Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2018 - 10:52pm PT
|
if mind is a behavior, which is certainly a viable explanation, then both the physicality and the "time inference" regarding "mind" are consistent with the explanation.
Science 06 Apr 2018:
Vol. 360, Issue 6384, pp. 90-94
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/90
Long-distance stone transport and pigment use in the earliest Middle Stone Age
Alison S. Brooks, John E. Yellen, Richard Potts, Anna K. Behrensmeyer, Alan L. Deino, David E. Leslie, Stanley H. Ambrose, Jeffrey R. Ferguson, Francesco d’Errico, Andrew M. Zipkin, Scott Whittaker, Jeffrey Post, Elizabeth G. Veatch, Kimberly Foecke, Jennifer B. Clark
Abstract
Previous research suggests that the complex symbolic, technological, and socioeconomic behaviors that typify Homo sapiens had roots in the middle Pleistocene [less than] 200,000 years ago, but data bearing on human behavioral origins are limited. We present a series of excavated Middle Stone Age sites from the Olorgesailie basin, southern Kenya, dating from ≥295,000 to ~320,000 years ago by argon-40/argon-39 and uranium-series methods. Hominins at these sites made prepared cores and points, exploited iron-rich rocks to obtain red pigment, and procured stone tool materials from ≥25- to 50-kilometer distances. Associated fauna suggests a broad resource strategy that included large and small prey. These practices imply notable changes in how individuals and groups related to the landscape and to one another and provide documentation relevant to human social and cognitive evolution.
|
|
larryhorton
Trad climber
NM
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 04:10am PT
|
Coupla weeks ago I got the flash to drop by ‘What is Mind?’, knowing pretty much what I’d find a year after my first visit.
Still, I wasn’t prepared for what caught my eye. There was... an unnamed participant, who had just written:
“You might be happier taking that position at an ashram in India.”
Aren’t we precious? I’m not an advocate of ashrams, and there’s no longer any advantage in traveling to India to find truth, but the extraordinary arrogance almost made me physically ill. There’s only one ‘position’ here, and its momentary triumph evaporates the instant it escapes our lips. Only the mind/ego ‘takes a position’. And in doing so it is implicitly incorrect, regardless of the position taken.
As the initiated soul eventually approaches the level of realization, intellect, karma, and all the attributes of the mind serve less and less purpose. Why? Because, first cause, and the soul attributes of knowing, seeing, and being make them all laughably obsolete, and once realization occurs, karma, mind, intellect are simply gone. Soul stands now in its naked, unencumbered glory in a rarified atmosphere where mind cannot exist.
If someone here truly desired to know the reality of mind, they might be very keen on those attributes. But that’s not the case, is it?
After seven years and 20,000 posts, this thread shows not an iota of accomplishment in mind’s understanding of itself, nor any admission of its own status. If one reads the first page, then skips to the last, nothing’s missed. Mostly what exists between are arrogant, self masturbatory, male proclamations of opinion, likes and dislikes, crowned with suffocating layers of ego.
The hilarious irony that regarding oneself as a shining example of elevated and cutting-edge thinking is entirely lost. Cutting-edge thinking is the epitome of oxymoron.
Seven years from now, that description will still retain its accuracy, and although many of us will have left this plane of action for different destinations, these ‘conversations’ will still be identical, regardless where they’re taking place.
It might have been more appropriate to explore ‘What is Ego?’, mind’s inseparable master. But since mind/ego is the participator, the results would be no different. It’s actually perfect just the way it is, isn’t it? The mechanical imposter, hopelessly glued to the circular, dual tracks of its own roller coaster, plunging endlessly up and down the precipitous heights and depths of vaguely familiar byways. The mill of God grinds slowly, but exceedingly finely, and the eventual crucifixion of mind, ego, and personality inevitably looms in some future now.
