/hearth group and sense the place in any other manner than you do.

Nobody here, especially not me, claimed this. 

[tar]

you are saying I am arrogant to suggest I am not playing second fiddle to anyone or anything

that implies I am down a rung from where I should be

you are saying I am ignorant to suggest humans are at the top of the life on Earth heap, in terms of consciousness, as if you can point to a "better" plan

my question back to you, would be better for whom

the answer better not be better for the other life form because that would not do us a bit of good

[iNow]

I'm suggesting it's arrogant and ignorant to assume it's impossible to be better than we currently are. 

I'm also realizing that letting you and Gees play alone here in your little sandbox is probably best. 

[tar]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

You're the only one suggesting there's anything wrong with it. 

Nobody here, especially not me, claimed this. 

So in what way am I being arrogant and ignorant, to claim the same consciousness we all claim.

run out of arguments?

not nice to get a neg rep for calling for a poster to stand and back up his argument

There is an obvious difference of opinion here, concerning the fitness of human consciousness.

Both Gees and I think the Dennett is not thinking this consciousness situation through.   iNow is in Dennet's corner and dimreepr thinks pattern matching is akin to confirmation bias, in its being somehow less than stellar behavior.

The simple logic Gees and I are both using to arrive at our stance is that we are all humans, using human consciousness to have an understanding of human consciousness.  It MUST be working.  It must fit the place, or it would not have been selected for.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

So, just so we're clear here... your position is that it's impossible to have a consciousness better than that which we currently experience as humans, correct?

In tar's case this is probably accurate.

[tar]

what is with the ad hominem arguments misrepresentations and insults

 

anybody interested in talking about consciousness and evolution?

Sorry Gees, for attracting the ire of these two guys.  I don't know why they need to treat me like a child, but I do not want to bring their insults down on you, by association with me.

I am out.  Thanks for the good discussion.

[Gees]

Cladking;

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 0:19 PM, cladking said:

All is confirmation bias but we don't see it because we preferentially see what agrees with our beliefs and models.  

I think this is true, but I don't think that it is intentional. Familiarity is very undervalued, but is important in recognition. Just as a hunter will recognize a squirrel in a tree, where a casual observer will not; or as a regular shopper will recognize a food product, where a new shopper will have to read each label, familiarity is a key to recognition. So when a new idea is presented that is completely unfamiliar, the listener will have problems recognizing the points of an idea and attaching any understanding to them -- you may as well talk to them in a foreign language for all the understanding that they receive. Metaphors and analogies often help to bring two different concepts together by making the new idea more familiar.

Quote

 

The brain does what it does because that's what the brain does with the programming we have.  One person experiences "feelings" (probably originating in the amygdala), and another dredges up the id, ego, and superego from the darkest recesses of the cerebral cortex.   We then become our beliefs.  

We create a model of reality in our minds but much of it isn't real at all, or more commonly, is only real from the individual's unique perspective.  We are each looking at the results of the programming and are unable to see or study the program itself.  We delude ourselves into believing we each share a reality when obviously we each have a unique reality.

 

 Which would be why I let this thread go on for so long. Unless and until other members could understand that all life is sentient, and that I was not relating this to "God", the brain, or thought, there was no point in trying to discuss anything. 

Quote

Rather than change leading to a shared reality all the forces are leading to a further splintering (splittering?) of the perception of reality.  Certainly scientific modeling appears to be converging on a point but this point is probably inaccessible and current understanding is too far removed from reality to be considered. 

Don't be so pessimistic. From what I can see, splittering is a pretty good definition of what life does; on the other hand, from what I know of Nature, self-balancing is also what life does. So I suspect that although there is splittering, there is also reconnecting -- just connecting in a different way.

Gee

 

Tar;

13 hours ago, tar said:

Gees,

Thank you for nicely correcting my wrong spelling of Dennett.  Others with confirmation bias would have pointed it out as an indicator of my idiocy.

I am glad you operate under the joke advice I used to give people I was helping on a technical hotline I manned.  "Listen to what I mean, not what I say!"

You are welcome, but there is no need to thank me, except for maybe your good manners. I appreciate it when someone corrects my mistakes, because then I learn something. I expect that you are the same way, which makes you the opposite of an idiot. 

