Evolution as mental concept

[Pyrotex]

...the false belief that mind emerges from matter, which by the way has no proof. there is no known mechanism where an inorganic matter transform to an organic matter, neither how the mind (subjectivity) comes out of atomic elements.

.

That's probably because you've assigned the wrong definitions to those words and made some erroneous assumptions.

 

We have the fact that our brains are made of matter.

We have the fact that the dynamic pattern of signals that we call mind is in our brain.

The simplest conclusion is that mind is an emergent process rooted in matter.

Anything else is too complicated, or too supernatural woo woo.

:lol:

[watcher]

That's probably because you've assigned the wrong definitions to those words and made some erroneous assumptions.

 

We have the fact that our brains are made of matter.

We have the fact that the dynamic pattern of signals that we call mind is in our brain.

 

the signal are the mind? a fact? seemed like one of your erroneous assumption.

 

The simplest conclusion is that mind is an emergent process rooted in matter.

Anything else is too complicated, or too supernatural woo woo.

yeah, sweep the problem under the rug. you've probably don't even understand the problem. :lol:

 

unifying all 4 known forces is legit science and unifying matter and mind is woo woo? well it's more like an attitude problem to me, LOL

[REASON]

the signal are the mind? a fact? seemed like one of your erroneous assumption.

 

Well let's conduct an experiment to test how erroneous that assumtion is.

 

Let's remove the matter which is your brain from your head and see how well your mind works.

 

Or how about this? Let's leave your brain intact and remove your entire nervous system, completely eliminating all sensory input to your brain, and then see how well your mind works.

 

That which you call the "mind" is the culmination of sensory input or information that is transmitted electrochemically through the nervous system and processed, organized, stored as memory, recalled, recognized, categorized, sequenced, etc. by organic brain cells generating a mental construct of thought patterns. This ability is limited by brain size and complexity among animal species, and has evolved over time primarily as a survival mechanism.

 

The mind cannot exist without a brain. Therefore, the mind must be a product of the evolution of the brain stem and nervous system. What will be interesting to see is whether we are able to create an artificial mind using advanced sensors and powerful computing technology sometime in the future.

 

Simply stated, there is plenty of evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain.

 

There is no evidence that consciousness exists independent of the brain.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Pyrotex,

 

We have the fact that our brains are made of matter.

We have the fact that the dynamic pattern of signals that we call mind is in our brain.

The simplest conclusion is that mind is an emergent process rooted in matter.

Anything else is too complicated, or too supernatural woo woo.

:)

 

I caught the tail end of a british show about Charles Darwin on the cable today (History Channel). It ended with the story about an english chap who created an equation that reasonably accurately explained alturism in the context of evolution (much better than anything else has). I'll try to catch it tomorrow and note who it was, he died in the early 1970's and his work as only recently been rediscovered.

 

Also Google "Horst-Michael Gross" for research on the brain, artificial intelligence etc, he's brilliant.

[Pyrotex]

the signal are the mind? a fact? seemed like one of your erroneous assumption. yeah, sweep the problem under the rug. you've probably don't even understand the problem. :) unifying all 4 known forces is legit science and unifying matter and mind is woo woo? well it's more like an attitude problem to me, LOL

watcher,

I would watch what you say.

 

Accusing me of saying what I did not say, meaning things that I did not mean, and insulting my intelligence is not good debating style.

 

On some websites, that kind of sophomoric rhetorical nonsense could get you banned.

 

Have you read Daniel Dennett or Roger Penrose or Korzybski or Julian Jaynes on the nature and structure of the mind & consciousness?

I also recommend, "Cognitive Science: An Introduction to Mind and Brain" and "The Emerging Mind: New Discoveries in Consciousness".

I suggest you read a bit from those authors before you discuss my attitude problem.

[watcher]

Well let's conduct an experiment to test how erroneous that assumtion is.

 

Let's remove the matter which is your brain from your head and see how well your mind works.

 

Or how about this? Let's leave your brain intact and remove your entire nervous system, completely eliminating all sensory input to your brain, and then see how well your mind works.