Thankfully.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 07:00am PT
|
Thanks to larryhorton. All perspectives have value but they take us down different paths.
|
|
larryhorton
Trad climber
NM
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 08:58am PT
|
Absolutely, Andy. We're loved that much that we get to do it our own way, in our own time. How boring it would be, otherwise. That doesn't negate taking all the same steps and ultimately ending up in the same place—in three lifetimes or three thousand yugas.
|
|
larryhorton
Trad climber
NM
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 09:11am PT
|
Yep, Dingus, it's a 24/7 job, isn't it? If the ears to hear aren't there, I apologize. And for the vast majority, they won't be. But there really isn't much in the post that's about me. It's about mind/ego's brutality toward soul—and its outrage at someone exposing it.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 26, 2018 - 09:30am PT
|
if mind is a behavior, which is certainly a viable explanation, then both the physicality and the "time inference" regarding "mind" are consistent with the explanation.
----
That's old style behavioralism, Ed.
bəˈhāvyər/
noun
1. conduct, deportment, bearing, actions, doings; the way in which an animal or person acts in response to a particular situation or stimulus.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 09:51am PT
|
Exactly. And behavior basically defines life - no behavior, no life. And every living organism exhibits behaviors in line with its inherent capabilities on a spectrum from simple to complex. And at some point, both evolutionarily and in extant species, consciousness emerges on the spectrum of life and is itself represented by a scale of graduated complexity. Following that spectrum of consciousness complexity up to humans and it should be obvious mind is nothing more than advanced behavior in line with our developed capabilities (brain) as a species.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 10:58am PT
|
larryhorton,
You might be taking this thread too seriously. Rather than throwing rocks at each other, it’s just words. Now and then one can find a well-turned phrase, an interesting personal story, or something aesthetically pleasing that might bring a smile to one’s face (even if the "thing" is absurdly ludicrous). More to it, “cutting-edge thinking” may be itself arrogant, self masturbatory, crowned by brains sitting high in rarified atmospheres (about 5-6 feet up).
As you say, thousands of yugas. (You in a hurry or something?)
Healyje: . . . behavior basically defines life.
Then everything is alive. (I think you’ll have to add in something like awareness into the equation.)
And BTW, how is it that you know what “inherent capabilities” are? Behaviors in a rearview mirror?
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 11:08am PT
|
The Mind thread
Intellectual disco... Also intermittent reinforcement in action...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 11:58am PT
|
Then everything is alive.
How so? Last I checked rocks exhibit no behavior.
And BTW, how is it that you know what “inherent capabilities” are?
From viruses on up, observing behaviors isn't exactly a challenge and what they exhibit are "interent" to the physical capabilities of the organism.
Behaviors in a rearview mirror?
Not at all.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 26, 2018 - 12:25pm PT
|
Behaviors in a rearview mirror?
Not at all.
-
What do you think Mike meant by this, Healje?
Trying to "explain" consciousness strictly by what a person does avoids having to describe, in scientific terms (quantifications), what consciousness is. This is not an issue or a challenge in terms of strictly physical objects or phenomenon because there is never anything beyond physical processes per rocks, planets, event horizons, and tectonic plates. Consciousness is another matter, it is the extra for which science has never been called on to explain or describe. Problem is, our best descriptions only land us at the doorstep of consciousness. As has been noted many times, emergence is not an explanation.
It's worth noting that consciousness as an output (behaviors in this case) is a strategy that spelled the end of behavioralism and birthed the cognitive science movement, and other avenues of thought.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 12:59pm PT
|
You wouldn't be that Larry Horton -- smartest guy in the world Larry Horton, would you?
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 01:02pm PT
|
For me, behaviors seem somewhat distinct from consciousness. I can predict the behavior of a fluid particle in a mathematically described flow. How does this connect with consciousness in that flow?
But my thinking here is probably shallow. As might be the flow.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 01:03pm PT
|
It's worth noting that consciousness as an output (behaviors in this case) is a strategy that spelled the end of behavioralism and birthed the cognitive science movement, and other avenues of thought.
I've never said consciousness was an 'output' but rather all living things exhibit behaviours and if you crawl up the spectrum of simple-to-complex behaviors then at some point - both evolutionarily and in extant species - consciousness emerges and can be evaluated on its own scale of complexity. I've said that both behavior and consciousness are rooted in, dependent upon, and scale up with physical complexity.