Everybody makes mistakes, well, except for liars -- they NEVER make mistakes. (chuckle chuckle)

Quote

Also, thank you for that last post's ideas.  It made me think of a number of things on several levels that I want to comment on...but today the weather is nice and I am working on an outside project that requires painting and such and the times for this are numbered as we are getting into fall in NJ and I should go out, rather than be typing here.

I look forward to your thoughts. The temperatures here are hitting the 90s, in Michigan. We're having a heat wave, a tropical heat wave . . .

Quote

But on the analog, digital thing, just think of the old analog clock with a sweep second hand.  It did not "tick" and go from one second mark to the next, all at once.  The second hand existed in every spot between the two marks, in a smooth proportion fashion.   In a digital world it is either 12:00:59 or 12:01:00.  In an analog world there are an infinite amount of "times" between the two marks, not limited by the amount of digits you have to express the tininess of the increments.

 OK. I got it. When Terrell, the author of Digital Universe, Analog Soul, explained it to me, he used buckets. He said, you take two buckets, fill one with sand and the other with water. You can count the sand because it is in pieces, digital, but you can not count the water, analog. Although I understood that digital meant pieces and analog meant fluid, I could not see how that applied to consciousness. Now I do. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I have had it backward all along. The second division should actually be the first, but I won't change it because people will have even more trouble understanding it. This also explains why the rational aspect of mind evolved from the unconscious aspect and why we can not actually know the components of the second division. Thank you again.

I tried to put a + on your post, but after hitting it, I found a + and a - so I think I screwed it up. I didn't think that I could do that, but unless someone else hit it at the exact same time, I did it. My hands are shaky today, so I may have hit both. I will report it and see if I can correct the problem.

Gee

 

 

iNow;

12 hours ago, iNow said:

Citation needed

You could consider PTSD, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, that takes people's awareness out of time and space and is caused by emotion.

You could go to Wiki and look up the unconscious. I am sure that it will tell you that the unconscious is activated by emotion, then you could look up Matte Blanco in Wiki. He is the one that found logic in the unconscious by removing time from the considerations. Clinically tested and verified.

Or you could go New Age and consider premonitions. No one ever has a premonition that Mom is going to go to the store and buy bread and milk. They have premonitions that Mom is going to get shot by a thief at the store while shopping. Emotion is always involved, usually strong emotion.

Gee

 

Dimreepr;

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It also has nothing to do with either science or philosophy...

So you think that pattern recognition has nothing to do with science or philosophy. You are making me think that you have a problem with your upper works, so I will keep this real simple.

Someone noticed that the Sun comes up and causes morning, then goes down and causes night. This pattern repeated. After enough repetitions, people decided that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West and that there was something true about this pattern -- as I stated, "something true". What that truth was, was debatable, and many ideas were presented from the Sun circling the Earth, to "God's" blessings.

As far as I know, Thales was the first philosopher to predict a solar eclipse, so he studied the stars and planets. Whether or not he understood that the Sun does not circle the Earth, I do not know. None of his personal work survived time.

Finally someone figured out that the Earth actually circles the Sun, I don't remember who that was. But it was either a philosopher or a scientist.

Yes. Philosophy and Science study, test, and interpret patterns.

Quote

What makes you think I haven't?

Because what you have been posting are opinions. Opinions are conclusions, not arguments.

It would be like me posting, "The answer is 247." The answer to what? How did I arrive at that answer? I would have to state specifically what math problem I am addressing and how I arrived at that answer. That would be my argument -- the answer is not an argument.

You have probably noticed that my posts are rather lengthy? That is because I will try to give my reasoning, logic, and evidence when I post my argument. I hope I haven't been boring you with such lengthy explanations.

Gee

 

 

Area54;

I wanted to address your post, but I am getting tired. Give me a few days.

Gee

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

I tried to put a + on your post, but after hitting it, I found a + and a - so I think I screwed it up. I didn't think that I could do that, but unless someone else hit it at the exact same time, I did it. My hands are shaky today, so I may have hit both. I will report it and see if I can correct the problem.

Perhaps the same thing happened when you neg repped me for asking you to provide a citation supporting your extremely odd claim that emotions don't require time or space?