 

That which you call the "mind" is the culmination of sensory input or information that is transmitted electrochemically through the nervous system and processed, organized, stored as memory, recalled, recognized, categorized, sequenced, etc. by organic brain cells generating a mental construct of thought patterns. This ability is limited by brain size and complexity among animal species, and has evolved over time primarily as a survival mechanism.

 

all you got to show for this theory is that brain activities of certain wave pattern CORELLATES with cetain states of consciousness. again, you assume to much into it.

 

The mind cannot exist without a brain. Therefore, the mind must be a product of the evolution of the brain stem and nervous system.

 

no, it does not necessarily follows.

to illustrate what i meant. when you close the window, you shut off the light from outside, and the room becomes dark. but you do not say ah, the light cannot exist without a window. therefore the light is a product of the window.

 

so switching off of the brain, has two scenarios...

 

1. the mind is a product of the brain that emerges FROM it

2. the mind is its own phenomena that emerges THROUGH the brain.

 

i favor the latter because the former is an idea that a mindless universe cosntituting of mindless matter mindlessly evolved to creat a mindless complex brain structure and then .... POOF!!! the mind appears. imho, its a mindless proposition.

 

 

Simply stated, there is plenty of evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain.

There is no evidence that consciousness exists independent of the brain.

 

the evidence you are talking about therefore is not conclusive, you only interpreted the evidence to mean what you wanted to believed.

 

it is more simple to say that intelligence is innate to matter.

[watcher]

watcher,

I would watch what you say.

 

Accusing me of saying what I did not say, meaning things that I did not mean, and insulting my intelligence is not good debating style.

 

On some websites, that kind of sophomoric rhetorical nonsense could get you banned.

sorry if i have offended you. what i meant was that there was certain ideas you are hostile with because it contradicts some of your beliefs.

it is also very clear to me that these beliefs are confused with facts.

 

and labeling my ideas as sophomoric rhetorical nonsense is not exactly polite either. and i misrepresentation.

 

Have you read Daniel Dennett or Roger Penrose or Korzybski or Julian Jaynes on the nature and structure of the mind & consciousness?

I also recommend, "Cognitive Science: An Introduction to Mind and Brain" and "The Emerging Mind: New Discoveries in Consciousness".

I suggest you read a bit from those authors before you discuss my attitude problem.

 

again there is nothing there to prove that mind is a by product of the brain, the mechanism for how consciosuness arise from the brain is not necessarily meant consciousness is a by product of the brain. its just an interpretation.

 

.

[Turtle]

sorry if i have offended you. what i meant was that there was certain ideas you are hostile with because it contradicts some of your beliefs.

it is also very clear to me that these beliefs are confused with facts.

 

i don't think you are sorry at all. reading your signature:

At every crossroad on the way that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past." - Count Maeterlinck

, i'd say you consider yourself the progressive spirit, and pyro et al the guards. so, you are on the offensive. you accuse only by which you justify. :)

 

 

..again there is nothing there to prove that mind is a by product of the brain, the mechanism for how consciosuness arise from the brain is not necessarily meant consciousness is a by product of the brain. its just an interpretation.

 

first you hide behind philosophy because it doesn't necessarily require proof, then you accuse it because it has none. yeah; that's good.

 

i fear we have drifted, but hey it's anything goes i'm told (good grief! :shrug:), so go with the flow. pyro is not especially fond of doug hoftadter's views on mind i sense, but i have a more favorable opinion even if i don't always agree with him. to that point, and what is & is not provable about mind, i recommend his latest work, I Am A Strange Loop. it is, metaphorically speaking, logic like a #4 bear trap covered in velvet. :thumbs_up

 

A New Journey into Hofstadter's Mind: Scientific American

[watcher]

i don't think you are sorry at all. reading your signature: , i'd say you consider yourself the progressive spirit, and pyro et al the guards. so, you are on the offensive. you accuse only by which you justify. :naughty:

 

first you hide behind philosophy because it doesn't necessarily require proof, then you accuse it because it has none. yeah; that's good. :doh:

 

or maybe i'm just trying to make people have the sense to distinguish what are facts and what are beliefs.

