Anthropoid Consciousness Origins?

[lucaspa]

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.

 

You stated as a criteria: "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."

 

That is Darwin, not Gautama. Please try to remember what you post.

 

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.

 

Then the ants and bees are not "conscious" because they don't have artistic creativity.

 

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.

 

You have confused what we consider "intelligent engineering techniques and structures" and intelligence itself. As you pointed out with hominid stone tools, your criteria is that the individual be aware of the usefulness of the tools. Invertebrates are not aware. Everything they do is hardwired by the genes and does not require conscious thought.

 

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?

 

That won't work because 1) adaptation by natural selection happens to POPULATIONS but "consciousness" is a characteristic of an individual and 2) adaptation occurs thru an unconscious, unintelligent process -- natural selection. Populations have nothing to say about whether and how they adapt.

 

You noted 1) yourself when you are postulating that human infants and elderly (individuals, not the species) have lower "consciousness" or no "consciousness": "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."

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but to what level? Do they see a world that has finite resources for example?

 

this is somewhat long but it's how i would define consciousness.

 

consciousness is awareness of one's self. it is a product of the whole of the brain but only intelligent animals can possess self awareness. intelligence alone is not sufficient though. language is a product of intelligence and self awareness and helps perpetuate self awareness. a self aware animal is capable of acting against what its emotions promote.

 

You have 2 separate definitions here:

1. Consciousness = self-awareness. (first sentence)

2. Consciousness is capability of acting against what its emotions promote.

 

Which is it?

 

And then, of course, you have injected "intelligence" into "consciousness" by saying intelligence is necessary (but not sufficient) for consciousness.

 

Everyone might find this site useful as a starting point for the discussion:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

 

At least it will give you the work put into the subject by others and you can avoid trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

When do people assume that our consciousness of finite, and what it meant to our survival chances, came into existence? Did we still have tails at this point? Was it at the point of creating art for arts sake? Was it at the point of our first abstract thoughts?

 

To say this AGAIN, this cannot be known precisely because 1) we don't have an adequate definition of "consciousness" and 2) it doesn't leave a fossil record. And please don't use the word "assume"; it's not an accurate description. This isn't an "assumption". What you want is "hypothesize" or "speculate".

 

Cognition and problem solving have evolved in several lineages and are present in a number of species. Is that "consciousness"?

1. N Williams, Evolutionary psychologists look for roots of cognition. Science 275 (3 Jan): 29-30, 1997.

2. R Plomin and JC DeFries, The genetics of cognitive abilities and disabilities. Scientific American, 278: 62-69, May 1998.

 

Several living species of primates have impressive cognitive and problem solving skills. Were they present in the common ancestor or did each lineage evolve the skills separately?

 

Dichotomy, there are some questions we simply don't have the data to answer. If you are going to be in science, then you have to learn to live with unanswered questions and wait in a state of suspended judgement until you do have enough data. That state of suspended judgement -- "I don't know" -- can last years, decades, or sometimes centuries.

[iNow]

You have confused what we consider "intelligent engineering techniques and structures" and intelligence itself. As you pointed out with hominid stone tools, your criteria is that the individual be aware of the usefulness of the tools. Invertebrates are not aware. Everything they do is hardwired by the genes and does not require conscious thought.

Having read many of your posts, I get the sense that you actually may be able to successfully provide this, but can you please offer some support for those last two sentences in the quote above (bolded by me), specifically the "invertebrates are not aware" part? Thanks mate.

[dichotomy]

Please try to remember what you post.

 

Oh, I remember alright. Will you please try to read a little more carefully and completely. And don't be too hasty in jumping to false accusations. It will keep your fans a lot happier.

 

remember - "To have the realization that the only constant in the material world is change." I also like the fact that Gautama saw life shaped and destroyed by stress, like Dawin, he was conscious of the forces of stress.

 

Then the ants and bees are not "conscious" because they don't have artistic creativity.

 

I know they are unconsciously intelligent. Creative? I'm not sure.

 

 

Invertebrates are not aware. Everything they do is hardwired by the genes and does not require conscious thought.

 

Yep, they are unconscious genius', like savants.

 

Yes, but to what level? Do they see a world that has finite resources for example?

 

Trucked if I know? But there are levels. Accurately measuring levels is a field for future science, i suppose?

 

At least it will give you the work put into the subject by others and you can avoid trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

But, but, but, that takes all the fun out of it. Besides, one should sometimes attempt to reinvent the wheel, in order to see how it might be better re-made.