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Gees said:

Dimreepr;

So you think that pattern recognition has nothing to do with science or philosophy. You are making me think that you have a problem with your upper works,

 

Pattern recognition is responsible for people seeing Jesus in a piece of toast or a blanket or a rabbit in a cloud; that's hardly scientific, maybe it's useful, on occasion, in collating data but that's tenuous at best.

6 hours ago, Gees said:

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

so I will keep this real simple.

Someone noticed that the Sun comes up and causes morning, then goes down and causes night. This pattern repeated. After enough repetitions, people decided that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West and that there was something true about this pattern -- as I stated, "something true". What that truth was, was debatable, and many ideas were presented from the Sun circling the Earth, to "God's" blessings.

 

Thanks for keeping it simple enough for my obvious lack of intelligence  but what you're describing here is collecting observations/data and extrapolating a conclusion

6 hours ago, Gees said:

You have probably noticed that my posts are rather lengthy? That is because I will try to give my reasoning, logic, and evidence when I post my argument. I hope I haven't been boring you with such lengthy explanations.

 

 

I haven't read most of your loquacious posts, which BTW contain very little if any, evidence; but I do hope my concise replies haven't derailed your train of thought.

Edited September 23, 2017 by dimreepr

[cladking]

7 hours ago, Gees said:

 

Don't be so pessimistic. From what I can see, splittering is a pretty good definition of what life does; on the other hand, from what I know of Nature, self-balancing is also what life does. So I suspect that although there is splittering, there is also reconnecting -- just connecting in a different way.

 

 

I'm not sure it's really "pessimism" but I am sure it's not natural.  Other species aren't growing apart with each having an increasingly unique consciousness.  Every rabbit is unique but they each think very similarly.  

We each have different beliefs and experiences.  Certainly you're right that familiarity is a big part of understanding our senses but "confirmation" bias goes well beyond merely allowing us to make sense of them to selectively reinforcing beliefs.  

Just as wide diversity in genes gives a species sufficient robustness to survive bottlenecks, diversity of thought may well confer the same benefit to humans.  However, it is certainly causing obvious problems in day to day communication and operations.  

[tar]

Thread,   

Here is another thing humans do, strategize, that utilizes the rTPJ.   Probably the development of this area of a mammals brain, into a region that could construct somehow, a theory of mind, is central to the evolution of our consciousness.

http://newsonthego.net/i-know-your-next-move-game-reveals-how-the-brain-strategizes/

Regards, TAR

 

[Gees]

Area54;

On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 8:16 AM, Area54 said:

Not, I think, as long as I took to get back to you. More things happen outside the forum than inside it. No apolgies are required.

Thank you.

 

Quote

 

And yet you made a couple of statements regarding evolution that were, demonstrably, in serious error, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding.

Gees: If consciousness is not necessary for evolution, can you give me an example of a life form that evolved without consciousness?

I answer with a quesion: in what way was the evolution of lactose tolerance in adult humans dependent upon consciousness?

Gees: Feeling good and evolution within species is very much related.

 

I do not see the fundamental misunderstanding and wish you would demonstrate or explain what you think it is.

As to my first statement: All life is aware to some degree, so it is conscious of some things. That means that it's consciousness evolved along with the life form. I broke this down on page 3 or 4. When a specie develops eyes in order to navigate the planet, it also develops an awareness of vision -- so it's consciousness evolved along with the physical changes. It could not have had an awareness of vision before it had eyes.

As to my second statement: All life is sentient, so all life feels. Life is going to be attracted to anything that feels good and repulsed by things that feel bad -- that is what motivates life. Everything that I have ever read about evolution in species stated that the result of evolving helped the specie survive. Survival feels good, death is to be avoided, as is demonstrated by the "fight or flight" instinct.

Regarding your question: Why do you think that "lactose tolerance in adult humans" is caused directly by evolution? I know a lot of people, who have lactose intolerance. If, as I suspect, evolution is prompted by reaction, then there are going to be unplanned side effects to that reaction and there will be subsequent reactions to that reaction and more side effects. This is a fluid evolving process -- not a plan. Maybe we will all end up lactose tolerant or lactose intolerant. Who knows?

Quote

And to me, which is why I took you to task earlier, for throwing out disjointed ideas. My objections, and those of other members, seem to have had a positive effect in that your most recent posts are coherent and unambiguous.