 

i fear we have drifted, but hey it's anything goes i'm told (good grief! :doh:), so go with the flow. pyro is not especially fond of doug hoftadter's views on mind i sense, but i have a more favorable opinion even if i don't always agree with him. to that point, and what is & is not provable about mind, i recommend his latest work, I Am A Strange Loop. it is, metaphorically speaking, logic like a #4 bear trap covered in velvet. :eek2: :singer:

 

A New Journey into Hofstadter's Mind: Scientific American

 

it's better if you guys instead of making suggestions what to read ... just present here what are the gists of the books you recommended. i hate making discussions with links and book referrals. if you have read it and understood, there should be no problems presenting it here.

 

also instead of making abstract comments, be specific.

.

[Turtle]

or maybe i'm just trying to make people have the sense to distinguish what are facts and what are beliefs.

 

so you say. :singer:

 

 

 

it's better if you guys instead of making suggestions what to read ... just present here what are the gists of the books you recommended. i hate making discussions with links and book referrals. if you have read it and understood, there should be no problems presenting it here.

 

also instead of making abstract comments, be specific.

.

 

well, there is a small matter of copyright. i have not yet received permission from doug to quote from the book extensively. :eek2: (yes; i wrote him & asked.) now because his chains of logic exceed the length of allowable quotage here at hypog, i'm between the hammer & the anvil. you should be familiar with that position i gather. :naughty: i refer you then to this thread, where i have discussed the work: >> http://hypography.com/forums/philosophers-weightroom/21123-i-think-therefore-i-am.html

 

ps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_A_Strange_Loop

[watcher]

well, there is a small matter of copyright. i have not yet received permission from doug to quote from the book extensively. :singer: (yes; i wrote him & asked.) now because his chains of logic exceed the length of allowable quotage here at hypog, i'm between the hammer & the anvil. you should be familiar with that position i gather. :naughty: i refer you then to this thread, where i have discussed the work: >> http://hypography.com/forums/philosophers-weightroom/21123-i-think-therefore-i-am.html

 

ps I Am a Strange Loop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

you expect me to read thorough those 6 pages or so just to understand your view? you gotta be kidding me.

 

why don't you just answer the op's intended question here. do you think mind was, is, will be involved in physical biological evolutionary processes or not.?

[Turtle]

you expect me to read thorough those 6 pages or so just to understand your view? you gotta be kidding me.

 

why don't you just answer the op's intended question here. do you think mind was, is, will be involved in physical biological evolutionary processes or not.?

 

yes i expect you to; no, i am not kidding; yes, i did answer; yet again then yes, i think mind was, is, and will be, involved in physical biological evolutionary processes. now if you truly have an interest in hofstadter's impecable logic on the matter, then you would stop whining, suck it up, & buy the book. otherwise, you have no grounds to criticize it. :naughty: lead, follow, or get out of the way. . . . . . :singer:

[watcher]

yes i expect you to; no, i am not kidding; yes, i did answer; yet again then yes, i think mind was, is, and will be, involved in physical biological evolutionary processes.

 

thank you. i agree with you.

 

now if you truly have an interest in hofstadter's impecable logic on the matter, then you would stop whining, suck it up, & buy the book. otherwise, you have no grounds to criticize it. :naughty: lead, follow, or get out of the way. . . . . . :singer:

 

can you show in my post where i have criticized his work? all i'm asking you is to make a brief commentary of his work here. instead of directing me to other threads.

 

get out of the way

 

so this is your thread now. and if i refuse to be interested on your pet works, it will forced upon me or leave? you're unbelievably high tempered for a turtle. LOL

 

.

[Turtle]

thank you. i agree with you.

acknowledged

 

can you show in my post where i have criticized his work? all i'm asking you is to make a brief commentary of his work here. instead of directing me to other threads.

 

now there you go again. :eek2: let me illume the room as it were. :singer: let's look at a founding statement of this place.

Hypography [n.]: A combination of "hyperlink" and "bibliography" - ie, a list of links to electronic documents. Comparable to discography and bibliography, but not cartography.

 

We have been online since May 2000, and aim to be the best place to find and share science-related content of all kinds.

