What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 3021 - 3040 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MH2

climber
Jul 27, 2014 - 06:44am PT
I only think deep when I'm trying to remember someone's name.


Then, if I get lucky, a shape looms out of the murk. Then, if I'm really lucky, as I'm swimming around down there, a bright thing flashes into the air way over my head.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jul 27, 2014 - 01:38pm PT
Encephalization[edit]
The human species developed a much larger brain than that of other primates – typically 1,330 cm3 in modern humans, over twice the size of that of a chimpanzee or gorilla.[53] The pattern of encephalization started with Homo habilis, which at approximately 600 cm3 had a brain slightly larger than that of chimpanzees, and continued with Homo erectus (800–1,100 cm3), reaching a maximum in Neanderthals with an average size of (1,200–1,900 cm3), larger even than Homo sapiens. The pattern of human postnatal brain growth differs from that of other apes (heterochrony) and allows for extended periods of social learning and language acquisition in juvenile humans. However, the differences between the structure of human brains and those of other apes may be even more significant than differences in size.[54][55][56][57]

The increase in volume over time has affected areas within the brain unequally – the temporal lobes, which contain centers for language processing, have increased disproportionately, as has the prefrontal cortex which has been related to complex decision-making and moderating social behavior.[53] Encephalization has been tied to an increasing emphasis on meat in the diet,[58][59] or with the development of cooking,[60] and it has been proposed that intelligence increased as a response to an increased necessity for solving social problems as human society became more complex.

So did the brain, by becoming bigger, allow for more intelligence to arise? Or, did the rise of intelligence cause the brain to grow and rise to the Top of our body's?

Man is Special; and Unique inthat we are the only animal in The Kingdom that spends their day "upright" with their chest, lungs, breathing and talking apparatus, perpendicular to the ground. It's as if we woke up one morning and decided to stand, balancing up our brain high, as though we are celebrating and toasting to intelligence!!! The Brain, by way of Mind has become the center point of attention...

...to be continued...


High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jul 27, 2014 - 01:53pm PT
Here, Blu, let me save you the time...

Every cell in your body is obedient to physics and chemistry. No cell in your body, or part thereof, is "above the law" of physics and chemistry. Hope that helped.

The term "free will" causes more trouble than it's worth. (cf: EdH's position on "truth," "design," "belief," etc.) People esp those not educated or trained in the subject matter confuse (for the academic philosopher: "conjoin" or "conflate") biologic ability (power to choose, power to climb, power to avoid or flee, power to problem solve, power to fight, etc.) and freedom (in this case "free will" or "freedom of the will") easily and this is the source (at least a major one) of the misconception. When you understand the basic concepts and dynamics though you can readily see through the mess created by those who don't.

BASE104 a ways back said something like... something about determinism doesn't pass the smell test. LOL! Oh yeah, so where in your physics or chemistry or engineering background did you learn of ANYTHING, the tiniest bit or lever or portal, for example, of ANYTHING in our makeup, for example, cellular organelle, that wasn't "obedient to" natural law, that was exempt from it. Book title and page please. Chapter and verse doesn't count, lol!

In undergraduate school, I took a semester of cell biology. Thought I learned a lot. Thought it was awareness-raising. Pretty confident that at no point in the course was there any mention of some micro or nanostructure (eg, on a cell membrane, say) that was exempt from physics, causation or natural law, however you prefer to say it. Same goes for the brain science and molecular biology courses I took.

Bottom line: There's more room for God in the gaps than free will (in regard to physics and determinism) in the gaps. Sorry to spoil the fun if I did but as Tyson likes to say: Get over it. :)

Hey but some good news here. Your will is "free" in regard to demonic possession. That's right. Because demons don't exist in the real world, only the fantasy world of supernaturalists (eg Abrahamic Christian or Muslim ones). No demons, no demonic possession. Voila, a "free" will.