 

And please don't use the word "assume"; it's not an accurate description. This isn't an "assumption". What you want is "hypothesize" or "speculate".

You assume alot, don't you? Are you serious here, or, do you just come across to me as being a little too precious?

 

Dichotomy, there are some questions we simply don't have the data to answer. If you are going to be in science, then you have to learn to live with unanswered questions and wait in a state of suspended judgement until you do have enough data. That state of suspended judgement -- "I don't know" -- can last years, decades, or sometimes centuries.

 

I completely empathize with you, and comprehend this fact. I acknowledge that I have the easy and fun job of asking the questions and speculating, scientists, on the other hand, have the highly difficult job of proving/disproving and answering them. Aswell as articulating them to an interested layman observer. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the time that qualified scientists put into this forum. I don't suffer the discourteous all that well though. No matter whom they may be.

 

cheers.

[bombus]

Hmmm...

 

Premise A: Consciousness is not a phenomenon unique to humans.

Premise B: The scope of an animals consciousness is a function of what is required for survival in it's environment.

Premise C: Consciousness is an emergent property of life.

 

 

Fire away.

 

Premise D: Conciousness is a property of spacetime and not unique to living organisms (Pansychism)

[dichotomy]

Premise D: Conciousness is a property of spacetime and not unique to living organisms (Pansychism)

 

Hey, have you got a reasonably good link to what pansychism is supposed to mean? I'd be interested if it involves matter/energy holding 'conscious' properties, in an 'unconscious' way.

[iNow]

Hey, have you got a reasonably good link to what pansychism is supposed to mean? I'd be interested if it involves matter/energy holding 'conscious' properties, in an 'unconscious' way.

 

Here's a paper I found during a quick search which you might enjoy. It is mostly a discussion of the issue, some of the objections and some of the responses to those, but it is very well cited and has an expansive reference section. You could probably have some fun checking it out, as well as exploring the references cited:

 

http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/~chenml/411/McLaughlin.pdf

 

 

There's a lot in it, and it is clearly articulated from one person's perspective (i.e. it has a lot good data, but must still be considered one person's argument), but it might give you something to chew on and review from time to time to calibrate your own thoughts and ideas.

[pioneer]

Consciousness is a living control system that allows interaction with the environment. Higher animal consciousness has more multiple choices built into the control system to allow a much greater range of adaption. Where human consciousness differs from animal consciousness is, we have two centers of consciousness. We have the one that animals have plus a second center that allows us choices beyond the control system.

 

For example, our instincts, that urge us to sleep, etc., are controlled by an unconscious control system that is similar to what animals have. We can override this, but eventully the control system will win. This control systemn was probably all prehumans had, with invention spontanoeus. There was no secondary center, so it was monkey see and monkey do. It wasn't until the secondary center stabilized that civilization could form. Now there was a second point of view that could think independantly. This evolutionary change is what the religious people refer to as Adam.

 

It took a million years for pre-humans to gain a first grade education. Once the secondary center appeared, the rate accelerated. Anyone involved in psychology knows how important the unconscious center is. Most people are unaware of its impact, and assume the secondary is all. The secondary is sort of the child on the bike, who thinks he is riding, but remains unaware that the parent is the one stabilizing the bike.

 

If you look at amazing athletic feats, this is usually not due to the secondary center trying to willfully show off. These occur when the primary center takes control and to creates situation that are difficult to reproduce. The perfect 10 creates as much amazement for the athlete. The primary center has layers below the secondary center, which we can override. But it also have layers above that extend human capabilities. The ego or secondary center can reason but the primary center inspires.

 

For example, Einstein knew the anwer before the solution. He then had to use his secondary center to create the solution for other secondaries. They were working under the assumption they were riding the bike, alone. They could see the Einstein's parent, holding him up, but were unconscious of their own parent holding them. So Einstein had to learn to ride by himself so the others could see he was doing it, like they thought they were.

[iNow]

Consciousness is a living control system that allows interaction with the environment. Higher animal consciousness has more multiple choices built into the control system to allow a much greater range of adaption. Where human consciousness differs from animal consciousness is, we have two centers of consciousness. We have the one that animals have plus a second center that allows us choices beyond the control system.

So... you didn't learn anything from your interactions here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=354146

or here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28295

 

 

You know, saying it over and over again doesn't make it correct.

[bascule]

We have the one that animals have plus a second center that allows us choices beyond the control system.