When I reviewed this thread, I found that my posts were very consistent with my understanding. As I stated before, my understanding is rather singular, so what I see as connected others may see as disjointed. I tried to bring up my understanding on the first page, then the second page, then the third page, but people simply did not hear me. So I let them go till they ran out of steam -- it took seven pages.

Quote

All well and good, but it took a great deal of effort to get you to make that as a clear, unambiguous statement. In an early post you made the necessary distinctions, but then, for the greater part of the thread, you (and perhaps some others) used consciousness repeatedly without specifying which type you were talking about at that point. To say this frustrated me is like saying the Pope may be Catholic. I do not wish to revisit this yet again. You are now being clear. As the recipient of your prior communication I can assure you that you were not previously being clear. We now have a foundation on which to move forward. Let's do so.

Good. I don't think anyone was disputing this, but for a time it seemed that you were.

What they were disputing is that all life is at least sentient. I must have posted it half a dozen times --- all life is sentient. Sentience is the lowest form of consciousness according to the SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). As life becomes more complex, it also becomes more aware, because it can be aware of more things.

Quote

There is a school of thought that would say that mere chemical reactions continue all the way up to humans; that a bacteria is a biomehcanical machine and so are humans. If this distinction is important to your thesis it will require more discussion. As far as I am concerned the jury is still out (and sitting in a jury room several light centuries away, so that we can forget about receiving news of any early verdict).

You may note that the title of this thread is: "Consciousness and Evolution", not "Aren't Biomechanical Machines Cool".

Fine. Let's discuss it. Either you can agree that all life is conscious to some degree, or you can show me where life stores it's battery packs. Also explain why life dies, and explain why life uses motion to perpetuate itself, and explain why it evolves. I can't wait to hear it.

Quote

Some biologists consider viruses to be alive. I consider argument over the point to be unimportant. There are almost as many definitions of life as there are biologists. There is a range of complexity going from non-life to life. Molecules such as amino acids lie close to one end, prions a short distance along, viruses slightly further. We can debate and agree their relative positions, but to fight over where we put up the big Life/non-Life customs barrier is, in my view, a waste of time.

You may note that the OP expressly mentioned "life forms" so that is the topic of this thread. On the other hand, I like to learn, so if you want to teach me about amino acids on up to life, and whether or not they evolve, I would love to hear it.

Quote

  I should prefer, Populations will also adapt and if they cannot adapt they will become extinct.

This is true, but it is also true that each single life form must adapt to whatever threatens it, or it will die.

Quote

No. That is a bizarre non-sequitur. We are told the first life on Earth was microbial because that is consistent with palaeontoloigcal observation. Perhaps what you meant to say was something like "Evolution has led to increasing complexity. If we reverse that complexity it implies that early life was single celled and simple."

OK.

I look  forward to your response.

Gee

 

[Gees]

Dimreepr;

 

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 8:44 AM, dimreepr said:

Pattern recognition is responsible for people seeing Jesus in a piece of toast or a blanket or a rabbit in a cloud; that's hardly scientific, maybe it's useful, on occasion, in collating data but that's tenuous at best.

I see your point. On the other hand, brains, minds, thoughts, and memory are also responsible for "people seeing Jesus in a piece of toast", so maybe we should throw out all of those also? After all, they are "tenuous at best".

Or, we could go in the other direction. We could go to Wiki, type "pattern recognition" into the search box and select the item from the drop-down menu that reads; Pattern recognition (Psychology). Then we could page down to the section that is labelled, "False Pattern Recognition", and read it. (I know you don't like to read much, but it is just one paragraph.) You can learn a brand new word there that you can show off to all your friends and relatives, because there is a word that labels what "Jesus finding" actually is and explains that it is not actually pattern recognition.

 

Quote

Thanks for keeping it simple enough for my obvious lack of intelligence  but what you're describing here is collecting observations/data and extrapolating a conclusion

Yes. That is a reasonable definition for pattern recognition.

 

Quote

I haven't read most of your loquacious posts, which BTW contain very little if any, evidence; but I do hope my concise replies haven't derailed your train of thought.

If you don't read most of my posts, then how could you possibly know if they contained any evidence? I suspect that you are not really looking for evidence, and may not recognize it when you see it; you are looking for links that validate what I am saying, because that is what you find to be evidence. This implies that in your opinion my words require validation, so I am either stupid or a liar. I am neither.