One more item to round it out: Insofar as there is no "gun to the head" or its equivalent then that's yet another type of "freedom of the will." So there are many contexts to be considered as part of the conversation on freedom of the will (aka "free will") for a full understanding.

Which, btw, is all the understanding a politician needs to have in American politics nowadays in order to be able to say rightly and honestly she believes in free will, the politically correct response among the many others to get her elected. God bless America. Go Hillary! :)
Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
Jul 27, 2014 - 04:27pm PT
Blue-

You really should get a good book on human evolution or go to your local library and check out the videos and DVD's on it. There will be plenty of them in public libraries in California.

What you will find is that our brains started out the same size as a chimpanzee's and gradually increased over millions of years. As the brain size increased, the stone tools they made and left behind grew increasingly more sophisticated, so yes, the physical evidence shows that brain size is co-related with intelligence up until about 300,000 years ago.

The brain of Homo sapiens is actually smaller than that of neanderthals of that age and yet our tools are much more sophisticated and we survived and they didn't. As best we understand, this happened because we developed our linguistic abilities over time and then about 50,000 years ago had a huge leap forward with the sudden appearance of art, religious artifacts, and even better tools. What caused this 50,000 years ago we can't prove but the only likely explanation based on physical evidence is the full development of language. There are many other philosophical or religious explanations possible but those are outside the realm of science.

This also leads to questions about what intelligence is. We all seem to recognize smart people and animals, but measuring intelligence scientifically has proven impossible so far. Deeper levels of the question include definitions of different kinds of intelligence and on this level many are pessimistic since we've arrived at the point where our clever tools have the ability to erase ourselves and most life on the planet, causing us to wonder just how intelligent the development of those tools was? Meanwhile we learn that neanderthals supported the old and the handicapped, which is better than many modern H. sapiens can seem to manage.

That's why on a bad news day and we've had a lot of those lately, I ask myself, do humans really behave as though they were three times smarter than a chimpanzee given our brain is currently three times larger on the average? Sadly, I find the answer is often no. And so we find as with any values oriented question, there's plenty of room for philosophical speculation no matter how sophisticated our science, but everybody should know at least the basics of the science of evolution.

WBraun

climber
Jul 27, 2014 - 05:23pm PT
Intelligence is measured by consciousness and not by brain, academics or book knowledge.

Modern science is stuck and fixed on plain old matter.

Consciousness is beyond all matter.

Modern science is stuck in the deep trench of gross physical matter.

Modern materialistic science has been and is the slaughterhouse of the soul .......
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2014 - 06:57pm PT
The term "free will" causes more trouble than it's worth. (cf: EdH's position on "truth," "design," "belief," etc.) People esp those not educated or trained in the subject matter confuse (for the academic philosopher: "conjoin") biologic ability (power to choose, power to climb, power to avoid or flee, power to problem solve, power to fight, etc.) and freedom (in this case "free will" or "freedom of the will") easily and this is the source (at least a major one) of the misconception. When you understand the basic concepts and dynamics though you can readily see through the mess created by those who don't.
--


I'd be interested to know about your background in "academic philosophy," Frunitcake. My sense of it is that you are totally bluffing on this account and have no professional understanding of the subject at all, save what folks like Harris have said (and who, under inquiry, admitted that he had not really read the material at any depth). I'm not a huge proponent of modern philosophical schools, which have mostly gone the route of logic, sharpening the knife, so to speak, but not bothering to try and cut the loaf. But most professional philosophers are monster academics and scholors, adept at many languages, with a world class knowledge of history and the history of ideas, so to sumarily write them off as fakers and deluded rubes is IMO, to betray your own ignorance.

That much said, if you are a staunch determinist, all actions and thoughts and so forth are entirely determined by our evolved, genetic programing. We cannot predict what we might or will do, owing to the every moving world "out there," full of chaos and randomness, and which we encounter. always anew, with our aforementioned programing. Put differently, ALL of our responses - the belief goes - are "determined" and sourced by our programing. Experientially, this means that everything that enters our field of awarenss issues from that programming and nowhere else. "We" choose and decide nothing whatsoever per our thoughts, actions, feelings, etc.

