Gees

Consciousness and Evolution

Recommended Posts

 Tub;

Welcome to my thread. I remember you from Ten oz's thread, and you had some interesting things to say, but I don't remember if I communicated with you directly. Your points are interesting, so please consider my responses.

6 hours ago, Tub said:

Hello, Gees. At my present level of understanding, i would suggest that it isn't Consciousness that evolves but what does evolve is the capacity to become more conscious of that of which we can be conscious.

 At my present level of understanding, I would agree with you. But this agreement depends upon what you mean when you say "Consciousness". Most people mean the rational conscious aspect of mind, in which case I don't agree with you. Consciousness is simply awareness, and awareness seems to be an on/off type of thing -- either you are aware or you are not. What we can be aware of seems to be connected with the physical traits of the life form as some have the ability to sense more than others, hence they have more awareness. I think we agree here.

On  the other hand, if the Big Bang theory, or something like it, is true, then awareness might have evolved. I am a mechanic at heart, so I look at how things work, how they do what they do. When you look at a tree, where is the awareness that makes you aware of the tree? Is it in the tree? Is it in you? Most people think that the awareness is in us, but if that were the case, then there would be no difference between illusion and reality because it would all be within us -- there are some theories of consciousness that follow this path. My take on this is that awareness is between you and the tree, that awareness is the relationship or bond between you and the tree. 

So in my opinion awareness requires matter, time, and space. For awareness to occur, there must be a point to focus from, and a point to focus on, in order for awareness to happen. So matter and space must exist in order for those points to exist. So there was no awareness prior to the Big Bang or whatever caused matter to exist. This idea seems to be consistent with what we know about evolution; awareness is dependent upon matter.

 

Quote

As life-forms evolve and nervous-systems and cerebral cortices become more sophisticated and sensitive, the spectrum of consciousness spreads from " simple ", primitive sense-consciousness to the present degree of self-consciousness which we have reached - which may be the pinnacle of self-consciousness but is most probably not the true pinnacle of Consciousness as a whole: mystics, philosophers and some scientists give credence to an actual, supreme " Cosmic " or " Universal " Consciousness which is primordial and timeless and which, in extreme circumstances, can overwhelm and displace self-consciousness.

 What I find interesting in the above is that the last two lines are a reasonably good description of the unconscious aspect of mind. The unconscious is primordial, timeless, and can overwhelm and displace self-consciousness. We have only just begun to unwrap the secrets of the unconscious aspect of mind in the last hundred or so years, but it is easy to see why older philosophies and religions attributed some of the unconscious aspects to mystic ideas. If you go to Wiki and look up the unconscious, you can learn more, but I recommend that you also look up Matte Blanco and Jung's Oneness theory.

Blanco found five or six levels or stratums in the unconscious and discovered that there is a logic in the unconscious if you eliminate time from your considerations. (chuckle) His work has been validated by clinical studies and explains things like childhood traumas affecting the whole life,  and things like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which can take your awareness out of time and space.

Jung's Oneness theory suggests that we are all connected through our unconscious. I have not read the whole work, but from what I have seen, he seems to think that all species have this connection through the unconscious. I suspect that all life is connected through the unconscious.

 

Quote

Perhaps this  " Cosmic Consciousness " is the ultimate goal of human evolution - if Consciousness can be said to have distance, direction and destination.

Isn't that a lot like the cake baking itself to see what it tastes like?

For myself, I know that the cake is made up of ingredients, so that is where I will start when trying to make a cake. Consciousness is made up of components, things that must be in order for it to work the way it does, so that is what I am working on.

 

Quote

The link here is quite thought-provoking.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

Yes it is. I reviewed Panpsychism a few years ago and found it interesting. Like all theories of consciousness it has some ideas to add to the whole. But there is still no comprehensive theory of consciousness, and there are many other theories that also have validity. One of the ideas that I found interesting in Panpsychism is the thought that it might be able to answer the question of "self". We do not really know where "self"  comes from, or why life has the sense of "self". If "self" is an intrinsic property of matter, Panpsychism could possibly explain this.

