Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
Aug 18, 2018 - 03:07pm PT
|
Similarly, as has been suggested way up thread, there is no "mind," it is just our description of the behavior of our brain.
Suggested is Not a fact but mental speculation.
Unfortunately, the Mind itself (manaḥ) is a fact and not a description, just as intelligence and consciousness are also facts.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Aug 18, 2018 - 03:12pm PT
|
from your point of view it is not "unfortunate"
but your "fact" is based on antiquated knowledge, at variance with what we have come to understand about the universe, and about humans. The universe has not been around forever (at least not the one we are currently occupying) and humans have, similarly, only been around for less a few million years.
Those are conclusions based on empirical observation. Both were great departures from the scientific orthodoxy of their time, yet both are accepted as the prevailing explanation today.
I do understand you can believe that or not.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Aug 18, 2018 - 03:27pm PT
|
...from more fundamental ingredients.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Aug 18, 2018 - 04:14pm PT
|
This Vedāntic explanation that unitary Supreme Cognizant Being is the source of everything is founded on 2 scientifically verifiable axiomatic facts:
(1) Life comes from Life, and
(2) Matter comes from Life.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Aug 18, 2018 - 04:26pm PT
|
Ed wrote:
...species farther down the tree..."
the point at which "we" branched is "further down the tree" but we all occupy the here and now, all successful so far.
That is really the only measure.
Let me be clear. When I say species further down the tree, I mean it in the sense that every species node is "further down the tree" from our node. It is true of any species. You start at your node... and every other node is down-tree and toward the root. What I really mean with respect to chimpanzees and termites is that the common ancestor (branching node) of humans and chimpanzees occurs much closer (and sooner) as you go down-tree than the common ancestor of humans and termites.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Aug 18, 2018 - 04:41pm PT
|
down-tree and toward the root
The root must first be defined.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
Aug 18, 2018 - 05:55pm PT
|
Eeyonkee,
I would like to know how you concluded that:
"3. If a chimpanzee and a human could mate, they cannot produce offspring.
4. We will never identify human remains greater than 1 million years."
There have been rumors for years about people trying to cross fertilize chimps and humans in the lab on the secret, but do you know for sure this has happened and not worked? H. sapiens has mated and produced offspring with H. neantherthal, denisova, erectus, and probably others we don't now about yet.
The history of anthropology is full of people claiming that we would never find -fill in the blank - with humans and then had to back down. Of course it depends on how you define human but different species of homo have now been found outside of Africa (in the country of Georgia) dating back to 1.8 mil. years.
Meanwhile, Ed's statement:
"Similarly, as has been suggested way up thread, there is no "mind," it is just our description of the behavior of our brain",
seems to me to fit rather well with the Buddhist idea of the egoistic monkey mind with no inherent existence of its own.
The issue is whether there is any other kind of consciousness that can be processed through the human brain. Is empty awareness a property of the brain or of the universe? Materialists and spiritualists will disagree.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Aug 18, 2018 - 07:54pm PT
|
Materialists and spiritualists will disagree.
By definition, one presumes.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
Aug 18, 2018 - 09:37pm PT
|
"Is empty awareness a property of the brain or of the universe?"
My guess is that it is more a visionary meditative state rather than a preexisting property of the brain.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 - 05:59am PT
|
I actually think this mischaracterizes both evolution and "celestial mechanics."
In both, there is an overarching theoretical organizing principle. These principles serve to "explain" the bulk phenomena of the respective sciences.
.....
The perihelion shift of Mercury's orbit was a well-known failure of "celestial mechanics" in the late 19th century. This failure is "righted" by using general relativity, as Einstein famously did, explaining how the Newtonian theory got it "wrong".
.....
there are a number of "predictions" that can be made from the "modern synthesis" (which goes beyond Darwin's original theory).
.....
I think we have more than "a clue" what will happen to life on the planet, though we cannot predict with microscopic precision (yet) how life will respond to the current changes.