 

No, wrong.

 

Your statement, which you've repeated over and over and over, doesn't even make any sense.

 

1) Humans have all the same brain structures as most simians. There's no novel structures in the human brain. The human brain represents a refinement of an existing design.

 

2) You're saying there's two "structures of consciousness". Consciousness is a metaphysical construct and relating it back to structure cannot be done, certainly not within a scientific context. Many would argue it can't even be done in a philosophical context.

 

3) Your two "structures of consciousness" seem to be: conscious and unconscious. Your statement is utterly self defeating, wrong, and riddled with misinformation

[pioneer]

The two centers have less to do with brain hardware but with software. I used to believe the same thing as you, many many years ago. What got me convinced was I saw myself neurotic, back then, and went to a few therapy sessions. Part of what they tried to show is how behavior from the past can act almost like a subroutine that plays over and over. The first thing that is taught is an awareness of this subroutine, until one can see it as acting sort of indendantly and you can sit back and watch it. Once you see that, I realized that consciousness is only half the story.

 

If you look at addicitons, some people would like to quit, but keep going back to doing the same thing. The conscious mind may say quit, but the subroutine, which has become a self perpetuating habit, says go for it. Even religion used to call those subroutines the Devil inside. Not that it was the Devil, but they were conscious of another consciousness.

 

This therapy, by making me aware that something inside could sort of act on its own, apart from my will, got me interested in psychology, so learn more about it. After dabbling in many orientations, I found Jungian to be the best for what I sort of had in mind. Jung breaks the unconscious into archetypes or behavior forms. Human behavior is similar to all humans allowing us to be classified as one species. This fundamental behavior comes from the unconscious mind. The archetypes was a way to subdivide different aspects of human behavior into very specific things.

 

One thing I do remember from that time was, when I started to look deeper into that unconscious point of view, I hit this wall. This wall has been placed there by both religion and by culture. What is on the other side of the wall is as scary as your imagination can make it. The fear is sort of the cultural guardian that prevents one from tampering. If anyone tries to get through the wall be prepare to face your fears. The fear is the fear of going insane or becoming psychotic, where all your fears can not longer be contained but continue to pour into you imagnation. I had a religious unbringing so many of my fears had a religion darkside. I was also trained as a scientist and thought this was irrational. But irrational or not, this was the guardian that had been place at the wall of my mind.

 

What happened was, stupid me, I decided to go forward, rather than take the fear hint seriously, and leave the cultural wall just like it had been. I was a young scientists trying to gather data in a new frontier and figured I was able to deal with any superstitiious hog wash that might appear.

 

The unconscious mind appeared in layers with the most shallow layers first appearing upon hitting the wall. As the layers go deeper and deeper they are far more subtle but become conscious. The shallow layers use the strongest emotional and instinctive impulses, with the guadrian fear being felt first at the wall. But once past that, it wasn't so bad. As you pass through the layers the inner self appears here and there. The inner self is sort of the center of the unconsciousness and the jukebox of archetypes. It took about three years to get to where the inner self started to interact where data transfer between hemispheres was occurring constantly.

 

I understand the wall of fear and using 20/20 hindsight, I would not have tried this again. Nor would I recommend it to anyone. The wall was placed there so we don't because too conscious, of the unconscious. The Age of enlightenment has helped to keep us left hemisphere. It has also helped to fortified the wall. People are far less haunted by spirits and ghosts, which are manifestations of things that still seep from behind the wall. My wall did reassemble, but left some new type of plumbing in place.

[lucaspa]

remember - "To have the realization that the only constant in the material world is change." I also like the fact that Gautama saw life shaped and destroyed by stress, like Dawin, he was conscious of the forces of stress.

 

That is not the same as saying there is common descent! Giving a general statement about change is NOT saying ""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."

 

After all, the "change" could just be changes within a present form. And "change" does not mean "branching". It can be limited to "change from ONE form to ONE other form."

 

Also, Darwin did not have life shaped by "stress". Unless you warp the word "stress" out of all normal meaning. Gautama was thinking about individuals; Darwin was thinking about populations. Darwinism is not Buddhism nor did Buddha anticipate Darwin.

 

I know they are unconsciously intelligent. Creative? I'm not sure.