Gee

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I propose that it's difficult because it's like imagining someone more pregnant than the duchess of Cornwall.

You are seeking to qualify an absolute.

However that may simply mean that your definition doesn't tally with mine (or that of medical science- which know about these things)

John Cuthber,

Evidently others also consider consciousness on a sliding scale.  See the argument about our consciousness not being at the pinnacle of consciousness.   If there is a better than or more or less conscious, then it is not an absolute, like being pregnant.   And considering it in terms of evolution, there is something about our human consciousness that allows for tool use and language, philosophy, religion and poetry, along with writing and math and theories and such which exist to small degrees in some other mammals, but there is something that "happened" in the evolutionary chain that gave us a "leg up" on the other species.  Maybe even something that humans had that Neanderthals did not.  Some brain part, some connection, some ability to make analogies, or use symbols or something,  that really does put us at the pinnacle (of Earth Based Lifeforms).   Proof being that we control the place, not the weather or earthquakes or meteors, or solar flares, but we "control the streets."

Regards, TAR

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tub said:

First of all, let me say that, being aware of the Sagan Standard, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard  ), i really wasn't making any assertions re " Cosmic Consciousness ", having no extraordinary evidence of my own to offer.

Your original post was well phrased and so I understood you were in "what if" mode. My questions were simply intended to highlight one aspect of that "what if".

I agree the term "Cosmic Consciousness" has some unfortunate baggage tied to it, but I don't rule out the possibility of some such "thing" emerging at some point in the future, rather than already being present.

I do have difficulty with your apparent desire to place humanity at the top of evolutions path. I am reliably informed that hedgehogs, e. coli and politicians consider themselves at the pinnacle. (All except the latter have a good case to make.) In short, there is no pinnacle. There is not more evoloved, or less evolved. All organisms have enjoyed the same three and a half billion years of evolution from our last common ancestor. Certainly, in terms of consciousness, there are definite differences in the degree of consciousness displayed by different organisms, but perhaps our interest and emphasis on the importance of consciousness is only because we have it in spades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Certainly, in terms of consciousness, there are definite differences in the degree of consciousness displayed by different organisms, but perhaps our interest and emphasis on the importance of consciousness is only because we have it in spades.

1

I think consciousness is a binary state and the position on the spectrum is, rather, determined by intelligence; that, however, doesn't automatically put humans at the apex, there's more than one form of intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I think consciousness is a binary state and the position on the spectrum is, rather, determined by intelligence; that, however, doesn't automatically put humans at the apex, there's more than one form of intelligence.

I'm an analogue kind of a guy.  (Even our digital equipment is analogue at heart, just faking the digital face to show the world.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I'm an analogue kind of a guy.  (Even our digital equipment is analogue at heart, just faking the digital face to show the world.)

Maybe but that doesn't change my point, the spectrum of awareness is less influenced by conciousness than by intelligence, as you suggest nature is never a straight line but...

47 minutes ago, Area54 said:

the importance of consciousness is only because we have it in spades.

Surely you meant intelligence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Maybe but that doesn't change my point, the spectrum of awareness is less influenced by conciousness than by intelligence, as you suggest nature is never a straight line but...

Surely you meant intelligence?

I agree with you the two, intelligence and consciousness, are related. I am not certain that anyone has ever demonstrated there is a 1:1 relationship, perhaps because - despite their importance to us - we're still not very sure what either of them is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Area54 said:

I agree with you the two, intelligence and consciousness, are related. I am not certain that anyone has ever demonstrated there is a 1:1 relationship, perhaps because - despite their importance to us - we're still not very sure what either of them is.

Indeed but one can't have consciousness in spades (if a being is self-aware how can it be more self-aware), but one can have intelligence in spades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Area54 said:

I agree with you the two, intelligence and consciousness, are related. I am not certain that anyone has ever demonstrated there is a 1:1 relationship, perhaps because - despite their importance to us - we're still not very sure what either of them is.