I was probably "mischaracterizing" as you say, although the small flaw in the orbit of Mercury's orbit in terms of classical mechanics was exactly the kind of thing I had in mind, in my inability to characterize. If what you say about overarching theoretical organizing principles is true (and I imagine that's right although I know next to nothing about the application of this principle in the case of evolution) can you give some specific prediction, on par with the alteration in Mercury's orbit, that could be used to show the theory of evolution is false? Maybe you would use one of eeyonkee's examples of predictions:
Let's go over a few predictions that we can test:
1. We will not find a biological organism on this planet that is not based on the DNA molecule.
2. We will never discover a plant that has anything like the self-reflective consciousness of a human.
3. If a chimpanzee and a human could mate, they cannot produce offspring.
4. We will never identify human remains greater than 1 million years.
5. We will never identify a dinosaur younger than about 65 millions years.
6. We will never identify civilization in the lineage that includes turtles.
7. We will never discover trilobites in the geological record past the end of the Paleozoic.
8. We will never be able to claim victory over our mortal enemies -- microbes and viruses
In terms of evolution implying "there must exist some mechanism of heredity", I find it interesting that it took mainstream academic biology so many years to embrace Mendel's work, in spite of having agreed on the theory. It almost seems as if the theory made it more difficult to find this mechanism, instead of the other way around.
To understand human behavior, it is not wrong to look for evolutionary hints. Like all science, eventual rigor is important for drawing conclusions; speculation and conjecture just the trailhead for adventure.
I totally agree. As long as we are quite clear about this being speculation and conjecture and not the application of a scientific theory.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 - 07:32am PT
|
you could look at (if you like historical discussions) the work of RA Fisher "The Genetic Theory of Natural Selection" written in 1930, and E Schrodinger's "What is Life," 1944, for quantitative examples.
Schrodinger's book inspired Watson to go into biology, Crick trained as a physicist and after WWII switched to biology.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 - 07:44am PT
|
When it comes to prediction, I think it can be useful to know what we cannot predict. There is a moon of Saturn and 2 moons of Pluto whose rotation is chaotic. According to Wikipedia, chaotic rotation is expected to be common among binary asteroids. Even celestial mechanics can be unpredictable.
Predicting the course of evolution? Whew! We aren't always right predicting tomorrow's local weather. But we have some understanding of why it is that we can't do that, even with bigger faster computation.
And when it comes to usefulness, a line from a movie comes to mind, which captures how I feel about sitting here doing this instead of something more productive:
I have far more useless things to do.
(Which I likely have misquoted.)
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 - 08:34am PT
|
nafod,
Thanks. (She’s up against a crowd, isn’t she?). Barrett’s view is almost a pure neuroscience view of emotion. We should add her view to the mix. I appreciate her claim that reality is socially constructed. I would note that social construction is a recursive feedback system of projections, habituations, and typifications developed over time in practice. To make her claims about social construction, however, I would think, would rely upon seminal work by sociologists and psychologists rather than neuroscience alone. She’s claiming that everything can be explained almost entirely by the brain (neuroscience). I'd say that's part of a zeitgeist we find ourselves in today. What couldn't neuroscience and the brain explain?
I would also say that from my reading of her claims, she (and everyone else) has yet to make common sense of apparent decisions being made by humans prior to their awareness.
From the paper you pointed to by Barrett: “The answer [for a biological basis of emotions] is a brain-based, computational account called the theory of constructed emotion.” (My emphasis added.)
eeyonkee,
A negative finding (“ We will never find . . . .”) or a lack of a finding does not constitute any *test* recognized scientifically. It's terrible logic, as well.
Alas, I think I was the one who claimed there is no mind. I said that because no one has found one or pinned it down. Cheers, Jan.
What Is Mind?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 - 08:39am PT
|
She’s claiming that everything can be explained almost entirely by the brain (neuroscience).
More nonsense!
The brain can't explain anything period.
Only the living entity can through the brain.
The brain is NOT the living entity itself as the living entity acts through the gross material body and subtle material body (mind) ......
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 - 08:48am PT
|
JG said "My guess is that it is more a visionary meditative state rather than a preexisting property of the brain."
Empty awareness is just being present; undistracted by self and self interest. When you are present you can function properly and with compassion. All climbers known this we all have to learn how to let go of fear and stand on that smear with full presence. The typical distractors are fear,anger,greed,pleasure,bliss,emotions etal . It is difficult to do the climb if you don't put them aside.