So by this clean definition, those betting on determinism would not be able to fathom a free choice becuase that choice would be free of out programming, and that is strictly impossible - the belief runs.

So again, if a choice - unfetttered by our mechanical responses - ever transpired, the question remains: Where would it come from?

JL
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Jul 27, 2014 - 07:19pm PT

Oldest Medical Report of Near-Death Experience Discovered
By Bahar Gholipour, Staff Writer | July 24, 2014 04:00pm ET

Cover of the book "Anecdotes de Médecine," by Pierre-Jean du Monchaux (1733-1766)
Credit: Archive.org - Book contributor: Fisher - University of Toronto.

Reports of people having "near-death" experiences go back to antiquity, but the oldest medical description of the phenomenon may come from a French physician around 1740, a researcher has found.

The report was written by Pierre-Jean du Monchaux, a military physician from northern France, who described a case of near-death experience in his book "Anecdotes de Médecine." Monchaux speculated that too much blood flow to the brain could explain the mystical feelings people report after coming back to consciousness.

The description was recently found by Dr. Phillippe Charlier, a medical doctor and archeologist, who is well known in France for his forensic work on the remains of historical figures. Charlier unexpectedly discovered the medical description in a book he had bought for 1 euro (a little more than $1) in an antique shop.

"I was just interested in the history of medicine, and medical practices in the past, especially during this period, the 18th century," Charlier told Live Science. "The book itself was not an important one in the history of medicine, but from a historian's point of view, the possibility of doing retrospective diagnosis on such books, it's something quite interesting."

To his surprise, Charlier found a modern description of near-death experience from a time in which most people relied on religion to explain near-death experiences. [The 10 Most Controversial Miracles]

The book describes the case of a patient, a famous apothecary (pharmacist) in Paris, who temporarily fell unconscious and then reported that he saw a light so pure and bright that he thought he must have been in heaven.

Today, near-death experience is described as a profound psychological event with transcendental and mystical elements that occurs after a life-threatening crisis, Charlier said. People who experience the phenomenon report vivid and emotional sensations including positive emotions, feeling as though they have left their bodies, a sensation of moving through a tunnel, and the experiences of communicating with light and meeting with deceased people.

Charlier compared the nearly 250-year-old description with today's "Greyson criteria," which is a scale that a psychiatrist developed in the 1980s to measure the depth of people's near-death experiences, so that these cases could be uniformly studied. The scale includes questions about the perceptions people report during near-death experiences, for example altered sense of time, life review and feelings of joy. A score of 7 or higher out of a possible 32 is classified as a near-death experience.

Although the data in the old book were limited, Charlier determined that the patient would have scored at least 12/32 on the Greyson criteria, Charlier said. He published his findings last month in the journal Resuscitation.

In the 18th-century case description, Monchaux also compared his patient with other people who reported similar experiences, caused by drowning, hypothermia and hanging.

The physician offered a medical explanation for the bizarre sensations, too, but his explanation was the opposite of what modern day physicians name as the likely cause of near-death experience, Charlier said. Monchaux speculated that in all of reported cases of near-death experience, the patients were left with little blood in the veins in their skin, and abundant blood flowing in the vessels within their brains, giving rise to the vivid and strong sensations.

However, modern researchers think it is likely the lack of blood flow and oxygen to the brain that puts the organ in a state of full alarm and causes the sensations associated with near-death experiences.

Email Bahar Gholipour or follow her @alterwired. Follow Live Science @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Originally published on Live Science
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jul 27, 2014 - 08:12pm PT
the only likely explanation based on physical evidence is the full development of language.

This is incorrect.

measuring intelligence scientifically has proven impossible so far.

This is incorrect.