I did not find your posts derailing my "train of thought"; I found them disheartening. After considering that a number of the click-it squad liked your posts regarding pattern recognition, it occurred to me that there were more than a few people, who were reading this thread, that were not bright enough to outsmart a box of rocks. Because I am trying to have a discussion about a very complex and abstract subject, this was not good news.

 

iNow;

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 3:28 AM, iNow said:

Perhaps the same thing happened when you neg repped me for asking you to provide a citation supporting your extremely odd claim that emotions don't require time or space?

No. That neg rep was because you seem incapable of treating Tar with even a modicum of respect. It seems to be your intention to run him out of this thread, but he is the ONLY other person in this thread who has any understanding of what I am trying to convey. So I don't really want to see him gone -- as there is no one to discuss the matter with without him. The rest of you seem to be clueless -- or at least, that is the feedback that I am getting.

Not emotions (pleural) but emotion -- what it is, how it works, it's parameters.

When you were a kid, I bet that either you or one of your friends took a 9V battery and held it to your tongue to experience the charge. I think most of us did it, or knew someone who did. It was a common dare when I was young. So afterward, if someone asked what electricity was, would you state that it is a sharp tingling on your tongue? No, of course not. That is what it felt like, not what it is.

When people use the word, emotions, they are talking about what emotion feels like -- like the battery charge. I want to know what emotion actually is -- like the electricity. Most people will not dispute that emotion is part of our consciousness, but they see it as something that is secondary to thought, maybe even dependent upon thought. I suspect that the opposite is true, that thought is dependent upon emotion. I have learned a lot about emotion, but not nearly enough. It is part of the second division of consciousness, and may be responsible for life. I am pretty sure that it is responsible for evolution in life.

Gee

 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Gees said:

Dimreepr;

 

I see your point. On the other hand, brains, minds, thoughts, and memory are also responsible for "people seeing Jesus in a piece of toast", so maybe we should throw out all of those also? After all, they are "tenuous at best".

 

You clearly don't see my point, or you're being deliberately obtuse. 

2 hours ago, Gees said:

Or, we could go in the other direction. We could go to Wiki, type "pattern recognition" into the search box and select the item from the drop-down menu that reads; Pattern recognition (Psychology). Then we could page down to the section that is labelled, "False Pattern Recognition", and read it. (I know you don't like to read much, but it is just one paragraph.) You can learn a brand new word there that you can show off to all your friends and relatives, because there is a word that labels what "Jesus finding" actually is and explains that it is not actually pattern recognition.

Or, you could just post a link and quote the relevant passage.

2 hours ago, Gees said:

Yes. That is a reasonable definition for pattern recognition.

No, it's not, but it is a reasonable definition of science. 

2 hours ago, Gees said:

If you don't read most of my posts, then how could you possibly know if they contained any evidence?

I scan them, so I know enough.

2 hours ago, Gees said:

Because I am trying to have a discussion about a very complex and abstract subject, this was not good news.

You seem to be having a discussion in which you move the goal posts and assert without citation to name but two. 

 

[Roamer]

On 3-9-2017 at 4:12 AM, Gees said:

What I have seen is evidence that consciousness evolves, life forms evolve, and all life forms are conscious.

Everything evolves(which realy, means that changes happen on such a slow scale they're hardly measurable)

that conscious evolves is not an argument that consciousness is needed for (life's) evolution.

 

If i may introduce some concepts;

1) Auto-reactions; even biting down when some food enters your mouth is an auto-reaction.

2) Memorized actions(trauma's at the  core); basically the same as an auto-reaction, but it is memorized, for example remembering that a particular area is (too) hot(some vulcano)

   this would require an auto-reaction to have a lasting impact on an entity's decision-making(by either increasing the same auto-reaction or creating a new auto-reaction to, for example, a recognition-point(some rock near the vulcano is considered "bad" by the entity)

3) Opposite auto-reactions, or any other balance to auto-reactions; basically an entity would have multiple auto-reactions and this would result in a "decision"

(and if this "decision" would be"in error with evolutionary laws" then evolution would take care of it.)

4) Pattern-recognittion, which is realy a bunch of auto-reaction finding they're working in unison.