Consciousness isn't an output, it's an exhibited behavior and it's not exhibited by any organism without a brain. That correlation by itself throws shade on panpsychic notions and the fact we can't easily define consciousness or currently say exactly how brains manifest consciousness doesn't in any way diminish the obvious implications of the correlation.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 03:29pm PT
|
Another ignorant and clueless statement by the gross materialist.
healyjie -- "... consciousness... its not exhibited by any organism without a brain."
Every living entity has consciousness.
All plant life has consciousness.
Even a single celled ameba and a single blade of grass have consciousness.
Consciousness is the very exact evidence of life itself.
Without consciousness there would be zero life period.
Consciousness does NOT need a material brain to manefest itself.
Consciousness is NOT material to begin with and has existed before the whole cosmic material manefestation ......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 26, 2018 - 03:49pm PT
|
consciousness emerges and can be evaluated on its own scale of complexity. I've said that both behavior and consciousness are rooted in, dependent upon, and scale up with physical complexity.
Consciousness isn't an output, it's an exhibited behavior and it's not exhibited by any organism without a brain. That correlation by itself throws shade on panpsychic notions and the fact we can't easily define consciousness or currently say exactly how brains manifest consciousness doesn't in any way diminish the obvious implications of the correlation.
These are valid points, but there are issues.
Emergence is not science.
The complexity argument, presented here, is problematic. There is no known case of the many complex phenomenon in Nature ever "creating" anything remotely like consciousness, so there's no precedent there that complexity alone births consciousness, or is even "correlated" to it.
If you were say that brains are correlated to "intelligence," or to the content of which we are conscious, then you'd be closer to something that was logically coherent, IMO. Consciousness itself is phenomenological - it's not observable physical movement (behavior).
http://eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/dornhaus/courses/materials/papers/Moody%20essay.pdf
Though a little dated, this article sums up the problems with complexity/correlation speculations.
In my view everything is correlated to everything else. Nothing stands alone, with some independent existence separate from any thing else.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 04:27pm PT
|
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 05:58pm PT
|
The complexity argument, presented here, is problematic. There is no known case of the many complex phenomenon in Nature ever "creating" anything remotely like consciousness, so there's no precedent there that complexity alone births consciousness, or is even "correlated" to it.
I beg to disagree. If you crawl up the scale of behavioral [and neural] complexity you see nature "creating" ever more complex behaviors right on up to where species exhibit and manifest rudimentary consciousness and beyond. It's no different than the evolution of the human eyeball - its evolution across time and species is traceable.
If you were say that brains are correlated to "intelligence," or to the content of which we are conscious, then you'd be closer to something that was logically coherent, IMO. Consciousness itself is phenomenological - it's not observable physical movement (behavior).
It's definitely not about content or physical movement any more than vision is, but awareness and consciousness are definitely observable.
In my view everything is correlated to everything else. Nothing stands alone, with some independent existence separate from any thing else.
I do get the correlation-does-not-imply-causation argument and might lend it more credence in this case if it weren't for the better than seven sigma correlation between brains and consciousness.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 07:07pm PT
|
Healyje: How so? Last I checked rocks exhibit no behavior.
I suppose you’re using the yearly, decade, or millennium scale?
All things change; there is nothing that doesn’t. Change--if anything--is movement.
What is the cause?? What’s moving??
Again: I do get the correlation-does-not-imply-causation argument and might lend it more credence in this case if it weren't for the better than seven sigma correlation between brains and consciousness.
You don’t have that data. You’re making this declaration up. Can you imagine the research design and implementations needed to be able to even begin to make that claim? As my teachers and colleagues in the doctoral program at UIUC would say: “show me the data.”
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2018 - 09:42pm PT
|
There is no known case of the many complex phenomenon in Nature ever "creating" anything remotely like consciousness, so there's no precedent there that complexity alone births consciousness, or is even "correlated" to it.
huh? the existence of consciousness in nature is what we're talking about... we have a least one example, on Earth, of it happening, and probably as a spectrum across many species over time.
Nature "created" something that is exactly "consciousness."
MikeL is using the request for "data" in exactly the wrong way, probably not even wrong.
The data that we have is consistent with the evolutionary picture of biology that is the center piece of our understanding of biology.
I ask MikeL to show data that contradicts evolution.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!