Area54 and dimreepr, 

I am just seeing a relationship.   In-tell-igence has a similarity to in-form-ation.  That is, given a human being sensing the world and remembering it by forming analogous patterns in the synapses and connections of brain cells and structures, the act of bringing the form in, being aware of the outside, is a central point of consciousness.  Self consciousness is an extension of bringing in and remembering the world, in that you are part of the world, and can look in a mirror or listen to other's experience of you, and you can feel your own heart beating and experience your own emotions and thoughts and actions.   And my dad is a psychologist and gave me intelligence tests as a boy and young man.  The particular test he used had different sections, but one was about information, like Homer or such, and I asked him what knowing certain information had to do with IQ.  He said that IQ was a quotient that ranked you against others of your age, and what information you acquired and what you did with it and remembered of it, was part of the test.   That means to me, now, in regards to this topic, and the relationship between consciousness and intelligence, that information is not finished when the wavelength hits the object.  It is something else that differentiates the rock from the eyeball, and something else again that differentiates the eyeball of a fly from the eyeball of a cow, and something else again that differentiates the eyeball of an idiot, from the eyeball of da Vinci.

Regards, TAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed but one can't have consciousness in spades (if a being is self-aware how can it be more self-aware), but one can have intelligence in spades. 

Hello, dimreepr. I'm sure Area 54 doesn't need the likes of me to defend his position, or put words into his mouth, but what i gathered from his remark  about " consciousness in spades " is that he was suggesting that the content and achievements of our consciousness, as humans, is more varied than other species: apart from what Nature has blessed us with, we have all the sciences, technology, the arts, sports, advanced languages, medicines and hospitals etc. etc. In other words, we don't " live by bread alone ", whereas i don't think that most animals aspire to much more than food and shelter - of course, i might be wrong.

I do agree with your point about intelligence and consciousness being linked - intelligence needs consciousness in order to be able to function and........consciousness without intelligence - maybe that's Area54's politicians. :)  I agree, too, that native intelligence is not confined to humanity; unfortunately, we are the only species i am aware of that misuses that intelligence.

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

 

I do have difficulty with your apparent desire to place humanity at the top of evolutions path. I am reliably informed that hedgehogs, e. coli and politicians consider themselves at the pinnacle. (All except the latter have a good case to make.) In short, there is no pinnacle. There is not more evoloved, or less evolved. All organisms have enjoyed the same three and a half billion years of evolution from our last common ancestor. Certainly, in terms of consciousness, there are definite differences in the degree of consciousness displayed by different organisms, but perhaps our interest and emphasis on the importance of consciousness is only because we have it in spades.

Yes, maybe my remark needs qualifying: i should have said that relative to other life-forms on Earth, human beings may have the greater degree of self-consciousness compared with other creatures that may have self-consciousness: e.g I know i am a human being and i know that i am getting older and  one day i will die; i don't think a chicken is aware of its mortality. Again, i could be wrong.

 On reflection,i think you're right about evolution being all-inclusive: the whole of Life must be on the crest of the evolutionary wave that's flowing into the future.

P.S. If i was a hedgehog or some e.coli, i might be a bit insulted to be roped in with politicians!

18 hours ago, Gees said:

 Tub;

Welcome to my thread. I remember you from Ten oz's thread, and you had some interesting things to say, but I don't remember if I communicated with you directly. Your points are interesting, so please consider my responses.

 

 

 

Thank you, Gee. There's a lot to consider so please allow me a little time to gather my thoughts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tub said:

Hello, dimreepr. I'm sure Area 54 doesn't need the likes of me to defend his position, or put words into his mouth, but what i gathered from his remark  about " consciousness in spades " is that he was suggesting that the content and achievements of our consciousness, as humans, is more varied than other species: apart from what Nature has blessed us with, we have all the sciences, technology, the arts, sports, advanced languages, medicines and hospitals etc. etc. In other words, we don't " live by bread alone ", whereas i don't think that most animals aspire to much more than food and shelter - of course, i might be wrong.