 

1. You don't "know" that ants and bees are "unconsciously intelligent". You are asserting it. You are taking the post I made that forager ants do the equivalent of spherical trigonometry and this ability is hardwired into their genes and calling the ability "unconscious intelligence". But that doesn't make them "unconsciously intelligent". Instead, ALL the data shows is that natural selection can make brain modules that perform tasks that, in humans, requires a lot of learning and above average conscious intelligence. It's not "intelligence", just as running fast for horses is not "intelligence". It's an ability designed by natural selection.

 

2. And what do the ants and bees "consciously create"? Again, they are hardwired to build nests and tunnels, but do you see any variation in them? Any individual expression like you see in human art?

 

Yep, they are unconscious genius', like savants.

 

Human savants are conscious beings, aren't they? They don't perform the calculations consciously, but overall the humans are conscious in ways that the ants and bees never are.

Attributes to Lucaspa: "Yes, but to what level? Do they see a world that has finite resources for example? "

 

But there are levels.

 

1. The quote you attributed to me was made by YOU! If you had noticed, there was an incomplete signature. Again, unless you can remember what you said, or if you continue to deny what you said, this discussion can't go anywhere.

 

2. Your answer is another assertion. It's even more blatant when it was YOU who asked the original question. YOU didn't know the answer -- because you asked the question -- and then proceeded to make an unfounded assertion.

 

But, but, but, that takes all the fun out of it. Besides, one should sometimes attempt to reinvent the wheel, in order to see how it might be better re-made.

 

No. The fun is in inventing something NEW, not warping and garbling something we already know. That is simply irritating and wastes time. Also, if you haven't read the work and realized all the mistakes that were made in originally inventing the wheel, what you end up doing is wasting your time on all the original mistakes -- without ever knowing that they were mistakes and why. You see, you then have to rediscover why they were mistakes. Wasting time again. Only, of course, you are wasting other people's time because you won't read why the ideas were mistakes the first time around.

 

When do people assume that our consciousness of finite, and what it meant to our survival chances, came into existence?

 

Are you serious here,?

 

Yes, I'm serious. Using the correct language to describe ideas is important. The biggest trouble comes when the strength of the claim doesn't match the strength of the data. If you state a weak claim (speculation, hypothesis) and have weak data, then you are OK. If you state a strong claim and have strong data, you are OK. If you state a weak claim but have strong data, that is a problem. The worst problem, of course, arises when you make a strong claim but have weak or no data.

 

In this particular case, claiming "assumption" when it is hypothesis, you try to make it weaker than it is. In this context, "assumption" means "claim without any evidence". IOW, a wild guess. However, the people working in the field do have some evidence in the form of living related species and their abilities. Therefore, they are not working on "assumption", but rather testing hypotheses.

 

I completely empathize with you, and comprehend this fact. I acknowledge that I have the easy and fun job of asking the questions and speculating, scientists, on the other hand, have the highly difficult job of proving/disproving and answering them.

 

If this is your intent, then you aren't asking questions or speculating. Instead, you are making assertions: statements that are supposedly "fact" but without having done any of the work of proving/disproving the statements. That is discourteous, because as we try to point out the flaws with the assertions, you resist and stick to them as "fact".

 

Also, I don't think you comprehend the fact of not knowing. As I have pointed out several times with your "unconscious intelligence" in this an other posts, you aren't saying "I don't know". You are insisting that this "unconscious intelligence" exists.

 

So, before you try to look at the "discourteous" dust mote in others, you might want to look at the discourteous log in yourself.

 

Having read many of your posts, I get the sense that you actually may be able to successfully provide this, but can you please offer some support for those last two sentences in the quote above (bolded by me), specifically the "invertebrates are not aware" part? Thanks mate.

 

Start with these. A PubMed search will give you hundreds more looking at the link between genetics and behavior in invertebrates. Bottom line: change the gene and you completely change the behavior. Humans have more "choice" in their behavior:

 

1: Basualdo M, Rodriguez EM, Bedascarrasbure E, De Jong D.

Selection and estimation of the heritability of sunflower (Helianthus annuus)

pollen collection behavior in Apis mellifera colonies.

Genet Mol Res. 2007 Jun 20;6(2):274-81.

PMID: 17624860 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

2: Zhang K, Guo JZ, Peng Y, Xi W, Guo A.

Dopamine-mushroom body circuit regulates saliency-based decision-making in

Drosophila.

Science. 2007 Jun 29;316(5833):1901-4.

PMID: 17600217 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

3: Sandrelli F, Tauber E, Pegoraro M, Mazzotta G, Cisotto P, Landskron J,

Stanewsky R, Piccin A, Rosato E, Zordan M, Costa R, Kyriacou CP.