It is not some visionary meditative state; only the ego would define it that way, because it shrinks the ego.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 - 09:10am PT
|
for a more current example, read in NYTimes Literary Review:
A New View of Evolution That Can’t Be Represented by a Tree
Dingus McGee also emailed me a piece on this last week (thanks Dingus!)
the basic idea being that the "genetic theory of evolution" which is a part of the modern synthesis makes definite predictions that can be tested against observation (and experimentation), and the differences from observation incorporated into new ideas regarding the science.
You find quotes like this:
Background: The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century.
Conclusion: Like the physical sciences in the first half of the 20th Century, biology at the start of the 21st Century is achieving a substantive maturity of theory, experimental tools, and fundamental findings thanks to relatively secure foundations in genomics. Genomics has also forced biologists to connect evolutionary and molecular biology, because these formerly Balkanized disciplines have been brought together as actors on the genomic stage. Biologists are now addressing the evolution of genetic systems using more than the concepts of population biology alone, and the problems of cell biology using more than the tools of biochemistry and molecular biology alone. It is becoming increasingly clear that solutions to such basic problems as aging, sex, development, and genome size potentially involve elements of biological science at every level of organization, from molecule to population. The new biology knits together genomics, bioinformatics, evolutionary genetics, and other such general-purpose tools to supply novel explanations for the paradoxes that undermined Modernist biology.
The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis
Oddly, this is a contribution to a long running debate in biology about what is important: can the genes be the thing that is important, or the organisms? Well the article and the work it talks about describes the ability to pass genes from one species to another out side of the way it is usually thought of, that is, as a hereditary process.
The subtleties relate to what part of the genetic variability is due to natural selection, and which is not... you can read more:
Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection
New ideas lead to an integration of many different parts of biology. This is an important hallmark of scientific theory. An other crucial feature of science is the ability to confront theory with observation and experimental work, which has been happening in biology, e.g. the inadequacies of the "modern synthesis," by which I mean its failure to account for observations and measurements. The theory has to be powerful enough to make quantitative predictions for this to be possible.
My point being there are definite scientific predictions to be made from studying genetic material, and understanding how it evolves, and also the hypothesis that it, the genetic material, is the "build plan" for every organism.
The idea that one could propose that the archaea are indeed a separate kingdom, together with the bacteria and the eukarya is exactly in line with those subtle and not-so-subtle disagreements between "celestial mechanics" and astronomical observation.
It is biological "cosmology," observing the biology of today and inferring the biology of the deep past. Darwin was the start of all this, and his scientific idea "the universal common ancestry of life", is what makes it possible.
I am not an expert in biology, however.
|
|
nafod
Boulder climber
State college
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 - 11:50am PT
|
The idea of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) makes sense once you think about the advantage the ability to steal genes would offer.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 - 03:46pm PT
|
Great last post, Ed. However, I would say the whole "can't be represented by a tree" is a bit misleading. It seems obvious to me that evolution, at any scale, can be represented by a tree. You have parents, don't you -- and they had parents? There is no other information that you really need to know to realize that "tree logic" is going to be important here. The tree structure itself does not require that you only consider vertical continuity. Vertical continuity (of gene transfer) is a logical necessity. Horizontal continuity is something that apparently happens from time to time under really unusual circumstances but it is not a logical necessity. It can have the effect of speeding up evolution. The thing about horizontal transmission, seems to me, is that it has to happen at a particular place and point in time -- (a bacteria, a virus, and another bacteria walked into a bar...).
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 - 04:03pm PT
|
"Empty awareness is just being present; undistracted by self and self interest. When you are present you can function properly and with compassion."
I was curious about the reply I might get from my somewhat provocative post. What you, PSP, have to say seems perfectly reasonable to me. Why then does JL make it sound like such a profound epiphany? He has spoken of EA and no-thingness as metaphysical concepts that may be tied to particle physics and fundamental properties of the universe.
Have the two of you discussed this?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 - 04:46pm PT
|
I think a lot of phenomena encountered in meditation seem like an epiphany because they are accompanied by a sudden recognition and understanding of previously unconscious material combined often with startling and spontaneous biochemical changes in the body and the brain.
To get to the state of empty awareness, one has put in years of effort and had a number of these experiences. It is a psychological phenomenon that whatever a human puts a lot of voluntary effort into, that human tends to value highly. As for JL trying to integrate that with physics, weaving theories is what philosophers do, all academics really. It's just that some theories are more testable than others.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|