Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Mental Biology


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1003 posts

Posted 08 May 2018 - 09:29 AM

Is anyone familiar with the book "Mental Biology" by W. R. Klemm?  I would like to hear some other thoughts about the book.  How much of it is already accepted by the scientific community at large and how much is his own theory.  He seems so very sure of his ideas and most do make sense.  He writes of the mind being an extension (my term, not his)  of the brain.  The brain does the physical work of storing memory and experiences.  The mind uses the brains work to develop thoughts.  It all makes sense until he says the mind is matter.  If the mind does as he says it does, how can it be matter?  The brain is matter.  The mind is thoughts, decisions, etc. 

 

He explains consciousness as not just being aware but being aware that we are aware, knowing that we know.  This is the difference between human consciousness and that of lower animals. 

 

Where Klemm loses me is when he ascribes little avatars as working with (or being - confusing to me) CIPs (circuit impulse patterns).  I'll not attempt to describe CIPs.  I know what he is saying but I can't  put it into words and I did not bring up much on the internet.

 

Klemm has a beautiful, poetic "talk" from the fetus in the womb ("It's dark in here") with which he leads to the theory that learning starts even before the child is born.  Interesting but????

 

I hope someone else has read this book and can share some opinions. Thank you.



#2 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 08 May 2018 - 09:47 AM

Mind/matter duality is a concept that has existed for centuries without evidential support other then than it sounds good.  Such claims are good until

This is the difference between human consciousness and that of lower animals.
  Now we have a testable claim.  And, there exists no test that I know of that shows that humans are unique in this respect, at least in some animals.  If you want to show that an earthworm has an idea of itself as a being then I will differ to your claim, but if you try to show that chimps don't understand their individuality, then there's a good amount of evidence to show that this claim is false.

 

Conversely, there's no evidence I know of that can show that fetuses in the womb can determine "dark".

 

I have not read the book, but from your description, I think it's nothing but crap, and I am not at all motivated to read it.



#3 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1003 posts

Posted 08 May 2018 - 10:06 AM

Mind/matter duality is a concept that has existed for centuries without evidential support other then than it sounds good.  Such claims are good until

 

  Now we have a testable claim.  And, there exists no test that I know of that shows that humans are unique in this respect, at least in some animals.  If you want to show that an earthworm has an idea of itself as a being then I will differ to your claim, but if you try to show that chimps don't understand their individuality, then there's a good amount of evidence to show that this claim is false.

 

Conversely, there's no evidence I know of that can show that fetuses in the womb can determine "dark".

 

I have not read the book, but from your description, I think it's nothing but crap, and I am not at all motivated to read it.

Klemm does make the point that we do not know that some more evolved mammals do have the higher form of consciousness.

 

That bit about the fetus learning does stop me.  The only thing I can say in its favor (not defense) is that it is lovely poetry.   On the other hand, how do you deal with the fact that a baby only minutes old knows how to suckle?  Does science allow the word "instinct"?   I am currently watching the development of two new-hatched falcons. They were up within hours demanding to be fed. 



#4 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 08 May 2018 - 10:14 AM

On the other hand, how do you deal with the fact that a baby only minutes old knows how to suckle?  Does science allow the word "instinct"?   I am currently watching the development of two new-hatched falcons. They were up within hours demanding to be fed. 

Of course science allows for instinct.  Suckling is a behavior that exists in all mammals.  If an individual was born that didn't know how to suckle, then it would die, and the genetic information that failed to make it suckle would die with it.  Likewise, if an animal that did not know how to suckle its offspring existed, then it wouldn't be able to pass on its genes.

 

Evolution is the change of genes in populations over time.  It should not ever be remarkable to note that a specific adaption exists.  It exists only because it has been useful in the past and this utility has been passed down through generations by natural selection.


Edited by JMJones0424, 08 May 2018 - 10:16 AM.

  • hazelm likes this

#5 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 08 May 2018 - 10:19 AM

A better question is, "What is the difference between instinct and thought?"

 

I don't know the answer to this question, and I am not sure that anyone really does.



#6 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1003 posts

Posted 08 May 2018 - 11:27 AM

Of course science allows for instinct.  Suckling is a behavior that exists in all mammals.  If an individual was born that didn't know how to suckle, then it would die, and the genetic information that failed to make it suckle would die with it.  Likewise, if an animal that did not know how to suckle its offspring existed, then it wouldn't be able to pass on its genes.

 

Evolution is the change of genes in populations over time.  It should not ever be remarkable to note that a specific adaption exists.  It exists only because it has been useful in the past and this utility has been passed down through generations by natural selection.

So, the fetus didn't have to learn it.  I'll have to go back and see what were some of the things it learned. 



#7 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 08 May 2018 - 11:48 AM

Not only isn't it the case that a fetus has to learn it, but one can observe the "knowledge" of a fetus by observing premature births.  Instinct is simply pre-programmed responses to stimuli.  Genetics is the programming.  If the organism is more likely to behave in a way that promotes its survival, then it is more likely that their genes are passed on to the next generation.

 

Humans are different than most animals in that we can convey information to our offspring outside of genetics.  We are not alone in this trait, but we are certainly the best at this.  This is the difference between knowledge and instinct.



#8 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1003 posts

Posted 08 May 2018 - 12:32 PM

Not only isn't it the case that a fetus has to learn it, but one can observe the "knowledge" of a fetus by observing premature births.  Instinct is simply pre-programmed responses to stimuli.  Genetics is the programming.  If the organism is more likely to behave in a way that promotes its survival, then it is more likely that their genes are passed on to the next generation.

 

Humans are different than most animals in that we can convey information to our offspring outside of genetics.  We are not alone in this trait, but we are certainly the best at this.  This is the difference between knowledge and instinct.

All right.  Still a lovely poetic writing.  We shall see what proves and disproves in the future.  Surely would be a fascinating thing if it happened which I doubt.  I'll go back tonight and see exactly what he did suggest that they learn.   Suckling was not one of those, I think.  Just a word that came to me  as something a newborn needs to know almost immediately.

 

Ah, but I just remembered something.  Correct me if I am wrong but aren't fetuses often, in scanning, seen with thumb in mouth?



#9 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 08 May 2018 - 12:39 PM

Fetuses are often shown with a tail.  Fetuses can also be shown to be masturbating.  Fetuses can be shown to be doing nothing.  Fetuses can be shown to be sucking their left toe.  I cannot correct you because you are not wrong, but your statement is as important as that the sun rises in the east.