A molecular basis for natural selection at the timeless locus in Drosophila

melanogaster.

Science. 2007 Jun 29;316(5833):1898-900.

PMID: 17600216 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

4: Pankiw T.

Brood pheromone regulates foraging activity of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae).

J Econ Entomol. 2004 Jun;97(3):748-51.

PMID: 15279247 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

5: Toth AL, Robinson GE.

Evo-devo and the evolution of social behavior.

Trends Genet. 2007 Jul;23(7):334-41. Epub 2007 May 16. Review.

PMID: 17509723 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

6: Shirangi TR, McKeown M.

Sex in flies: what 'body--mind' dichotomy?

Dev Biol. 2007 Jun 1;306(1):10-9. Epub 2007 Mar 23. Review.

PMID: 17475234 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

7: Ingram KK, Oefner P, Gordon DM.

Task-specific expression of the foraging gene in harvester ants.

Mol Ecol. 2005 Mar;14(3):813-8.

 

Consciousness is a living control system that allows interaction with the environment.

 

Where did you get this definition? Please give us a citation to a scientific work that uses this definition.

 

It appears that you made it up. What's worse, you then use it as premise for your further arguments. But before you can do that, you have to establish the premise as true.

 

Everyone, the October Scientific American has an article discussing 2 theories of how consciousness is produced in the brain. Reading it might make the discussion better, since discussion would take place within a framework of data instead of assertions.

 

From the article "We share many common views, including the important acknowledgment that there is not a single problem of consciousness. Rather, numerous phenomena must be explained—in particular, self-consciousness (the ability to examine one’s own desires and thoughts), the content of con-sciousness (what you are actually conscious of at any moment), and how brain processes relate to consciousness and to nonconsciousness."

 

Where human consciousness differs from animal consciousness is, we have two centers of consciousness. We have the one that animals have plus a second center that allows us choices beyond the control system.

 

The data in the article contradicts this. Neither theory postulates "centers" of conciousness.

 

"■ HIS THEORY: For each conscious experience, a unique set of neurons

in particular brain regions fires in a specific manner."

 

"HER THEORY: For each conscious experience, neurons across the brain synchronize into coordinated assemblies, then disband."

 

Pioneer, your assertions simply don't stand the test of data. PLEASE read the article before you spend any more time promoting a theory that can't be defended.

[bombus]

Hey, have you got a reasonably good link to what pansychism is supposed to mean? I'd be interested if it involves matter/energy holding 'conscious' properties, in an 'unconscious' way.

 

Try this too. It's from wikipedia, but for the more obscure subjects it's usually quite reliable IMO.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

[iNow]

Start with these. A PubMed search will give you hundreds more looking at the link between genetics and behavior in invertebrates. Bottom line: change the gene and you completely change the behavior. Humans have more "choice" in their behavior:

 

1: Basualdo M, Rodriguez EM, Bedascarrasbure E, De Jong D.

Selection and estimation of the heritability of sunflower (Helianthus annuus)

pollen collection behavior in Apis mellifera colonies.

Genet Mol Res. 2007 Jun 20;6(2):274-81.

PMID: 17624860 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I appreciate that selection works, and agree that one can improve a colonies pollen collection via selecting for a high tendency to collect said pollen, but this doesn’t (appear) to speak to the issue of awareness (or lack thereof) in invertebrates.

 

 

2: Zhang K, Guo JZ, Peng Y, Xi W, Guo A.

Dopamine-mushroom body circuit regulates saliency-based decision-making in

Drosophila.

Science. 2007 Jun 29;316(5833):1901-4.

PMID: 17600217 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

It’s very cool that fruit flies can change their flight choices by visual cues, and that there is a mechanism which describes this choice behavior (innervations by dopaminergic axons). However, this doesn’t (appear) to speak to the issue of awareness (or lack thereof) in invertebrates. If anything, it argues in favor of awareness since the choice behavior is based on the relative salience of competing visual cues.

 

 

3: Sandrelli F, Tauber E, Pegoraro M, Mazzotta G, Cisotto P, Landskron J,

Stanewsky R, Piccin A, Rosato E, Zordan M, Costa R, Kyriacou CP.

A molecular basis for natural selection at the timeless locus in Drosophila

melanogaster.

Science. 2007 Jun 29;316(5833):1898-900.

