The evolution of the brain and nervous system, and the mind and consciousness

[shunyadragon]

Actually science supports my 4 points awaiting refutation. Much of modern science accepts materialism, but you're right that science does not inherently. Sadly most people follow belief instead of actual science, and our academic system does well at indoctrinating us into materialism before we can even reason.

This is worded more like an unwarranted accusation from an extremely biased Theist perspective.

I again by the facts this is false. First, by far the majority of scientists of many different belief systems that accept as a matter of fact that science is neutral to theological claims out side the limits of Methodological Naturalism.

Nothing cited in this thread makes any materialist assumptions nor conclusions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually science supports my 4 points awaiting refutation.

No you have not presented a coherent argument to support yourr asserions here

Much of modern science accepts materialism, but you're right that science does not inherently. Sadly most people follow belief instead of actual science, and our academic system does well at indoctrinating us into materialism before we can even reason.

Nothing here, but biased assertions from a 'blind faith perspective.

Still waiting . . .

Nonetheless materialism does not violate the law of identity, because it simply expresses it in materialist terms. You need to make a coherent argument for this without making theistic assumptions up front concerning the law of identity.

 

[Nous]

There's no clear line between the two. Accumulated small changes in degree often result in the emergence of new kinds of things. We can say that gradual quantitative changes can eventually become qualitative differences. Acorns become oaks. As largely indeterminate subatomic particles accrue, largely deterministic objects result.

So how about degree referring to quantitative differences, and kind to qualitative ones, acknowledging that the line between them can be fuzzy. My dogs have some language skills. They understand about fifty words each, but can't speak or invent words. Is the difference between that and what human beings can do a matter of degree or kind? I'd say a little of each.

I agree with what you've said here. Of course, it renders the assertion in the paper unmeaningful , and perhaps false. After all, one species could very well have accumulated those small changes in consciousness so as to constitute a different kind compared to a species that hasn't accumulated such changes. Frankly I find it rather unimaginable that a human's experience of a performance of King Lear is not of a different kind of experience than that of a snake.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with what you've said here. Of course, it renders the assertion in the paper in meaningful, and perhaps false. After all, one species could very well have accumulated those small changes in consciousness so as to constitute a different kind compared to a species that hasn't accumulated such changes. Frankly I find it rather unimaginable that a human's experience of a performance of King Lear is not of a different kind of experience than that of a snake.

There is no problem that this is true, and the snake is poor comparison of intelligence in animals with humans. The evolution of the brain, and the mind and consciousness is progressive from the simple first nervous systems to the present intelligent in different species. Reptiles and, of course, snakes are pretty low on the evolutionary ladder.

No it does not present a problem of meaningfulness nor it being false, unless you can present a better coherent argument.

 

[Nous]

The evidence is something that will be forth-coming (or not) if the methodology the paper outlines becomes accepted.

Science is a process...that is its virtue. So is patience.

Is there any other source of information that can even be considered to compete in this particular area?

This statement:

"the basic neurophysiologic mechanisms supporting consciousness in humans are found at the earliest points of vertebrate brain evolution."

is not a promise to find those brain structures someday when more evidence is acquired.

 

[1137]

This is worded more like an unwarranted accusation from an extremely biased Theist perspective.

I again by the facts this is false. First, by far the majority of scientists of many different belief systems that accept as a matter of fact that science is neutral to theological claims out side the limits of Methodological Naturalism.

Nothing cited in this thread makes any materialist assumptions nor conclusions.

No you have not presented a coherent argument to support yourr asserions here



Nothing here, but biased assertions from a 'blind faith perspective.

Still waiting . . .

Nonetheless materialism does not violate the law of identity, because it simply expresses it in materialist terms. You need to make a coherent argument for this without making theistic assumptions up front concerning the law of identity.

Haha wow, even when presented my points clear as day you can't/won't even address them. Classic ****ing materialism. Any position that can't and won't defend itself shouldn't be seriously considered, QED. Let this stand as yet YET ANOTHER testament to materialism for onlookers.

 

[Nous]

See my posts on animal intelligence.

Why not just be honest about the fact that the authors didn't define the terms "degree" and "kind" and that you haven't either? You don't think you're fooling anyone, do you?

 

[Salvador]

Argument from ignorance, concerning the fallible human perspective concerning Quantum effects is totally OFF TOPIC for this thread.

I've not reached any conclusions about the cause of any Quantum effects. Of course, I'll no longer bring up the subject of wave function collapse in this thread, because it's off topic here in this thread regarding "The evolution of the brain and nervous system, and the mind and consciousness,"

 

[shunyadragon]

All you cited was saying life evolved to me more complex. That doesn't prove that this complexity gave rise to consciousness in any way shape or form lol.

You make assertions, and insults, but do not present a coherent argument based on science in response to the references.

Lol so we're talking about the rise of consciousness but the rise of consciousness is not the topic? What a laughably pathetic Dodge.

The rise and emergence of consciousness is indeed the evolution of the mind and consciousness. It remains all you have presented is insulting assertions and nothing of substance in response to the posts.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Why not just be honest about the fact that the authors didn't define the terms "degree" and "kind" and that you haven't either? You don't think you're fooling anyone, do you?

The degree of consciousness as more complex species evolve is clearly described in the references, and more to follow. You have failed to present a coherent response.

 

[1137]

You make assertions, and insults, but do not present a coherent argument based on science in response to the references.

