Evolution as mental concept

[HydrogenBond]

When you order seeds and plants from a seed catalog, for the summer garden, attached to each are their growing zone(s). This is the climate for which the plant's DNA is optimized. Plants from Florida in zone 10 can still grow in zone 5, but only during summer. Their genetics in zone 10 are designed around yearly warmth. The cause is the climate, and the effect is a range of genetic commonality for all plants in that zone. One can find thousands of plants in any zone with this one commonality, implying a cause and effect. The zone is the cause and the effect is all plants do this.

 

Within any given growing zone, climate is less of a major variable, since all the plants have DNA optimized for the same zone. This does mean cause and effects stops there, just one has to look deeper to define variables, where at least some part of the DNA has drifted for different optimizations. If there are mountains and valleys in that zone, one can see the transitions between flora and fauna as well as light and shade loving plants. To me, I would also be tempted to attribute this to cause and effect. We could move the plants around to see if it makes a difference.

 

As we get even smaller in terms of area, there are fewer strong variables, that are common as life defining goals. Lateral change in the DNA is more obvious, but is nevertheless restricted to do this in ways that does no void out environmental optimization to the strong variables, like the climate zones. One will not see plants in the tropics suddenly becoming hardy for northern Canada, losing their heat tolerance. But you might see a new color, or a new leaf shape.

 

Most people can project some type of benefit to the properties of many plant in nature. A plant may develop a toxin to protect it from bugs. Whether the need to protect itself from bugs was a goal, like climate, it is not always easy to tell. The other way, is was random with the toxin eventually able to drives away a bug that might bother it in the future. But at the level of large variables cause and effect is clearer to see since it is not one plant with one toxin; thousands of species with the same strong variable feature.

 

Many trees in northern climates lose their leaves in the fall. There are two ways to look at this. Either all such trees evolved from a single tree that lost leaves in the fall. Or many of the species evolved this, independently, for practical reasons; a strong variable.

 

When I lived in northern florida they had what they called live oaks. Normally oak tree in the north loose their leaves, these only lost half of their leaves. I assume the zone change resulted in this partial adaptation toward tropic always green. Sometimes tracing something common to many, as stemming from one genetic source, may not always take into account the strong variables. The strong variables sets the standard for all to achieve, with sometimes the same things the best way for all to go. Like trees losing leaves works for many.

[Turtle]

[JMJones0424]

Just some off topic clarifications from HB's last post-

 

1) USDA hardiness zones are used as a reference for cold-hardiness, not actually climatic zones. There are of course many different factors involved other than just cold-hardiness in plant suitability for a local climate.

 

2) Live oak is a colloquial name for many evergreen species of the genus Quercus. They do in fact lose their leaves, but they drop at early spring, when the next years growth begins to bud out, rather then in late fall when the deciduous species in Quercus drop their leaves.

 

3) Microclimates can create huge differences between geologically close locations.

 

I will refrain from commenting on the general evolutionary statements and defer to someone that is more qualified to comment.

[freeztar]

HB, what you describe above is called Adaptation. You make some mistakes, but this is not the thread for talking about this. This thread is about evolution as a mental concept. Please stay on topic!

[watcher]

Watcher,

you have now had multiple warnings.

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

 

and equally important imho, people who doesn't want to unlearn.

 

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.

 

what tactics?. that my philosophical positions are non sequential. it's a matter of opinion.

but perhaps i have underestimated you guys for your passion to learn.

and for my casual approach in my participation here. i do read a lot of links that pertains to the subject i'm interested in my own time. although i prefer to speak of it in my own words. i wanted my posts to be brief and concise as possible.

 

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.

 

to be specific your referral to penrose and turtles strange loop. i am familiar. my question is do they conclusively answer the nature of the mind and consciousness?

 

 

Roger Penrose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Penrose has written controversial books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness

 

so given the present knowledge of physics, it is correct to say with finality that the nature of the mind and consciousness is a by product of the brain or physical systems? it is a pretense to cast doubt to this belief and to be agnostic about it?

 

stuart hammeroff pursues roger penrose ideas of consciousness and he came out with a quantum model of consciousness ...

