Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2018 - 05:25pm PT
|
eeyonkee: It [mind] is independent of anybody's subjective experience.
Are you reading what you’re writing?
Duck: No [not smart],…. one needs to be intelligent [to understand].
It might be useful take a little time to talk about what it means to be intelligent. How would one see the results or outcomes of intelligence? Is intelligence coming up with answers, is it generating great questions, or is the core of intelligence the self-reflection that leads to questions?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2018 - 05:38pm PT
|
eeyonkee: It [mind] is independent of anybody's subjective experience.
Are you reading what you’re writing? MikeL, just for you. My mind is a particular instance of mind, as is yours. The fact that we have minds allows us to have subjective experiences. Your subjective experiences are undoubtedly different from mine. Those experiences were created by mind. Mind, itself is independent of your mind's experiences or my mind's experiences for the logical reason that it is at a higher hierarchical level. This is just logic (specifically, tree/hierarchy logic) and, coincidentally, the way that evolution works.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2018 - 06:54pm PT
|
Logic determines evolution? Or maybe logic is just a human version of peacock feathers.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2018 - 09:20pm PT
|
Logic determines evolution?
An organism dies before reproducing, or it doesn't.
Not a logical disjunction, but I bet logic can be worked into evolution, although the stronger statement about determining evolution would be tough to make a case for, given mutations caused by just-passing-by cosmic rays.
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2018 - 10:30pm PT
|
Don't forget about random mutations. Never remember hearing them described as such, but in part, maybe decay. Evolution, life really, is a pretty incredible thing, considering THE beginning.
Maybe Jgill can postulate a description. Seems we went from thinking that we are rare or unique, to a goldilocks theory of abundant life on other planets.
Finally, if I want to feel small, I consider some traditional culture's world views. How is it that there seem to be so many similarities? How could it be any other way?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mathematics-of-evolution-q-a-with-biologist-marcus-feldman/
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 01:28am PT
|
Interesting article and it makes a lot of sense that prior models would have been strict interpretations without taking into account either epigenetic (new) or environment/culture (disputed) considerations.
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 07:16am PT
|
Didn't read it all, but it is interesting. I would add that terms like cultural level, or measuring IQ across cultures can be a slippery slope.
Mind drift; In school, a primary question was why is there more species diversity in certain parts of the world? I've wondered if diversity and stability engender conditions that result in speciation.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 07:34am PT
|
eeyonkee,
I think you’re confusing yourself. How could mind be independent of a perception of mind? The issue has nothing to do with a theory of evolution (other than perhaps a mind’s conceptualization of the theory). Whether your or his mind is the same or different is irrelevant to the question of whether it takes a mind to generate the concept of a mind. (If you want to rally for logic, this would be the place.)
Again, let’s go back to the beginning. What Is Mind?
The question is not: how did mind emerge or show up? The question is not: does mind needs logic to exist? The question is not: are there are multiple minds (another briar patch)? Hierarchies is another red herring.
What could exist that could not be perceived?
As I’ve said above to you, it might be best (and least problematic) if you were to talk about the brain rather than the mind. At least with the brain, you have data, analyses, and a pretty firm consensus about what's being talked about.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 07:53am PT
|
healyje: Interesting article [Scientific American about culture as a contributor to evolution]
It’s surprising that one would think so.
What’s “an environment?” If one considers that an environment is the network social structures and concerns that one must deal with to “succeed,” then how could culture *not* be a contributor to development? (I’ve tried to point to this over the many years here.)
With all due respect (and I honestly mean that), I sometimes don’t understand you people. I mean you like this or that theory, but you pick and choose where you want to apply or understand it because (it seems to me) that you’re devoted to a philosophy. (Here, most usually, a “naive realist” point of view which recognizes only that which can be empirically {measured} verified.) This picking and choosing hardly seems “objective” (as that’s what most folks seem to be going for here).
Just as soon as one admits to the notion of “a phenomenon,” one will be approaching the door to social construction. (Open the door: look up “The Social Construction of Reality” on wiki; it refers to the seminal book on the subject.)
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 09:24am PT
|
It’s surprising that one would think so
It wasn't surprising to me. Perhaps postmodernism is a point of view makes it difficult to anticipate people's behavior.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 11:58am PT
|
Don't know about logic in evolution but game theory definitely applies. Richard Dawkins analyzes things like evolutionary benefits of deception and cheating, recommended reading. Just found a podcast Brain Science with Ginger Campbell. The podcaster is not the most charismatic personality but has 140 episodes, mostly interviewing MDs.
If that sounds lame, head to Peru and join an ayahuasca cult lol. https://www.stitcher.com/s/?eid=52935922
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 07:10pm PT
|
“The Social Construction of Reality”
This raises the question:
Which came first?
Chicken or egg?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 11:29pm PT
|
MikeL: With all due respect...
It's not a general discussion about evolution theories, but one about mathematical models of evolution based on genetics. Previous models didn't adequately account for environmental/cultural effects and didn't include epigenetics at all.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2018 - 06:48am PT
|
It is The evolution of the gross materialist's meat package only.
The evolution of the person itself is entirely different that modern clueless materialistic scientist hasn't even begun yet.
Because the person itself is NOT the meat package ever of which they foolishly mislead everyone as the blind leading the blind ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2018 - 08:45am PT
|
healyje,
Thx. That clarifies the statement. I did not see that in the post.
(BTW, economics appropriated the theory of evolution and argued that isomorphic routines and practices in organizational fields were like genetics responding to the munificence and densities of perceived resource pools (talent, money, legitimacy, levels of competition, etc.). They were called "population ecologists.)
Cheers.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2018 - 08:59am PT
|
Don: Richard Dawkins analyzes things like evolutionary benefits of deception and cheating, recommended reading.
That’s a theory, and it sounds attractive, but it has hardly been empirically established. Think about how the research would have to be structured to present evidence for the theory, against a comparative theory.
This points to the problems of proof or falsification experimentally. Take any phenomenon you want. How many “reasonable” narratives could explain it? Pick up any fair-minded in-depth survey of a field of study that presents the history of theories and empirical studies. I think you’ll find plethora of reasonable points of view. For me, it suggests to me that I should hold “things” lightly and with some skepticism.
BTW, how do you feel about the evolutionary benefits of deception and cheating? Let’s say, as an attorney? You down with that?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2018 - 09:21am PT
|
Maybe this has been discussed here already, I didn’t read the many thousands of posts, but have we (scientists) studied non-communicative people (e.g. Helen Keller before she learned sign language, or kids raised by animals [controversy wether this has actually happened but I’d like to think it has]) and determined if they have a concept of self-awareness? I wonder how much language in the brain gives us the ability to recognize our own consciousness and self awareness.
As mentioned earlier great apes and other animals (and babies at a certain age) demonstrate self awareness when looking in a mirror. But maybe that’s just their body they recognize, for self awareness of your own consciousness maybe you need language ability to come up with that complex concept.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2018 - 10:09am PT
|
Mike that may be true all I did were read Dawkins book years ago. The cuckoo bird was one example, that gets other birds to sit on its eggs. As an attorney? I would say I have become less judgmental by representing people who committed heinous crimes. And am often arguing something I personally disagree with because that is the best argument there is. I don't like Dawkins in the subject of religion, where he is just too insulting, but he does a great job with biology putting things in laymans terms.
Do you not believe Darwin's theory of natural selection is true? If have never actually debated anyone about that.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2018 - 12:53pm PT
|
What are emotions?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!