On this occassion your defence was most welcome. I had, I thought, posted a response, but it didn't go through. (This has happened a couple of times in the last two days.) You've captured the gist of my argument, though I am not certain we are more aware than all other animals. The other great apes, elephants and cetaceans are all arguably in the same ball-park. And for me the jury is out on parrots, crows and those pesky octopuses/octopi. 

1 hour ago, Tub said:

P.S. If i was a hedgehog or some e.coli, i might be a bit insulted to be roped in with politicians

Fortunately the hedgehogs have their own forums and rarely visit here. :)

 

1 hour ago, tar said:

Area54 and dimreepr, 

<snip>

Regards, TAR

Tar, I've read your passage multiple times and just cannot bring anything of substance out of it. I suspect that you are talking on a different wavelength from the one I am tuned to. Or maybe your broadcasting on AM and I only have an FM receiver. This is my precis of what you said:

The processing of external stimuli by the brain and the storage of the resultant interpretations is a key part of consciousness. Self consciousness is an awareness of ones interaction with the totality of ones environment. The same environment is "appreciated" to different degreees by different species and by different members of each species.

If that is what you were aiming for this is my repsonse. The first statement is incorrect. The second two are trivial and surely not in dispute, therefore I do not understand the point of making them.

I repeat, I find your style difficult to follow, so I may have got you partially or completely wrong. I can only respond to what I think you said and hope that matches what you meant. (On the stylistic point, have you considered the benefits of the paragraph?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Area54,

Yes  I guess you don't get my style. 

In general I try to talk to all the points being considered in the thread.   All arguments are not settled, so I attempt to speak in trivial terms, putting together accepted facts into the context of the thread.   The suggestion was made that consciousness and intelligence were different things, and neither was easy to get a hold of.  I attempted to make each an easy thing, and show how both were related to internalizing the external world.  Other lifeforms do this (internalize the world), but not to the extent that we do, in terms of symbolization, analogies and language to communicate complex thoughts about the environment to others of the species and to rehearse actions before we take them.  These abilities have survival value and  fitting thusly makes us a better fit for the place.  Survival of the fittest is the key rule of evolution.  So the better you can sense the environment, remember the environment, manipulate your model of the environment in your mind, to "test" things out, before expending energy in moving yourself and parts of the place, the better off you are going to be in getting along with the place, surviving and passing on your pattern.

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tar said:

Area54,

Yes  I guess you don't get my style. 

In general I try to talk to all the points being considered in the thread.   All arguments are not settled, so I attempt to speak in trivial terms, putting together accepted facts into the context of the thread.   The suggestion was made that consciousness and intelligence were different things, and neither was easy to get a hold of.  I attempted to make each an easy thing, and show how both were related to internalizing the external world.  Other lifeforms do this (internalize the world), but not to the extent that we do, in terms of symbolization, analogies and language to communicate complex thoughts about the environment to others of the species and to rehearse actions before we take them.  These abilities have survival value and  fitting thusly makes us a better fit for the place.  Survival of the fittest is the key rule of evolution.  So the better you can sense the environment, remember the environment, manipulate your model of the environment in your mind, to "test" things out, before expending energy in moving yourself and parts of the place, the better off you are going to be in getting along with the place, surviving and passing on your pattern.

Regards, TAR

That made more sense than usual, but it would be helpful if you told me whether or not my precis hit the mark, or - if it missed it - by how much. I'm a simple minded person who understands directness and concision, but is confused by anecdote, rambling and multiplexing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Area54,

It missed the mark.  My ramblings are purposeful.  If you leave out any aspects then you don't get the whole picture.  Attempting to provide a Cliff's notes version of a post of mine is already missing the mark.  I meant to say, everything I said.  Leaving any of it out, or rewording it to say something different than I meant is useless.

