Natural Selection, Unnatural Selection, and the Nature of Consciousness

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

In my experience, the way their arguments usually run, it appears they think scientists just explain things in the way that makes the most sense to them, because a theory is just a guess anyway, right? I think this is part of why they think other scientists are "hidebound" to their own "answers", as opposed to trusting explanations that use a preponderance of our best current evidence.

Ahh, yeah that one for certain. At my many old boys reunions, I whish I had a dollar for everytime someone has said, "yeah but its only a theory" 

18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Nor are you ever likely to be invited to. I'm fairly conservative when it comes to my clothes.

You do need to sleep.😉

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

Ahh, yeah that one for certain. At my many old boys reunions, I whish I had a dollar for everytime someone has said, "yeah but its only a theory" 

You do need to sleep.😉

In case that "pissing in someone's pocket" phrase is misunderstood, it is Australian slang for 

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/piss+in+someone's+pocket

piss in someone's pocket

piss in (one's) pocket

slang To attempt to gain one's favor, affection, attention, or interest, especially through flattering, fawning, or solicitous overtures. Primarily heard in Australia.I'm not just trying to piss in your pocket—you did a really great job!Stop pissing in my pocket. It's not going to help your chances at a promotion.

 

or giving someone literally a nice warm feeling, even if it with urine 😁

Edited October 28, 2021 by beecee

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

In case that "pissing in someone's pocket" phrase is misunderstood, it is Australian slang for 

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/piss+in+someone's+pocket

piss in someone's pocket

piss in (one's) pocket

slang To attempt to gain one's favor, affection, attention, or interest, especially through flattering, fawning, or solicitous overtures. Primarily heard in Australia.I'm not just trying to piss in your pocket—you did a really great job!Stop pissing in my pocket. It's not going to help your chances at a promotion.

It's interesting what another culture thinks is flattering. Here we say "kissing someone's ass", which at least is assumed to be mildly pleasant for the flatteree, and somewhat drier.

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's interesting what another culture thinks is flattering. Here we say "kissing someone's ass", which at least is assumed to be mildly pleasant for the flatteree, and somewhat drier.

You have made an interesting point. 

[mistermack]

8 hours ago, infamouse said:

Are you aware that in the timeframe you have described our brains have physically been shrinking?

No, I hadn't seen that, thanks. However, it's very slight, and doesn't necessarily mean a drop of intelligence. From what I've read, Neanderthals had a slightly bigger brain than our species. But it was a bit different in conformation, being longer with more at the back, and no more in the frontal lobes, where we do our conscious thinking. The slight reduction might be due to an ongoing process of increased neoteny. It's long been fairly well accepted that our species has a missing stage in development, that happens in other apes, in that we never quite become fully adult in the true ape sense. We are extended juveniles, we become sexually mature without moving to the "silverback" stage. 

It could be that that is what allows us to keep learning for longer. Our brains stay receptive longer. So we get an intelligence gain without paying the price of a bigger head. You will find that opinion in lots of textbooks, but I wouldn't say that it's cast iron theory as yet. 

When it comes to the extra intelligence of humans, it’s not just size that counts, but the layout of the brain. In particular, the size of the frontal lobes, and also, the degree of folding  of the surface of the brain.

One favourite comparison is of two people whose brains were examined posthumously, who could be said to be similar in achievement,  Ivan Turgenev (1818–83), the weight of who’s brain reached an incredible 2021 g, and Anatole France, who’s brain was measured at about half that. They were both talented writers, but it was the one with the 1,000g brain that won the Nobel Prize.

[naitche]

Since this is now in speculations, maybe we can speculate with out the need for language perfection in an area where it perhaps hasn't been perfected.

If some one were trying to publish a paper as a respected scientist, these critiques might be valid. But I doubt very much this site would be their chosen medium.

For those that have chosen this medium, I think its own contribution to science would be better served  by trying to understand what the O.P is attempting to say, and  offer corrections or alternatives. Increase perspective rather than imply the one presented has no foundation.

Whether or not the idea has merit is objective, not subject to other qualifications. 

Familiarization is required for Recognition. Response comes from there. Rejection is not a response but an inability to recognize value to the subject (science).

That it has none has not been established.

Its assumption  removes the objectivity of science and reduces its value to other environments - Limiting participation.

Qualification is Subject to science and decided by contribution, not qualification.