 

Quantum Consciousness . Stuart Hameroff

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR

 

Orch OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) is a theory of consciousness, which is the joint work of theoretical physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Mainstream theories assume that consciousness emerges from the brain, and focus particularly on complex computation at connections known as synapses that allow communication between brain cells (neurons). Orch OR combines approaches to the problem of consciousness from the radically different angles of mathematics, physics and anesthesia.

 

Penrose and Hameroff initially developed their ideas quite separately from one another, and it was only in the 1990s that they cooperated to produce the Orch OR theory. Penrose came to the problem from the view point of mathematics and in particular Gödel’s theorem, while Hameroff approached it from a career in cancer research and anesthesia that gave him an interest in brain structures.

 

have you come across with these?

 

turtle's on hofstafter -

 

Douglas Hofstadter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Hofstadter's thesis about consciousness, first expressed in GEB but also present in several of his later books, is that it is an emergent consequence of seething lower-level activity in the brain. In GEB he draws an analogy between the social organization of a colony of ants and the mind seen as a coherent "colony" of neurons. In particular, Hofstadter claims that our sense of having (or being) an "I" comes from the abstract pattern he terms a "strange loop", which is an abstract cousin of such concrete phenomena as audio and video feedback, and which Hofstadter has defined as "a level-crossing feedback loop". The prototypical example of this abstract notion is the self-referential structure at the core of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Hofstadter's 2007 book I Am a Strange Loop carries his vision of consciousness considerably further, including the idea that each human "I" is distributed over numerous brains, rather than being limited to precisely one brain.

 

so the mind is a self referential system. as modeled with godel's theorem whereas logical systems like mathematics are also self referential with unprovable axioms.

 

but what are not self referential? relativity is self-referential. everything is related to an arbitrary frame or point of reference. you cannot define energy with referencing to matter and time and space and vice versa.

 

simplifying the definition of the mind as a conglomeration of thoughts, the basic constitution of the mind is a unit if a single thought. a thought has an associated wave with it a seen in eeg instruments. now, barring the problem of consciousness to simplify the discussion

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

and deducing mind into waves/signal activities, we can conclude as pyrotex did that mind is nothing but electromagneic field. the question is what is not? are not emf field holds sway to states of matter as well?

 

ps. please don't bother to reply if all you guys can do is say i am wrong because i need to read this and that. if this is your idea of an intelligent qualitative discussion, i am not interested.

[Turtle]

...but what are not self referential? relativity is self-referential. everything is related to an arbitrary frame or point of reference. you cannot define energy with referencing to matter and time and space and vice versa.

 

simplifying the definition of the mind as a conglomeration of thoughts, the basic constitution of the mind is a unit if a single thought. a thought has an associated wave with it a seen in eeg instruments. now, barring the problem of consciousness to simplify the discussion

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

and deducing mind into waves/signal activities, we can conclude as pyrotex did that mind is nothing but electromagneic field. the question is what is not? are not emf field holds sway to states of matter as well?

 

ps. please don't bother to reply if all you guys can do is say i am wrong because i need to read this and that. if this is your idea of an intelligent qualitative discussion, i am not interested.

 

so; you can write & source like we like & do!? was that so hard? good grief. :cheer:

 

so you do I Am a Strange Loop, & yourself, disservice by reading only a review of it rather than IT. i didn't want to make that mistake, as outlined in the I Think Therefore I Am thread i linked for you, so i went out & bought IT. but gee; that info is all in that thread, but you don't want to read it. :rolleyes: and again, i can only quote limited portions of IT because of our rules and IT isn't available online & if you want to really know (or is that, really want to know? :phones:) how hofstadter explains why you "are wrong" and are a strange loop then you have to go find out from the ol' horses mouth.

 

nonetheless, i'll try & give my impression of what he says as to why there is a difference between "states of matter" and "states of mind" using brief quotes. you gotta understand this is a 400 page book and one argument. capiche?

 

ok. you get one sentence. page 95:Chapter 7:Where the Buck Seems to Stop

 

...The thesis of this book is that in a non-embryonic, non-infantile human brain, there is a special type of abstract strucutre or pattern ....that gives rise to what feels like a self.

 

tot ziens.

[watcher]

o; you can write & source like we like & do!? was that so hard? good grief

 

as i have admitted, i have underestimated how you take these things seriously.

 

i can' fine an ionline books on it, but if you think that by reading the thread , i think therfeor ... i might have an understanding of it, i'll give it a visit.