 

(maybe point 3 would chronologically happen before point 2, i dunno)

Regarding your remark, it seems to me that auto-reaction(s) were among the early abilities that would be selected for in evolution,

and up to the fourth point could 've happened and selected for in the first hundred million years of evolution.(just throwing some rough estimates around)

But the remarks you throw around are like saying "muscles are needed for evolution" while anyone knows some of the first creatures didn't have muscles but certainly had limbs

(and ways of moving these limbs) and discussion gets bogged down by linguistics.

[hikinmike]

It appears this is one of those topics where we can become mired in definitions, semantics and phenomena that we can observe but perhaps not fully comprehend.  As a layman(sorry, layperson) I have only had time for intellectual excursions like this since retiring.  Many very interesting arguments in this particular thread.  I wonder where what we call 'instinct' might fit here.  Animals that are aware of benefits / risks in their environment should have a better chance of survival (during their particular era...am aware of extinction).  So if successful response to challenges or opportunities makes them more successful at survival, it would appear some traits would be passed on to offspring, and into successive generations.  This seems like a behavioral imperative, and an evolutionary advantage, determining responses to the environment.  Did it originate in ancestral consciousness, or am I wandering into the realm of, "Who knows, who cares'?

[tar]

Roamer,

Auto-reaction itself requires being conscious of some aspect of the world that you need to react to.  So I would say you need the awareness of your surroundings before you can act to better your situation.   And you need to have some criterion for when and if the situation is better or worse before after or during your action.  

So reflex is something, and auto-reaction is something, and these things may not take a lot of thought to accomplish, but they do need some emotion.  That is, you have to know whether the action is good or bad, whether it brings pleasure or pain.  Your hand moves quickly away from the stove after touching the hot pan without a hot plate holder.

So long term, staying  out of the volcano is a good idea, but there has to be a mechanism to keep you out of the volcano the first time, that is not reliant on selection alone.

We are attracted to warmth, the warmth of a breast with life sustaining milk, the warmth of the sun to bask in and raise our body temperature if we are cold blooded, but it hurts to get burned by a fire, or to touch the lava flow.   So decisions are sometimes not black and white.  Some mixture of pleasure and pain that allows someone to climb a tree for the honey in the hive regardless of the broken bone and bruises that could result from a slip, or the sting of the bees that made the honey.

The memory part though, of your breakdown, I think is crucial.  They have recognized the plasticity of the brain and I had just read how certain portions of a taxi drivers brain are larger and smaller, front and back of certain areas, depending on how well they have mapped the details of the city in their brains.  The long time, and more knowledgeable drivers had the same areas enlarged and minimized.

So awareness of the place had to come first, in terms of the senses.  Then memory in terms of mapping the place.

Regards, TAR

[Gees]

Dimreepr;

 

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 8:26 AM, dimreepr said:

You clearly don't see my point, or you're being deliberately obtuse. 

Maybe, or maybe you don't see my point. If we take every cognitive tool, like pattern recognition, and throw it out because it can be abused, then very soon we will have no cognitive tools left -- because they can all be abused. It is Philosophy's goal to achieve clarity of thought, so when I find a negative opinion regarding some tool of thought, I am likely to try to learn more about that tool. There is a way to use it well, and a way to use it poorly, so learning the difference is paramount if one wants to achieve clarity of thought. 

 

Quote

Or, you could just post a link and quote the relevant passage.

Why would I bother to do that for people, who are not going to read the link? I had already explained 'pattern recognition' twice. The only time that I will usually post a link, is when I think there is a great deal of interest, the idea is complex and needs to be read, and the link might be difficult for others to find. Otherwise I will just tell them where the information can be obtained and leave it to them to look or not look. If they are not interested enough to look, or if they are too lazy to look, then they are worthless in the discussion anyway.

 

Quote

No, it's not, but it is a reasonable definition of science. 

No. "Collecting observations/data and extrapolating a conclusion" is not a reasonable definition of science. It is a reasonable definition of pattern recognition, which is a tool that Science and Philosophy both use. Pattern recognition can also be pure speculation, and only becomes Science when testing and proofs are used and then repeatability and peer review confirm the testing and proofs. Pattern recognition becomes Philosophy when the conclusion is corroborated with a valid premise and then peer reviewed.