PMID: 17600216 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

So, there appears to be a molecular link which as evolved to keep fruit flies from breeding during inopportune times, and which enhances their ability to detect changes in light during a 24 hour period (fyi – circadian photoreception still occurs in mammals without the presence of rods and cones, so this isn’t very surprising, but cool all the same to see it also happens in fruit flies as well), but this doesn’t (appear) to speak to the issue of awareness (or lack thereof) in invertebrates.

 

 

4: Pankiw T.

Brood pheromone regulates foraging activity of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae).

J Econ Entomol. 2004 Jun;97(3):748-51.

PMID: 15279247 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Ah… again with the honeybees. At least we’re not talking about CCD, like most honeybee conversations pivot to recently. This study shows that, when you treat bees with a brood pheromone they return significantly more pollen when foraging (and a much higher percentage of which coming from the target crop) than do bees that are not treated with the brood pheromone (i.e. the control). However, this is not an invertebrate specific phenomenon, and says little about awareness (i.e. it speaks to behavioral observations without comment on the awareness in the honeybee.

 

 

5: Toth AL, Robinson GE.

Evo-devo and the evolution of social behavior.

Trends Genet. 2007 Jul;23(7):334-41. Epub 2007 May 16. Review.

PMID: 17509723 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

All this talk of honeybees is making my sweet-tooth twinge. This study shows that there is a molecular pathway as part of our genetics which control feeding and reproductive behavior. These pathways, coupled with developmental genetics help illustrate the way the workforce is split in a colony of honeybees and offers insight to some of the complexity of their social interaction. However… you get the drill. While this is a fascinating study, and I thank you for sharing it, it does not speak to the issue of awareness in invertebrates.

 

 

6: Shirangi TR, McKeown M.

Sex in flies: what 'body--mind' dichotomy?

Dev Biol. 2007 Jun 1;306(1):10-9. Epub 2007 Mar 23. Review.

PMID: 17475234 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This study discusses the sexual tendencies in fruit flies as modulated by genetic pathways and neural structure, further suggesting that this structure controls both sexual behavior and physical morphology. This suggests some advantage to form and behavior being the result of genetics and neural structure. So, where’s the discussion about awareness (or lack thereof) in invertebrates?

 

 

7: Ingram KK, Oefner P, Gordon DM.

Task-specific expression of the foraging gene in harvester ants.

Mol Ecol. 2005 Mar;14(3):813-8.

Btw... Here's the PMID for #7: 15723672, and I really liked this one, as it discussed plasticity in behavior and the association of behavior and genes across many different social insect species but again… no awareness.

 

 

I really get the sense that you are arguing that, since there are genetic, molecular, and neural components to behavior in invertebrates that they are not aware. However, (if that interpretation of your presentation is, in fact, accurate) this would also mean that all animals (humans included, vertebrates and invertebrates alike) are not aware, since we too exhibit behaviors in large part due to our genetic, molecular, and neurological components and structure. I don’t think you are here arguing that humans are not aware, yet the evidence you presented in support of the comment you made seems to extrapolate to this notion.

 

I very sincerely wish to thank you for the links though. I thoroughly enjoyed reading them. However, I think it may be in your interest to retract your statement that invertebrates are not aware, or, at least, better characterize that statement as just your own personal opinion (not bound by the evidence itself, but your interpretation of it). After all, I’m looking at the same data you provided in support of your comment, “Invertebrates are not aware,” and I interpret it differently. As I do, I am being clear that it is just my interpretation of the data, an interpretation not confirmed nor absolute by any means, and only ask that you do the same.

 

 

Fair enough?

[bascule]

Where did you get this definition? Please give us a citation to a scientific work that uses this definition.

 

You're not going to find a scientific definition of consciousness at all. As far as science is concerned consciousness has never been observed, short of cognitive science experiments, which really don't come anywhere close to saying what cosnciousness actually is.

 

I really get the sense that you are arguing that, since there are genetic, molecular, and neural components to behavior in invertebrates that they are not aware.

 

I'd like to see a paper like this talking about a cuttlefish

 

A more accurate one in regard to animal minds would be to compare chimpanzees and humans

[iNow]

I'd like to see a paper like this talking about a cuttlefish

 

What an enormously interesting point. Cuttlefish (sepia officinalis) demostrate all manner of awareness, much beyond that of honeybees and fruit flies, and they are invertebrate. Here are some interesting studies about cuttefish since you asked.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cuttlefish+behavior&hl=en&lr=

[pioneer]

There are two types of awareness. One is an awareness of the environment and the ability to interact with the environment. But there is also inner awareness, i.e., I think therefore I am. The first can occur without self reflection, while the second is self reflection.