 

but i am a bit confused that if i agree with you, and also with godels and penrose, how come you are disagreeing with me?

 

Originally Posted by Doug Hofstadter: I Am A Strange Loop

...The thesis of this book is that in a non-embryonic, non-infantile human brain, there is a special type of abstract strucutre or pattern ....that gives rise to what feels like a self.

 

but the problem with describing something as "ABSTRACT" is as meaningless to say that it is the spirit or elan vital that animates matter or gives rise to consciousness and subjectivity.

[Turtle]

but the problem with describing something as "ABSTRACT" is as meaningless to say that it is the spirit or elan vital that animates matter or gives rise to consciousness and subjectivity.

 

dude. go get the book & read it! the WHOLE THING is ONE argument, doug's argument, which is to say the explanation & counter to your problems. keeping up like this is what's gonna get you in trouble here. make that, more trouble.

 

tot ziens.

[watcher]

i'll find the book, but for the meantime, if i am to agree that these gives rise to mind .... what is this special type of abstract pattern of structure?

[watcher]

dude. go get the book & read it! the WHOLE THING is ONE argument, doug's argument, which is to say the explanation & counter to your problems. keeping up like this is what's gonna get you in trouble here. make that, more trouble.

 

tot ziens.

i will be in trouble here because you are abusing the rules of these forum to bully me. it's a misdirection, because you yourself cannot address my point. and as usual you provided no rebuttal but to say that i am wrong because i have read this book, what stopping me from saying that your book was wrong because i have read a book that says its wrong?

 

discussing with you further will not be profitable becasue will only end up ... nenner nanner, you started it first, you too and my dad can beat your dad.

 

.

[watcher]

i'll find the book, but for the meantime, if i am to agree that these gives rise to mind .... what is this special type of abstract pattern of structure?

 

i think i got it!

 

what is the mind? - a special kind of abstract patter or structure.

 

what is a special kind of abstract patter ? - it's called the mind.

 

STRANGE LOOP !!!!!

[paigetheoracle]

are you saying that biological evolution (at least to humans) is not alone a physical process but also influence by the mind? if so, i agree.

 

biological evolution is all about slight changes in dna. we called this mutations. we called this random because of the unpredictability of its occurrences and not because their happening is not without cause. it is ridiculous to think that something in nature would occur without a cause. relativity was already here to tell us that everything is interconnected.

 

there are indications that our feelings, thoughts and emotions make an imprints in our dna make up. if so, the mind may also be considered as a factor for those slight changes in dna and a factor for the future evolution of humans. the process of evolution itself may also "evolved" in a new way as we learn more to control our mind thus gaining "some" control to the make up of our dna. this is partly possible due to the ability of the human mind to self -reflect.

 

and yes this is radical stuff. not main stream science.

 

.

 

Yes I am saying this and it is radical. Bruce Lipton in his work has also noted that the mind changes the body or more specifically genes. Yes, yes again to self reflection! This I call The Artist Effect or stepping forward to act and stepping back to observe what has been done, in order to alter what has been done further or leave it alone as perfect as it is/ for what it is meant to be. This is where psychology meets biology and why not, we are thinking beings after all? (Think/act/ think/ act etc).

[paigetheoracle]

if we're talking about the interconnection of all things, perhaps it does.

 

now what's left is to bridge the gap between mind and matter, that the two are also connected. even philosophically, to overcome 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.

 

.

 

The way I look at it mind is what organizes matter - the more connections it makes, the more complex the forms and concepts (theories that guide its next actions) it creates. I have never seen matter organize matter because the inanimate has no power to move in thought or action: What transforms matter to energy? Science would say chemical reactions but then the question arises what kick starts these? Nature is different but you'll never see chemicals magically jump into a test tube, to create an effect. Consciousness drives man to act but unconsciousness is the question 'What will happen if..?'

[paigetheoracle]

The topic is evolution as a mental concept. One way to address this in a productive way is to consider creationism as a mental concept.

 

In its day, the creation symbolism served the same purpose as evolution serves in our time. Creationism was an ancient theory to explain how reality formed/evolved using a conceptual model that was blend of what we could loosely describe as early cosmology, early biology, and early psychology, all integrated into one model.