 

implicit in the guideline of supplying [hyper]links, is that readers read them and evaluate them in the context they were given. then, the readers, dear & tender they, may choose, or not, to reply with some counter, or affirmation, or addition, from, and per se of, the material in the given link. rinse & repeat bros & brosettes. dismissing/ignoring a proffered link for whatever reason and then carrying on the conversation as if what it had was of no consequence is not acceptable.

 

 

so this is your thread now. and if i refuse to be interested on your pet works, it will forced upon me or leave? you're unbelievably high tempered for a turtle. LOL

 

.

 

i'm just another been-here-a-while member puttin' in my 2¢. the phrase i gave is a well-worn proverb given for literary effect. here's a new one, but similar. "don't get close to me & i can't bite you" :doh: so, i know you are longish in the member tooth as well here 'cause i been watchin' u watcher. :doh: i have noticed a dearth of hyperlinks in any of your posts.

 

now back to paige's op & why i got unbelievably high-tempered with him about evolution as a mental concept. he's been here a long time too & since i lurk on the who's-online page (:hyper:) to see what folk are up to, i know he was reading a broohaha going on elsewhere on evolution. when that wasn't going well for the anti-science/pro "metaphysical" crowd, paige magically pops up with this "new" thread on the topic. well it's a crock & a dodge in my opinion; an attemp to rephrase/disguise/lipstick-the-pig the same argument & carry on with the babble & blather. oh and gee...look whohaha followed from the broohaha. imagine that. talk about unbelievable. :doh:

 

as i said to you before, you seem to think if you call a statement or position "philosophy", that whatever speculation you spout out is just as good as the "philosophy" of science. in logic, we call this a non sequitar and we don't need to refer to doug for that one. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic )

 

:naughty:

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

[Turtle]

:doh: :eek2:

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

 

let me get explicit about the above quote, as it is related to the mental concept of evolution, or not evolution, as the case may be.

 

circle here round from the 4 corners & listen to my tale. :hyper: :naughty:

 

...The Sky Woman gave birth to twin sons. She named one Sapling. He grew to be kind and gentle. She named the other Flint and his heart was as cold as his name. They grew quickly and began filling the earth with their creations.

 

Sapling created what is good. He made animals that are useful to humans. He made rivers that went two ways and into these he put fish without bones. He made plants that people could eat easily. If he was able to do all the work himself there would be no suffering.

 

Flint destroyed much of Sapling's work and created all that is bad. He made the rivers flow only in one direction. He put bones in fish and thorns on berry bushes. He created winter, but Sapling gave it life so that it could move to give way to Spring. He created monsters which his brother drove beneath the Earth.

 

Eventually Sapling and Flint decided to fight till one conquered the other. Neither was able to win at first, but finally Flint was beaten. Because he was a god Flint could not die, so he was forced to live on Big Turtle's back. ...

Creation Myths -- Iroquois Creation Myth

 

[megalomaniacal-hyperbolic-literary-philososophicalness] I am that Big Turtle & I am Lo Shu & I am Ak Pauahtun & I am Nanusunsap & more. this is my world to support and if you misbehave i will pull off your arms & eat them in front of you. . . . :doh: [/megalomaniacal-hyperbolic-literary-philososophicalness]

 

feelin' lucky? :singer:

[JMJones0424]

:singer: :naughty:

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

 

I think of Carl Sagan in Cosmos every time you post that smiley. It's turtles all the way down.

 

Philosophical ponderings can be fun sometimes if you don't constrain yourself with facts.

[Pyrotex]

Watcher,

you have now had multiple warnings.

There are people in this world who don't REALLY want to learn.

They want to pester and bother the ones who DO REALLY want to learn.

These pestiferous ankle-biters have a set of tactics they use online to accomplish this.

As Turtle has pointed out, YOU have been using all those tactics.

So, it would appear you have been outed.

Your feigned interest in the nature of the Mind is just a pretense.

Your indignant refusal to make use of the resources we provide reveals your trollish agenda.

The ball is in your court, mister Troll.

Straighten up and fly right -- or ... en guarde.