 

With humans, we have both types of awareness. One way to see the contrast is to compare extroverts to introverts. Both personality types, have both types of awareness, but often an extrovert can react quicker to the social environment. The introvert may spend longer thinking before they will speak or act. While the extrovert often says the first thing on their mind. Animals are far more extroverted in the sense, they react to the environment without requiring internal reflection. That does not preclude the possibilities of having adaptive awarenes. Animals react and adapt, but they don't dwell on it. They unconsciously gather the sensory data needed to make an unconscious choice. The output tends to happen quite fast and becomes repeatable.

 

With respect to Antropoid consciousness, the inner awareness becoming common, i.e, I think therefore I am, should have been reflected by increasing problems with old school instinctive adaptation. If one became self aware, at a time when everything is done for you by instinct, then one will start to make different choices, on a large scale. The evolution of culture, appears to be where self awareness appears. Before that, humans had very advanced animal-human awareness but lacked inner awareness.

 

For example, if we go to a dance, the extroverted boys might go and ask the girls to dance. The introverted boys want to, but might start to think about it too much and become indecisive about what they should do. The girl could be flashing signs, that any extrovert can see, but the introvert is not reacting properly to the signs, because he is more in his own mind. With respect to the birth of self awareness, what had been simple, should have gotten more difficult, since the inner reflection may not cooincide with environmental cues, which up to that point, would trigger distinct reaction. When culture appeared, the old way didn't work; it needed to upgrade. Humans began to lose their instincts in favor of cultural laws, which is what the self awareness needs, so it can learn to think on its own.

[iNow]

My response to your post, Pioneer, is a toss-up. I couldn't decide, so I'll put both.

 

1) Where are your citations, because your comments which you present as fact are baseless and are not aligned with our existing data on the topic.

 

The other...

 

2) Not even wrong.

[bascule]

Not even wrong.

 

That's my take on pioneer...

[dichotomy]

That is not the same as saying there is common descent! Giving a general statement about change is NOT saying ""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."

 

Also, Darwin did not have life shaped by "stress". Unless you warp the word "stress" out of all normal meaning. Gautama was thinking about individuals; Darwin was thinking about populations. Darwinism is not Buddhism nor did Buddha anticipate Darwin.

 

You have completely misunderstood what I have written. Not to mention blown things completely out of proportion with your rampant assumptions (inferring that I was comparing Buddhism with Darwinism). But, that’s ok.

What I was doing was comparing the respective ‘consciousness’ levels of Guatama and Darwin. You suggested (hopefully tongue in cheek) that Darwin’s 1859 classic was when anthropoid consciousness first existed. I facetiously pointed to Gautama’s realizations as the first signs of anthropoid consciousness. That is all. If you have no sense of humour, or are unable to see the point being made, well, that's ok too.

 

Stress definition – (biology-online.org)

2. The sum of the biological reactions to any adverse stimulus, physical, mental or emotional, internal or external, that tends to disturb the organisms homeostasis, should these compensating reactions be inadequate or inappropriate, they may lead to disorders. The term is also used to refer to the stimuli that elicit the reactions. Difficulty that causes worry or emotional tension; she endured the stresses and strains of life; he presided over the economy during the period of the greatest stress and danger- R.J.Samuelson.

 

This is the way I use it, and IMO (and I emphasise, speculation here) Guatama realized this in an intuitive way as well… No need to have nowhere arguments here, as any substantial absolute evidence is probably buried under too many layers of time dust anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

In this particular case, claiming "assumption" when it is hypothesis, you try to make it weaker than it is. In this context, "assumption" means "claim without any evidence". IOW, a wild guess. However, the people working in the field do have some evidence in the form of living related species and their abilities. Therefore, they are not working on "assumption", but rather testing hypotheses.

 

No problem. And I understand where you are coming from. Moderators can you please move this thread to the speculations and pseudo science forum, thank you.

 

Here's a paper I found during a quick search which you might enjoy. It is mostly a discussion of the issue, some of the objections and some of the responses to those, but it is very well cited and has an expansive reference section. You could probably have some fun checking it out, as well as exploring the references cited:

 

http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/~chenml/411/McLaughlin.pdf

 

 

There's a lot in it, and it is clearly articulated from one person's perspective (i.e. it has a lot good data, but must still be considered one person's argument), but it might give you something to chew on and review from time to time to calibrate your own thoughts and ideas.