 

Their image of evolution attempted to connect a wider range of knowledge/science than just biological evolution. It goes from cosmology in sort of a big bang; let there be light or energy (physics). It then forms the heavens or planets (physical chemistry) then adds life. (bio-chemistry and biology). It also attempted to interface humans and human nature (psychology), instead of keeping evolution segregated to only biology. It was far more ambitious, even if it does not satisfy the requirements of the scientific method. Creationism was more like an attempt at the grand unified theory of reality. Modern evolution is analogous to one of the forces, within the grand unified theory of reality, but does not adequately integrate beyond that.

 

Whether it is possible for biological evolution to extend backwards and interface the momentum of the physical chemistry of the earth, and/or forward into the progressing psychology of human nature, is for the future to decide.

 

Speaking historically this is true. Everybody wants to make sense of where they are and what they are doing here. If you look at the way life has evolved, then theory of mind reflects this as a non-physical groping in the dark for sustenance/ understanding.

The way other posters here should look at this is not as an attack upon their beliefs but as historical attempts of the giants shoulders we are standing on, to make sense of the world.

 

The only crime is the belief in heresy or the egotistical 'I'm right/ you're wrong' attitude, rather than the more progressive one that allows freedom of movement, mental or physical, which says 'You have the right to believe what you believe, just as I do' (You're views are 'different' from mine, that is all). What we should be doing here, in my opinion, is trying to understand each other's viewpoints, not agree with them, exactly. To further clarify with an analogy - if you're building a house and have built houses all your life, then the opinion of others may be old hat or impractical but you know psychologically that if you spend all day arguing with somebody, how to do something; the house simply won't get built.

[JMJones0424]

The worst kind of quack is one that hides his quackery in the cloak of science. I googled Bruce Lipton and immediately saw a few red flags. I have neither the time nor the effort to devote to debunking this charlatan, however I would very much appreciate it if someone else did. In that interest, let me offer the man's own words:

 

 

Bruce Lipton - The New Biology - Where Mind and Matter Meet 1of 2.avi

 

9:07 "...It is not a Darwinian process that got us here, it is more of a Lamarckian process."

9:40 "Your genes adapt to your beliefs"

 

And this is where I threw in the towel.

 

It appears to me that this guy saw the incredible value in selling pseudo-science to new-agers, and has managed to combine epigenetics with spirituality, ending up with expensive crap and a waste of wood pulp.

 

Individuals do not evolve, populations do over time. Epigenetics is not a change in an organism's DNA, it is a change in the expression of traits that are dictated by an organism's DNA. As an analogy, it is not the re-wiring of the house, but rather a flipping of the light-switches.

 

I am going to believe myself some breakfast now, but I'll cheat a little and fry the eggs myself.

[paigetheoracle]

The worst kind of quack is one that hides his quackery in the cloak of science. I googled Bruce Lipton and immediately saw a few red flags. I have neither the time nor the effort to devote to debunking this charlatan, however I would very much appreciate it if someone else did. In that interest, let me offer the man's own words:

 

 

Bruce Lipton - The New Biology - Where Mind and Matter Meet 1of 2.avi

 

9:07 "...It is not a Darwinian process that got us here, it is more of a Lamarckian process."

9:40 "Your genes adapt to your beliefs"

 

And this is where I threw in the towel.

 

It appears to me that this guy saw the incredible value in selling pseudo-science to new-agers, and has managed to combine epigenetics with spirituality, ending up with expensive crap and a waste of wood pulp.

 

A man's got to live in order to feed his Eggo!

 

Individuals do not evolve, populations do over time. Epigenetics is not a change in an organism's DNA, it is a change in the expression of traits that are dictated by an organism's DNA. As an analogy, it is not the re-wiring of the house, but rather a flipping of the light-switches.

 

I am going to believe myself some breakfast now, but I'll cheat a little and fry the eggs myself.

:lol:

 

I cannot disagree with this but any port in a storm:shrug: You throw your books at me, I throw mine at you and unfortunately they usually land in your eggs!

[paigetheoracle]

Moderator issue - answer please! Both Turtle and Pyrotex seem to imply that Hydrogen Bond is Pro-Creationism and anti-evolution theory; is there any evidence of this? I ask because I'm going by his posts here, not others he may have made, which seem like mine on this thread, in that they are putting forward another point of view that isn't necessarily anti-Darwinism but I accept I may be wrong.