Please do point out, in my clear points, where I am insulting or unclear lol. This is just sad man, you're not fooling anyone but your own fideistic peers.

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence included medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3

 

[1137]

The degree of consciousness as more complex species evolve is clearly described in the references, and nore to follow. You have failed to present a coherent response.

Don't worry Naos, Shuny just screams that whatever he can't refute doesn't exist.

 

[Bear Wild]

I quoted the post claiming that
"scientific data suggests (sic) that the differences between species in terms of the ability to experience the world is one of degree and not kind." From what data was that conclusion derived? Obviously in order to test a hypothesis about "degree" vs. "kind" with respect to "experience," one would need to define those terms. Right? No such data are cited at the blurb linked to.

I quoted the post claiming that "the basic neurophysiologic mechanisms supporting consciousness in humans are found at the earliest points of vertebrate brain evolution." But fish do not have frontal lobes.

Fish do have frontal lobes.

 

[Nous]

the snake is poor comparison of intelligence in animals with humans.

The authors of the paper you quoted are who made the claim about vertebrates. Snakes are vertebrates.

No it does not present a problem of meaningfulness nor it being false, unless you can present a better coherent argument.

You're doing an excellent job of refuting the paper you quoted.

 

[Nous]

Fish do have frontal lobes.

Yes, I read that after posting. Of course, it seems to be quite different than humans' in various ways.

 

[Nous]

Fish do have frontal lobes.

See #115? Now I'm not sure I did read that. Substantiate your claim.

 

[Bear Wild]

See #115? Now I'm not sure I did read that. Substantiate your claim.

In all vertebrates the olfactory nerve terminates in an anterior portion of the forebrain known as the olfactory bulbs and secondary neurons extend from the olfactory bulbs to many parts of the forebrain. This includes fish where the forebrain is sometimes described as the prosencephalon which is divided into two parts - the Telencephalon and the Diencephalon. The Telencephalon is the most anterior part of the forebrain of a fish with the anterior paired olfactory bulb and two cerebral hemispheres covered by the pallium and joined together at the anterior aspect by an anterior commissure. It is involved in emotional and social behavior of fish as well as in learning and memory. It is connected with the second half of the fore brain - the diencephalon. The Diencephalon has three parts - a dorsal epithalamus, lateral thalamus and a ventral hypothalamus. The diencephalon is the center for incoming and outgoing messages with internal homeostasis and regulating the endocrine system through the pituitary gland
Fish have forebrains.

 

[Bear Wild]

After life arose through chemical evolution to self=replicating and self sustaining organisms. Life evolve from single celled organisms, to multi-cellular organisms, to organisms with symmetry and primitive nervous nervous systems to more complex organisms with brains and nervous systems. The objective verifiable evidence provides the foundation for the hypothesis of the 'emergence' pf the mind and consciousness through evolution.

This thread proposal like the previous one on the science of abiogenesis will focus on the science, but like before some posters will avoid the science for more subjective anecdotal arguments.

Social behavior as an adaptive evolutionary behavior giving a selective advantage is a driving force for increasingly complex cognitive behaviors and the development of conscious behavior in animals. There are so many examples of this in what we are learning from bird behavior and cognitive complexity. Our problem is we need to understand it from the animals perspective "its umwelt" which requires very creatively designed studies attempting to understand behavior in the animals natural setting instead of a laboratory. We have come a long way since Descartes interpretation of animals or Skinner's starvation and electric shock experiments.

 

[exchemist]

My point is that there is no wave interference pattern when the which-way path information of matter passing through a double-slit can be determined, then a non-interference pattern results. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment rules out detectors as causing the wave-function collapse. Knowledge/consciousness of the observer has been considered as a possible cause for the wave function collapse.



There is no widely accepted explanation for the results of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment results.

There are many various interpretations of quantum mechanics.

See here: Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

The experiment you cited was nothing to do with delayed choice eraser.

It was the simple double slit experiment - for which I was able to predict the outcome without reading the article. So no surprises there.

You seem to be wandering about aimlessly. Can you get a grip and stay on-topic?

 

[Polymath257]

Luckily materialism violates even the most basic logic there is - the law of identity - so it's not too complex. Having entirely contradictory properties shows mind and brain can't have the same identity. Further, everything you know, including matter, relies on consciousness and so you reject what you can never be sure of for what we can be sure of - consciousness existence. Like I said, carv basic.

Knowledge relies on consciousness, but not other things. The chair in my room does not rely on consciousness, only my knowledge of it.

How does consciousness as a process in the brain violate the law of identity? Be specific. Which contradictory properties?

Interesting. So when you self regulate, or see something like a computer, you accept it exists as magic? Cause nature does not do/create such things, and yet here we are.

No, I do NOT accept it is exists as magic. I accept that it exists as a natural phenomenon. Yes, in fact, nature does create such things and in abundance, clearly.

Hm, I could tell you what parts of my tv make the station come through, I guess my tv creates the stations! Hell if I break my tv the picture goes away, so by your logic we've proven as much!
Not sure why I'm paying for cable...

Except that there are other ways to detect radio waves and consciousness occurs in no other places than brains. The brain as a receiver simply doesn't work with the data we have.

Yeah, in my experience almost ever single other materialist has also not bothered to question the position or look at problems and alternatives, so I'd expect you to be unaware. That's what happens when we accept blind Faith positions!

I've looked at the alternatives, but none even come close to explaining the data we have. We can talk about Searle's room and Mary's seeing red if you want. But those are rather trivial to deal with.