Qualification is simply a support construct extended to participants towards its purpose. Better to support that construct than deny those who come to science with out it miraculously intact.

 

 

On 10/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, infamouse said:

If I might be so bold as to take a stab at one of the most controversial definitions in philosophy and science, I would define consciousness as a causal chain from perception, to instinct, to conceptualization. This causal chain is reflected in our evolution across time as a species, as well as our day-to-day actions.

I agree to the extent that if consciousness is the measurement of being, then the world we as a species have inherited is the manifestation of the values we have applied in the past tense and continue to apply daily.

On 10/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, infamouse said:

I hypothesize that resource distribution and utilization remains a major issue for our society primarily because of our failure to recognize the fundamental nature of conscious social constructs such as language and math. For 2,000 years, we have engaged in the same form of communication with little or no improvements to the fundamental code; the software, so to speak.

Or maybe we just haven't sufficiently developed the understanding of how those constructs tie in to and govern our own biology.

On 10/24/2021 at 5:23 AM, infamouse said:

I propose that the conceptual ability of a society to deal with unforeseen or highly complex circumstances is directly proportional to the information density of the intellectual mediums at hand. I predict that children educated in base 100 mathematics (particularly if they are encouraged to practise math without a calculator to the extent of their capabilities)  and an equivalent higher form of language, will demonstrate advanced IQ relative to peers in a control group. Is

I think those things are important and would like to see 'the intellectual mediums' available equally. To date, their availability has been unequal to Humanity and we could certainly improve on that.

The conceptual in-ability though, I see as more as miss- application of values and the instruction/direction taken from that.

One of the hardest things I found here was my impatience and the frustration that generates. It can make it seem to the un initiated that they are being piled on. Too many questions at once from too many directions and your resources are over loaded.  My back ground had partly prepared me for that. I sometimes  have to sit back and gather my resources though, before I try again.

Its worth what feels a trial by fire, even when people are being entirely fair and justly critical.  I can expect to face it again, many times. 

What I learn from it has been more than worth its while.

Edited October 29, 2021 by naitche

[naitche]

6 hours ago, naitche said:

 

Qualification is Subject to science and decided by contribution, not qualification. Qualification is simply a support construct extended to participants towards its purpose. Better to support that construct than deny those who come to science with out it being miraculously intact.

 

Apologies, should read any value is subject to science.

Edited October 29, 2021 by naitche

[beecee]

On 10/28/2021 at 5:13 AM, infamouse said:

I am not publishing a paper. I have no problem trying to be clear and clarify my points where necessary. I am not insisting on my mistakes or flaws being forgiven or ignored, I am pointing out that in our society, people have a tendency to overreact and/or insist they know what a person *meant* by their words. Nobody is EVER perfectly precise, we all contradict ourselves, word things poorly, and possess evolving opinions. The reason the less educated don't want to get involved in science, is that nobody can ever meet your false standard of reality.

On the contrary. Your arrogance is there for all to see in a number of threads, after being corrected on various unsupported points you have made. Take a deep breat, an aspro, have a good lie down and see if that fixes your problems up. 

[infamouse]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

On the contrary. Your arrogance is there for all to see in a number of threads, after being corrected on various unsupported points you have made. Take a deep breat, an aspro, have a good lie down and see if that fixes your problems up. 

The  English language could be compressed at any point to maximize utility, we literally don't care. Seriously, you can compress a 500 page book to 250 pages... sorry, what am I saying? The latin alphabet is the epitome of perfection. This conversation is sooooo intelligent.     No.   Mandatory conformity at the expense of legitimate intellectual development is not intelligence. Contending that contemporary language can't be structurally improved is like saying caveman grunts were fine, but since we bothered to advance I must now insist Islam is superior.                  Call me whatever you want. I could create a superior language with ease... it doesn't matter. You would rather be happy as squirrels.

On 10/29/2021 at 6:10 AM, naitche said:

Apologies, should read any value is subject to science.

I am not criticizing science, just the illusion of it. I'm not demanding perfection, I AM INSISTING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND WE ARE BOUND TO LIVE AND DIE  WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. Such is the nature of the Singularity. A single "point" of infinite energy expands into an infinite "expanse" of infinite energy, and we all observers are caught between. What an unfathomable (obvious?) mystery(answer?) that thermodynamic arrow of time I mean Dark Energy...