 

Quote

I scan them, so I know enough.

Scanning gives information, but does not give understanding. So you don't know enough.

 

Quote

You seem to be having a discussion in which you move the goal posts and assert without citation to name but two. 

This is why you need understanding. I didn't move the goal posts, you just haven't found them yet.

I rarely use citations and will most often look up the information before posting if I have any doubts about what I am stating. I will also check my facts if someone disputes them, so I do a lot of research while writing these threads. If you doubt something that I state as being true or factual, you can always look it up and dispute it. 

Philosophy does a lot of interpreting the facts and evidence, so it is important for me to get feedback on my reasoning and logic, as that it what I am actually working on. The facts are easy to confirm, interpretation of the facts is what is difficult, but understanding is necessary for that interpretation.

Gee

[Gees]

 Tar;

 

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 0:47 PM, tar said:

Roamer,

Auto-reaction itself requires being conscious of some aspect of the world that you need to react to.  So I would say you need the awareness of your surroundings before you can act to better your situation.   And you need to have some criterion for when and if the situation is better or worse before after or during your action.  

So reflex is something, and auto-reaction is something, and these things may not take a lot of thought to accomplish, but they do need some emotion.  That is, you have to know whether the action is good or bad, whether it brings pleasure or pain.  Your hand moves quickly away from the stove after touching the hot pan without a hot plate holder.

So long term, staying  out of the volcano is a good idea, but there has to be a mechanism to keep you out of the volcano the first time, that is not reliant on selection alone.

We are attracted to warmth, the warmth of a breast with life sustaining milk, the warmth of the sun to bask in and raise our body temperature if we are cold blooded, but it hurts to get burned by a fire, or to touch the lava flow.   So decisions are sometimes not black and white.  Some mixture of pleasure and pain that allows someone to climb a tree for the honey in the hive regardless of the broken bone and bruises that could result from a slip, or the sting of the bees that made the honey.

The memory part though, of your breakdown, I think is crucial.  They have recognized the plasticity of the brain and I had just read how certain portions of a taxi drivers brain are larger and smaller, front and back of certain areas, depending on how well they have mapped the details of the city in their brains.  The long time, and more knowledgeable drivers had the same areas enlarged and minimized.

So awareness of the place had to come first, in terms of the senses.  Then memory in terms of mapping the place.

Regards, TAR

Good post. +1

 

 

Roamer;

You brought up some good points. Some of them were addressed in Tar's post, but others need to be addressed by me, so please consider the following:

 

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 10:49 AM, Roamer said:

Everything evolves(which realy, means that changes happen on such a slow scale they're hardly measurable)

that conscious evolves is not an argument that consciousness is needed for (life's) evolution.

Agreed. As far as we can tell, the simpler life forms have less conscious awareness than more complex life form, and this awareness seems to advance as life forms advance, and seems to be dependent upon the physical aspects of the life form -- specie. As stated before, awareness seems to be dependent upon physical matter in order to even exist. 

It must also be considered that all life forms are conscious to some degree, and as far as we know there is no consciousness that exists without life forms -- so the two do seem to be interrelated. This does not necessitate a causal relationship with regard to evolution, but it also does not exclude a causal relationship. More information is needed.

Everything that I have ever read about evolution in species states that the evolution caused the specie to advance or improve it's survival ability. This is where I see a connection between consciousness, species, and evolution -- in survival instincts. Instincts is a very controversial subject. I know this because I did a thread on it in another forum and was amazed at all of the different ideas that are called correctly, or incorrectly, instincts. I suspect that you are a science person, as you mentioned some of these ideas in your post, and they should be considered. While working in the Instincts thread,  I remember thinking that we need a person with the mental acuity of Einstein, but with the training in Biology, Neurology, Psychology, and Consciousness in  order to untangle that mess. For that reason, my thoughts in this thread are mostly related to survival instincts, because it is something that can be verified and known to be somewhat accurate.

I am tired now, so I will consider your other comments either tomorrow or the next day.

Welcome to the thread.

Gee

 

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Gees said:

Dimreepr;

 

Maybe, or maybe you don't see my point. If we take every cognitive tool, like pattern recognition, and throw it out because it can be abused

 

When did I suggest either?

6 hours ago, Gees said:

Why would I bother to do that for people, who are not going to read the link?