If you think you can address the thread title, address it.  I stand by my posts, and have no reason to change my style to suit you. 

I am 63 years old, attempting to share my insights, and gain some new ones from other posters.  I don't need an essay writing lesson from you.  If you can write a better one on consciousness and evolution , just write it.

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tar said:

My ramblings are purposeful.  If you leave out any aspects then you don't get the whole picture.  Attempting to provide a Cliff's notes version of a post of mine is already missing the mark.  I meant to say, everything I said.  Leaving any of it out, or rewording it to say something different than I meant is useless

Several decades ago I read a short SF story that intrigued me. The protagonist was a literary critic and computer programmer who had written software that extracted the essence of great novels into a summary. These were not some Reader's Digest Condensed Books versions, but captured the heart and soul of the books despite being around 10% of the size of the original. Then James Joyce's Ulysses is subject to the process. It emerges with every word intact. Tar, you are not James Joyce.

 

7 hours ago, tar said:

I am 63 years old, attempting to share my insights, and gain some new ones from other posters.  I don't need an essay writing lesson from you

The attitude you express in the second highlighted section will interfere with the desire expressed in the first. Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tar said:

Attempting to provide a Cliff's notes version of a post of mine is already missing the mark. 

Maybe a babelfish, then?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Area54 and iNow,

I don't mind you guys poking fun at me.  I am sort of a self-deprecating humor type of guy.  But it is interesting to me how you poke fun, but don't weigh in on the ideas being shared and debated on the thread, instead finding some way to suggest my input is garbage.  I have expressed several theories about how consciousness and evolution are linked.  I have an underlying theory about dopamine and its role in not only human survival, but in our every day life and happiness.  It links in with Gees' understanding of emotion's relationship to consciousness.  It explains "why" we like to live, through the dopamine reward we get for "getting it right".  This is not only figuratively true, but literally true, where if you remember how to do something in the outside world, through having your model of the place correct, you both feel good at being right, and actually achieve a life sustaining victory.

iNow,  

I mentioned this in relation to how Rebecca Saxe's junction was like our superego, and the part of brain stem base you identified was like our ego, both about facts you brought to the forum and my attention, and you did not weigh in on those ideas.   Just called me a babblefish.

Area54,

I asked you to write a great essay on consciousness and evolution and instead you tell me I am no James Joyce.  Well I would say neither are you the protagonist you seek to emulate, and you still have not said much interesting or thought provoking about consciousness and evolution, nor detailed your problems with my theories.   Only do you comment on my inability to write concisely. 

Regards, TAR

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tar said:

I have expressed several theories about how consciousness and evolution are linked.  

 

That's like saying 1+1=2, how many theories do you need?

13 minutes ago, tar said:

I have an underlying theory about dopamine and its role in not only human survival, but in our every day life and happiness.  It links in with Gees' understanding of emotion's relationship to consciousness.  It explains "why" we like to live, through the dopamine reward we get for "getting it right".  This is not only figuratively true, but literally true, where if you remember how to do something in the outside world, through having your model of the place correct, you both feel good at being right, and actually achieve a life sustaining victory.

This is nonsense, dopamine is a fleeting reward system, it's never going to "achieve a life sustaining victory" it just says "you're happy now", that's why it's so addictive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tar said:

Area54 and iNow,

I don't mind you guys poking fun at me. 

You don't seem to recognise that humour is a valid rhetorical device for highlighting incongruities in people's arguments. I was not "poking fun at you", I was criticising your writing style which is obtuse, flowery and thematically weak. You do not welcome such criticsm.

 

23 minutes ago, tar said:

But it is interesting to me how you poke fun, but don't weigh in on the ideas being shared and debated on the thread, instead finding some way to suggest my input is garbage.

I have weighed in on the OP's ideas. However, if I see an observation that appears faulty, or evidence that is weak, or assertions that are unsupported, I shall often comment on them. As far as I can see you do the same thing, but you object when such "questioning" is directed at you.