 

 

Thanks, I'll take a look.

 

Try this too. It's from wikipedia, but for the more obscure subjects it's usually quite reliable IMO.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

 

Will do, thanks.

[dichotomy]

When culture appeared, the old way didn't work; it needed to upgrade. Humans began to lose their instincts in favor of cultural laws, which is what the self awareness needs, so it can learn to think on its own.

 

Well maybe we have not lost our instincts yet, they are merely suppressed in favour of societal rules. Possibly instincts/strong emotions need to be suppressed for generations, before they are completely replaced by rational awareness/controlled consciousness?

[pioneer]

One way to contrast the two centers of consciousness within humans is contrasting a mainframe computer to one of its PC terminals. All animals have is a mainframe. Humans are the only species with a PC terminal that has access to the mainframe. That is what gives up free will apart from the mainframe of animal instincts.

 

The mainframe can do anything the terminal can do and even better. If one was not aware their PC was hooked into a mainframe, they might assume that their PC was the only thing. This is the mistake that much of science makes and therefore assumes PC + mainframe, equals PC.

 

As an analogy, a professor is given a lesson via the mainframe. All the PC's of all the students are connected. He puts a lock on, so one is not able to wander and use the PC for anything but the lesson. This is sort of analogous to the coordination of pre-human instinct. The birth of modern consciousness, was when the students learned to override the lock, which the professor put on, so they can surf the web or play games. But once you start doing that, the lessons that were coordinating everyone are no longer fully conscious. Instead one begins to go out in their own direction losing connection to the rest of the students and the professor. One may then start to IM others, so they become distracted. Before long, most are off in their own direction. with a few still staying with the professor.

 

Culture was a way to substitute the original mainframe instructions, with cultural laws, so everyone was able to coordinate their PC's and still learn. But the PC never left the mainframe. The mainframe gives us additional support. One can play games on their PC, that can outdo the processor that is installed in the PC, since data is also processed on the mainframe. For example, if you ride a bicycle, one does not have to think about every muscles. On uses thought command lines, for the mainframe. We then pretend the PC is what is processoring dozens of coordinated muscles.

 

This leads to the next step in evolution. Once one realizes the PC has access to the mainframe, but the PC is different than the mainframe, one is not limited by what they think are the practical limits of the PC. If one thought they were only using a PC, they would not attempt some long numerical analysis, since it would totally max out the PC, leaving no processing power left to play games or listen to music. But if one realizes the PC is a terminal, then one can use mainframe's subroutines, and still use the PC's own processor for playing games and music.

 

The problem with this is professor human instinct is still in control of the mainframe. The PC may be able to override the locks, but it may not be allowed to enter the mainframe for full access, unless the professor feels one has paid attention to his lessons and will use the mainframe, wisely.

[bascule]

[rambling baseless speculation and confusion]

 

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP ALREADY

[dichotomy]

The problem with this is professor human instinct is still in control of the mainframe. The PC may be able to override the locks, but it may not be allowed to enter the mainframe for full access, unless the professor feels one has paid attention to his lessons and will use the mainframe, wisely.

 

This reminds me of Paul MacLean's Triune brain theory. Have you looked at this? I think it holds a lot of truth.

 

http://www.buffalostate.edu/orgs/bcp/brainbasics/triune.html

 

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP ALREADY

 

No!

[iNow]

No!

 

See mate, as fun as it is thought surfing with these speculations, this thread is in the Genetics: Evolution, Morphology, and Exobiology forum... So, posting such rampant, baseless, unsubstantiated nonsense is not only disrespectful to those who practice these sciences and devote their lives, energies, and passions to searching for and sharing actual facts on the subject with others... it's also against the rules of the site. Pioneer really needs to take it to Speculations or shut the hell up.

[dichotomy]

See mate, as fun as it is thought surfing with these speculations, this thread is in the Genetics: Evolution, Morphology, and Exobiology forum... So, posting such rampant, baseless, unsubstantiated nonsense is not only disrespectful to those who practice these sciences and devote their lives, energies, and passions to searching for and sharing actual facts on the subject with others... it's also against the rules of the site. Pioneer really needs to take it to Speculations or shut the hell up.

 

 

That is why I posted this to Lucaspa earlier in this thread.

 

"No problem. And I understand where you are coming from. Moderators can you please move this thread to the speculations and pseudo science forum, thank you."

 

Nobody listened.