.....

Frunitcake...

When you understand the basic concepts and dynamics at work, the subject's pretty clear. Remember, your conflict - whether it's regarding sentience or "free will" - is not with me or Harris, it's apparently with modern science.

There's no way to have even a half-serious discussion with namecalling, baseless crazytalk or lapdogs running about out of control. I wish circumstances were different because everything from motive will to non-ohmic pn junctions to perceptual illusions to a dozen other things are interesting topics.

It's true: I don't have extensive background coursework let alone credentials in various branches of Christian theology, eg angelology, demonology, mariology, eschatology or soteriology, so I'm not qualified to judge those subjects. Astrology either.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2014 - 08:16pm PT
Is a determinist the third rail that carries energy between the discursive and phenomenological tracks ?

Not sure what you mean by this, Jim. Maybe shake the tree a little more so I can get a take on what falls to the deck.

And curiously, Faucault, shortly before he died of AIDS, went to Japan and studied in a Zen monsistary. Interesting guy who covered a lot of shifting ground.

JL
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jul 27, 2014 - 08:45pm PT
re: determinism and freedom of the will and decision-making

"That much said, if you are a staunch determinist, all actions and thoughts and so forth are entirely determined by our evolved, genetic programing (plus inputs from environment: true). We cannot predict what we might or will do (beyond a point: true; makes life more interesting), owing to the every moving world "out there," full of chaos and randomness, and which we encounter. always anew, with our aforementioned programing (plus input: true). Put differently, ALL of our responses - the belief (science) goes - are "determined" and sourced by our programing (plus input: true). Experientially, this means that everything that enters our field of awareness issues from that programming (plus input) and nowhere else (true). "We" choose and decide nothing whatsoever per our thoughts, actions, feelings, etc. (False, we are a head full of circuits with branchpoints, learning capability, mind-boggling information processing powers, some aspects much like a cpt, conferring super amazing decision-making powers whose purpose is to "choose and decide" that apparently is easily misunderstood as something of an immaterial "free will" by noobs to the subject, eg esp religious ones, inculcated and acculturated from youth, pining away for anything supernatural )."

It's true: all thoughts and actions! That's what makes it so terribly exciting and incredible!! Still blows me away every time I think about it!!

Finally, remember there is some lasting confusion over "determinism" owing let's say to Laplace's demon and its ability to predict. It's important to the subject and the discussion to get clear on this. But we've already posted about this, many times probably.

In short: That actions and thoughts are "determined" is one thing, that they are predictable (down the line, at some future time) is quite another indeed.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jul 27, 2014 - 09:01pm PT
Hey, I'm not, science is. Positing determinism, that is. I'm just a messenger here. Regarding the rest, aren't we all fritterers of some kind or other? :)

(Hey where's that sexy girl pic you posted once on one of these threads, couldn't find it a ways back, lol!)
WBraun

climber
Jul 27, 2014 - 09:24pm PT
There is no determinism in the events.

It's an illusion.

Reducing matter into some kind of unconscious energy is all you're doing.

Life comes from life.

The symptom of life is consciousness .......
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2014 - 10:13pm PT
"We" choose and decide nothing whatsoever per our thoughts, actions, feelings, etc.


Fruity claims: False, we are a head full of circuits with branchpoints, learning capability, mind-boggling information processing powers, some aspects much like a cpt, conferring super amazing decision-making powers whose purpose is to "choose and decide" that apparently is easily misunderstood as something of an immaterial "free will" by noobs to the subject, eg esp religious ones, inculcated and acculturated from youth, pining away for anything supernatural."

--


You are hard to pin down on this one, Fruitecake, but what you are saying, above, with the word "conferring" is what I was saying using the word "imposing." That is, a determinist believes that our thoughts, actions and feelings are conferred or imposed on us mechanically, that there is no independent "us" who can ever get outside or away from our programming and evolved coding who can "decide" anything at all. It is all "conferred" and imposed on us by our brains, which acts imdependentally of any imagined human will, and entirely through mechanical, fully determined means. That is, our thoughts, feelings and actions come FROM that programming, and never from "us."