I did not suggest your input was garbage. I stated, I thought quite clearly, that it was very difficult to understand what you were saying. Out of respect for you I spent half an hour trying to understand one of your posts, taking the time to write a summary and asking for your help to understand how accurate that summary was. In response I got a snotty and unhelpful reply.

  I presume you post here in order to share your thoughts. I would think that only works if your thoughts are intellgible to others. There appear to be two individuals, at least, in this thread who find your posts difficult. After sixty three years you should have learned that a lot of criticism is designed to help, not harm. If you don't want your post to be properly understood ignore the advice, the commentary and the "fun poking". That's your option.

23 minutes ago, tar said:

I have expressed several theories about how consciousness and evolution are linked. 

This is a science forum. Please don't abuse the word theory. (Yes, I'm criticising your writing style again, because lucidity and accuracy in scientific discussions are important.)

 

24 minutes ago, tar said:

  I have an underlying theory about dopamine and its role in not only human survival, but in our every day life and happiness. 

That is a speculation/hypothesis that I have already addressed. I think I noted, or certainly should have, that when you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. If the implications of that remark passed you by I was stating that your infatuation with dopamine has driven you into a simplistic, narrow minded perspective on reality.

 

29 minutes ago, tar said:

I asked you to write a great essay on consciousness and evolution and instead you tell me I am no James Joyce. 

Neither am I. That is one of the reasons I have not attempted to write a great essay on consciousness and evolution. I recognise my limitations.

33 minutes ago, tar said:

Well I would say neither are you the protagonist you seek to emulate, and you still have not said much interesting or thought provoking about consciousness and evolution, nor detailed your problems with my theories.   Only do you comment on my inability to write concisely. 

I am not seeking to emulate any protagonist.

The reason I have not said much that is interesting or thought provoking about consciousness and evolution is that I don't really have anything interesting and thought provoking to say about them. But I have been reading other people's ideas about them and I believe it is entirely inline with the ethos of the forum to comment on these and point out weaknesses in them., or to ask for clarification.

Your lack of concision is annoying, but I could live with it. My main objection is that I don't understand what you are saying and you aren't doing anything to help me overcome that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tar said:

I don't mind you guys poking fun at me. (snip) Just called me a babblefish.

I've said it repeatedly through the years, tar, as have countless other members. Your points are often rather challenging to follow and comprehend, and that's not a function of their complexity or subject matter. It's the presentation which frequently makes little sense to us in the audience.

My guess is that it would be easier to follow your style in conversation, perhaps while barbecuing and sitting beside one another mutually enjoying a beer, but when interacting via text in the forums here, many of us are often at a loss to determine WTF you're talking about, how it's relevant to the discussion taking place, or make sense of what point you're attempting to make. Area54 is just the latest to notice and comment about it.

Btw - You seem to have missed my reference. Wasn't calling you a babelfish, but instead suggesting access to one might help the rest of us: http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Babel_Fish

 

Quote

I mentioned this in relation to how Rebecca Saxe's junction was like our superego, and the part of brain stem base you identified was like our ego, both about facts you brought to the forum and my attention, and you did not weigh in on those ideas.

Mostly, because you've brought up Freud's ridiculous and debunked ideas repeatedly before, I've repeatedly explained why those ideas are not considered valid, and yet you proceed as if the ideas are well accepted and we never had those exchanges in the past. If the person with whom I'm interacting keeps repeating points I've repeatedly corrected them on or shown to be fallacious, I generally just stop replying to them. That's what happened here. I saw it. I sighed. I thought, "seriously? again with this garbage? I moved on.

I wish you no ill-will and intend these comments as authentic honest feedback. It is not my intent to specifically poke fun or hurt feelings. I hope you receive them with the kindness intended.

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Area54 ,

What I am trying to add to the discussion is that the mechanisms humans have, to become aware of the world,  to build an analog model of the world within the folds of the brain, to compare and contrast current sense input with former to register change, and to in general be aware that they are a self, existing in a greater space and time than here and now, did not come to us by accident but developed over the eons from earlier mechanisms.  That is there is a reason for dopamine.  It serves a purpose. A survival purpose. And it is one of the things that makes us different than a rock.u

We have some mechanisms in the brain, that may have developed for a reason, and we usurped that mechanism to use in a tangential way.  Like for instance we have a predictive motor simulator, that allows the brain to rehearse motor movement, aligning and ordering motor control signals into a package, before any signals are sent to the muscles.  The result is coordinated motion, when the package is actually sent to the various muscles.  This activity is analogous to planning a hunt, but the signals are extended to other humans (or wolves).  Coordinating motion outside the body.  Maybe something related to the predictive motor simulator is related to human consciousness, planning and problem solving.  My thinking is that everything has a reason, a cause, a mechanism, that fits reality, that works, and there is no "ghost in the machine" of a human, but that the machine is the human.   In this there is the reality that God did not breath life into us, but that life took the pattern from its parents that worked, and made it work again.  The most workable arrangement, the most fitting patterns lived and reproduced.  But there has to be the mechanisms that cause human consciousness, and these mechanisms did not just pop up out of nothing, but can be found, should be able to be found in there rudimentary form or sub components, in our close evolutionary relatives.   Plus there should be some small adjustment to the plan, some particular variation to the plan, that caused us to dominate and outlive the Neanderthal.   

Regards, TARt

iNow,

 

Which parts of Freud's theories have you sufficiently debunked?

I am taking the sensible ideas from Freud and Jung and Skinner and adding them to research from Saxe and iNow, to understand the human in a holistic way.  There is both the mind and the brain to look at.  One can look at them as one thing.   Know that the body wants a cigarette, but not have one.

The Id, Ego and SuperEgo is a device.   A representation of an animal, emotional, sense based part of our makeup that is actual and real, exhibited by the hormones and neurotransmitters, and such.  A representation of the societal rules embedded in our psyches as the superego.   A representation of the moderator between the desire to smoke and the surgeon general's warning in the person of the ego.

You can not debunk any of this.   We have these mechanisms and chemicals, and they act in the manner Freud suggests in many ways.

Regards, TAR

 

 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's like saying 1+1=2, how many theories do you need?

This is nonsense, dopamine is a fleeting reward system, it's never going to "achieve a life sustaining victory" it just says "you're happy now", that's why it's so addictive. 

Still,

I say dopamine as shorthand for our pleasure/reward system, and use it meaning also our motivation and activation system, the whole serotonin, norepinephrine, dopamine complex.  Why we want, why we move, why we are content or not.  Fleeting happiness indeed, but we seek it out, again...thus continue to live.

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tar,

Apart form the contentious issues on dopamine and your rather elitist attitude to Neandertals, I see no significance difference between what you have just said and my earlier precis. And those points are trivial. No one is arguing with them yet you seemed to present them as something novel. I found that bewildering.

As to Freud, he was discounted by all but con artists and charlatans many decades ago. If you are unaware of this I recommend you purchase some books published after the 1940s.

I suspected the non-comprehension of your  posts was down to me and so I deferred comment for several weeks. It seems I am not alone in bemusement. I do believe that is something you might wish to reflect on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Area54, 

Logically my posts can not be wrong, nonsense, not understandable and trivially true and not novel.   I reflect back to a post of yours where you Cliff noted three points of mine, called the first wrong, and the next two trivially true.  The points were connected and there to bolster each other yet you did not tell me why you thought the first one wrong, so I could defend the idea.  Nor did you mention where my thinking was aligned with yours or where it deviated.

 My thoughts are not all standard thoughts with pat responses.  Quite the opposite.  If you have not run into the particular combination of ideas I present, which I think is accurate to assume, since you claim to not understand what my point is, then I can not simultaneously be presenting pat and not novel material.  What I do do, is put together various true insights I have had, over my life into what I think is a true statement, that one would have a hard time arguing with because it is consistent with the facts that everyone accepts as facts.   That is, the world is true, is correct, no matter what you or I say about it, or think about it.  It is there doing what its doing whether you or I like it or not.  When I talk just to true stuff, stuff I noticed, and figure you must have noticed to, or learned about, because its actual, I don't need your agreement on it, because its real and true.   But an insight, is something personal.  Bringing some pattern or actuality of the world, in.  Not all insights you have had, have I had.  Not all insights I have had, have you had.  While it is unlikely that I have had any insights that nobody else has had, sharing an insight that I consider new, is not being either obtuse or not novel.  Perhaps someone else never had the insight, or perhaps you got it the first time I mentioned it. ...oh yeah,  when four trees of the same variety are planted in a straight line West to East, notice that the furthest west tree is the tallest and then the next east and the next and the most eastern one the shortest.   Makes sense if you have the insight that the trees grow to get the morning sun.   Is this trivially true, or did you never think of it before?

Regards, TAR

 

By the way my father, pictured below me in my profile picture is a  Freudian psychologist and not a charlatan.  He was the head of the psychology department of a small college in East Orange NJ. and was a Psychologist in private practice and an officer of an organization of such professionals in NJ.  He has taught many, helped many and counseled many and  never took advantage of a single soul I am aware of.  He is loved and respected by many life long friends and students, definitely not a charlatan.   I think what you have heard about Freudian psychology is incorrect.

Edited by tar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tar said:

Logically my posts can not be wrong, nonsense, not understandable and trivially true and not novel.

You quite underestimate your abilities to confuse. More seriously, these characteristics apply to different posts. Some are wrong, some are nonsense, some are not understanable, some are not novel, some are trivially true.

 

23 minutes ago, tar said:

  I reflect back to a post of yours where you Cliff noted three points of mine, called the first wrong, and the next two trivially true.  The points were connected and there to bolster each other yet you did not tell me why you thought the first one wrong, so I could defend the idea. 

This was the precis that you told me had completely missed the mark. Here is what you said.

"It missed the mark.  My ramblings are purposeful.  If you leave out any aspects then you don't get the whole picture.  Attempting to provide a Cliff's notes version of a post of mine is already missing the mark.  I meant to say, everything I said.  Leaving any of it out, or rewording it to say something different than I meant is useless."

Now let's proceed from there.

I understood your post have contained three essential points.

You informed me that I was incorrect - I had missed the mark.

That means my understanding of those three points was incorrect, that perhaps there were more, or less than three points, but if there were three I didn't know what they were.

Under those circumstances why on Earth would I spend time discussing them further since they had nothing to do with you? They were a mistaken interpretation on my part.

Now you hint that my three points may actually have at least partly hit the mark since you would welcome an explanation of why I thought one of them to be wrong. So what's going on? Either I got it wrong - that's consistent with your initial response. Or, I got it right - which is what you are now implying. If its the latter why did you tell me I had missed the mark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was something wrong with each of your declarations.  I have tried to explain how each missed the mark.  It is not important to me whether you characterize my posts correctly or incorrectly.  It is important to me whether my posts are true or false, helpful or interesting, thought provoking or insightful.   If none of the above apply and my posts do nothing for you, just don't read them.  If I am using bad logic or incorrect facts please point those out.  But if you have some personal critique to make, that is not about Gees topic, but about my writing style, please PM me.

It is proper on this board to defend ideas not one's character or intelligence or writing prowess.  Please stop making me defend my personality.  Talk about the points brought up related to the thread title.

"As a graduate student, Saxe demonstrated that a brain region known as the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ) is specifically activated by ‘theory of mind’ tasks that require understanding the mental states of other people."?

Specifically tell me whether or not you think my associating the TPJ with Freud's idea of the SuperEgo is appropriate.

Edited by tar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now