Yet you ask that we follow your instructions and read for ourselves when the link and relevant quote is far more likely to be read if only the quote.

6 hours ago, Gees said:

I had already explained 'pattern recognition' twice.

Are you really so conceited that you think that's enough when it's been disputed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

Quote

Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling.^[4]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=fR8DWveMIoTYaZu4psAD&q=human+pattern+recognition+bias&oq=humanpattern+recognition&gs_l=psy-ab.1.2.0i7i30k1l10.37528.39007.0.47323.5.5.0.0.0.0.110.512.2j3.5.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.5.512...0i13k1j35i39k1.0.ixv9M5REiQA

[tar]

Dimreepr,

 

From the wiki article on Apophenia.

 

Evolution[edit]

One of the explanations put forth by evolutionary psychologists for apophenia is that it is not a flaw in the cognition of human brains but rather something that has come about through years of need. The study of this topic is referred to as "Error Management Theory".^[20] One of the most accredited studies in this field is Skinner's box and superstition.

Skinner's box and superstition was set up in that he would take a hungry pigeon, place it in a box and release a food pellet at random. The pigeon received a food pellet while performing some action, and thus rather than attributing the pellet falling to randomness, as was the case, the pigeon started doing whatever action it was that they did and continued to do so, till a pellet fell. And thus it was concluded that since the pigeon increased the number of times the action was performed it also increased the times it was 'rewarded' with a pellet, even though it was random.^[21]

 

I am not so sure these various tendencies in the human should be considered errors or  diseases, as much as be considered various tendencies that we developed for survival reasons.

 

Regards, TAR

 

The pigeon, after all, did get a pellet.   Whether this was because it turned twice, while holding its nose is not important.   If it had stood still and gotten a pellet, then it might stand still again (repeating the non-action) and still gotten a pellet.

consider how good you feel when you get the joke, or figure out the puzzle

Being "right" feels good, and has survival value.   So if it feels good to see a pattern, then emotionally you have received the reward evolution has developed in you to acquire.  Therefore you feel like you are doing it right, surviving, and in certain cases this is true, and in other cases you are lying in the gutter, high on heroin.

same dopamine

Edited November 8, 2017 by tar

[dimreepr]

41 minutes ago, tar said:

Dimreepr,

 

From the wiki article on Apophenia.

 

Evolution[edit]

One of the explanations put forth by evolutionary psychologists for apophenia is that it is not a flaw in the cognition of human brains but rather something that has come about through years of need. The study of this topic is referred to as "Error Management Theory".^[20] One of the most accredited studies in this field is Skinner's box and superstition.

Skinner's box and superstition was set up in that he would take a hungry pigeon, place it in a box and release a food pellet at random. The pigeon received a food pellet while performing some action, and thus rather than attributing the pellet falling to randomness, as was the case, the pigeon started doing whatever action it was that they did and continued to do so, till a pellet fell. And thus it was concluded that since the pigeon increased the number of times the action was performed it also increased the times it was 'rewarded' with a pellet, even though it was random.^[21]

 

I am not so sure these various tendencies in the human should be considered errors or  diseases, as much as be considered various tendencies that we developed for survival reasons.

 

Regards, TAR

 

The pigeon, after all, did get a pellet.   Whether this was because it turned twice, while holding its nose is not important.   If it had stood still and gotten a pellet, then it might stand still again (repeating the non-action) and still gotten a pellet.

consider how good you feel when you get the joke, or figure out the puzzle

Being "right" feels good, and has survival value.   So if it feels good to see a pattern, then emotionally you have received the reward evolution has developed in you to acquire.  Therefore you feel like you are doing it right, surviving, and in certain cases this is true, and in other cases you are lying in the gutter, high on heroin.

same dopamine

I've never suggested it has no value, just that gees is wrong in its assignment. 

[Roamer]

@Tar;

I could disagree and agree with most of your post, depending on perspective,

but, I tried to take a meaningfull distinction, it's probably not complete, feel free to contribute.

 

9 hours ago, Gees said:

Welcome to the thread.

Thanks, umm, where is this thread supposed to go ?

[Mordred]

in circles 

1 hour ago, Roamer said:

 

Thanks, umm, where is this thread supposed to go ?

couldn't resist