So again, I ask the much-dodged question: If someone DID make a choice or do something that was NOT determined by said coding, from whence would such a choice come from? Does not a deterministic belief system rule out free choice as a matter of course, seeming that a free choice would arise undetermined?

In a line: does not determinism rule out ANY free choice, however big or small, entirely and forever?

JL

Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
Jul 27, 2014 - 10:16pm PT
the only likely explanation based on physical evidence is the full development of language.

This is incorrect.

measuring intelligence scientifically has proven impossible so far.

This is incorrect.


Fructose, if you have an explanation for the sudden explosion of culture 50,000 years ago other than fully developed language, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, every account that I have read says that since the human brain actually got smaller after neanderthals, we must have been using what we had more efficiently and the only common denominator according to all that I've read, must be language.

As for intelligence testing, we can ascertain that people with the skills to do well on the tests do well in modern society, and we can usually co-relate IQ ratings with type of job held years later, but we also have well proven that IQ tests measure skills rather than intelligence and discriminate in favor of the dominant group in society and the life skills it values. Just try devising an intelligence test for an illiterate as many anthropologists have, and you begin to see the cultural bias in our tests.

And please don't quote Shockley or Jenson who claimed if he knew the percentage of black blood in a person, he could predict how that would adversely affect their IQ. He is of course less enthusiastic about results that show Japanese score ten points on the average higher than Americans, that they have more genius level IQ's than we do, and that their scores have been rising ever since their huge education push after WWII.

If you've got contrary evidence, let's hear it.

cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jul 28, 2014 - 04:17am PT
Watch 80,000 Neurons Fire in the Brain of a Fish
http://www.wired.com/2014/07/neuron-zebrafish-movie/
[Click to View YouTube Video]
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jul 28, 2014 - 07:28am PT
Just as implied by Cintune's post...

a determinist believes that our thoughts, actions and feelings are conferred or imposed on us mechanically, that ther eis no independent "us" that stands aside from our programming (and inputs)

Yes, that's right.

.....

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=701885149860397&fref=nf
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Jul 28, 2014 - 07:44am PT
ive had an out of body experience
WBraun

climber
Jul 28, 2014 - 07:45am PT
HFCS

There is always an independent entity turning on the mechanical computer originally which can alter it's programing at any time.

Your mechanical only speculation is in complete poor fund of knowledge in the face of reality that is testable in a scientific method you have never used.

Your nature has the tendency to ridicule what is difficult for you to achieve.

The experiment requires isolation and purification of your own self instead of your easily manipulation of objects that are outside of yourself.

You are also weak otherwise you would responsibly stand behind your words here instead of anonymous cowardice.

Your excuses are those of a complete coward .....
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Jul 28, 2014 - 08:08am PT
many of our decisions are taken subconsciously, then reported to our awareness. this isnt news to anyone. skeptics can sleep on it. that part of our brain that maintains the schema of our awareness delegates to the subconscious for efficiency. our awareness schema can and does make decisions consciously ( door number 1!), but most likely all of those rely on mostly subconscious processing to feed The Decider. so yes, we can consciously decide within our very narrow awareness - but most of what goes into those decisions happens in the vast regions elsewhere. we 'd be damn slow creatures if that werent the case
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Jul 28, 2014 - 08:26am PT
we are biological machines, of course.

many if not most who object to this obvious assessment recycle Decarte's fluid res cogitans - the magical brain fluid. Some safeguard this pre-scientific notion by - you guessed it - conveniently sliding it just beyond science's reach before painting it in contemporary colors for today's modern but still myth starved secular consumer. Pure faddism born from what drives and eventually kills all fads: the need to feel exceptional.
Messages 3021 - 3040 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta