Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 12:36pm PT
|
Thanks Ed for the reference to the book The Mind of God: Neuroscience, Faith, and a Search for the Soul. I somehow missed it when reading the NYT. Now I've ordered it from Amazon.
The author's company Genomind is equally fascinating as it uses individual genetics to determine psychiatric disease and the most effective treatments for it, rather than the current trial and error drug treatments. Another step in the direction of discerning how physical changes in the brain affect the mind.
I gather from reading the book's reviews that the author also accepts that changes in the mind can affect changes in the brain. Another step in treating the brain as another organ in the body, subject to the same principles, yet also recognizing its uniqueness.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 03:56pm PT
|
Okay, so I knew that I would be proved to be a lying sack of sh#t for saying that I was retiring from this thread (sorry). I was just perusing the last coupla' pages and noticed this, from Ed.
the randomness isn't in the individual, it is in the entirety of the population, and the randomness of mating in that population, and all the things that can happen as a result of that mating.
it is why I like the possibility that "human intelligence" is a result of sexual selection, not natural selection.
I like this idea. I've been thinking about it ever since I read it. It is an hypothesis worth considering.
Also, good job, healyje!
Looks like I still have time...
Also, to sycorax and Paul, in particular, I would say that the humanities is really, a product of mind. What I interpret this thread to be about is the underlying source of mind. As a software programmer I would code it such that all of the humanities would occur in a branch of code following the creation of the thing. This thread is about the creation of that thing (mind). These are different things.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 04:39pm PT
|
It's probably not a strict either-or proposition...
Study finds some female fish evolve bigger brains when males have bigger genitals
Both avoiding predators and catching prey demand brain power. By studying several hundred species of fish, Kondoh showed that prey eaten by large-brained predators tend to have larger brains themselves. It seems that both predator and prey tend to evolve towards higher cognitive functioning to give themselves an edge in their competition.
Recently, a team of Swedish and Australian researchers led by Séverine Buechel from Stockholm University, noticed that predator-prey conflict is, in some ways, like sexual conflict. This is because it features two antagonistic partners constantly evolving to better outwit the other. The researchers wondered if, like predator-prey conflict, sexual conflict might also affect the evolution of brain size.
...
Same sh#t, other species...
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 05:24pm PT
|
Hey, thanks for grounding me, healyje -- the predator-prey relationship really is the number one hypothesis, for sure, in my book. Still, my sense (based on a fair amount of reading on the subject over decades) tells me that sexual selection is underestimated as a mechanism in human evolution. It continues to be, for me, the most mysterious part of human evolution (as are females - I mean, c'mon, they are doing the selecting).
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 06:07pm PT
|
Yeah, google 'Sperm Competition' and take a look at Baker and Bellis' landmark Manchester study. Biologically-speaking, we men are not running the show no matter what we can free solo...
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 07:58pm PT
|
In the hardware business this is sometimes referred to as a " round end tank" but I call them "horse trough tubs"
You gotta use them in the sun, immersion in 50° to 55° F. water, between 8-11 am , to maximize eye and skin exposure to UV-A and IR-A for optimal production of melatonin and dopamine.
The tarp to the left, along with thousands of others like it , were once used as temporary covers for the space shuttles, until it was discovered those tarps were sized somewhat improperly and were forthwith discarded and replaced. One is now used to keep skeeters from messin with my cold thermogenesis.
Sometimes I'll go colder with the addition of ice -- such as after a long day of climbing or hiking, or reading this thread. Then it is strictly for general anti-inflammatory purposes.
What does this have to do with mind? Well the brain has the highest concentration of mitochondria in the human body. Proper exposure to lower temps and sunlight results in higher mitochondrial efficiency. It's the redox Rx.
I informed a curious neighbor the tub was used for improved electron chain transport amongst respiratory proteins in mitochondrial membranes. Some "tunneling" involved.
His response: " So. Does the damn thing rust?"
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 10:19pm PT
|
here's another relevant NYTimes article:
Men Can Be So Hormonal
...There is such a condition as “low-T,” or hypogonadism, which can cause fatigue and diminished sex drive, and it becomes more common as men age. But according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, half of the men taking prescription testosterone don’t have a deficiency. Many are just tired and want a lift. But they may not be doing themselves any favors. It turns out that the supplement isn’t entirely harmless: Neuroscientists are uncovering evidence suggesting that when men take testosterone, they make more impulsive — and often faulty — decisions.
Researchers have shown for years that men tend to be more confident about their intelligence and judgments than women, believing that solutions they’ve generated are better than they actually are. This hubris could be tied to testosterone levels, and new research by Gideon Nave, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania, along with Amos Nadler at Western University in Ontario, reveals that high testosterone can make it harder to see the flaws in one’s reasoning...
so it seems that hormones can affect what we consider to be part of "mind," at least if you include cognition there.
This begs the question, if mind is not a physical thing, how is it effected by physical things?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 11:57pm PT
|
It's pretty clear the brain can affect the mind (and subjective experience) and vice versa. This tight, reciprocal coupling by itself argues strongly for consciousness and mind being the 'purpose' of brains.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 08:25am PT
|
After puzzling over the axiom of infinity that yanqui linked, and various connections, I suggest that we consider sorting out this subjectivity stuff along similar lines. Maybe we can identify first-order subjectivity, as in, “I like marmalade,” and second-order subjectivity, as in, “The mind is not the brain.”
I like Bill Watterson’s expression of his own view on the nature of the tiger Hobbes.
The nature of Hobbes’s reality doesn’t interest me.
Calvin sees Hobbes one way and everyone else sees Hobbes another way.
I show two versions of reality and each makes complete sense to the participant who sees it. I think that’s how life works. None of us sees the world in exactly the same way, and I just draw that literally in the strip. Hobbes is more about the subjective nature of reality…
Bill Watterson
in The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book
I would add that reality also has an objective nature.
An imaginary friend of a comic strip boy must exist at several levels removed from objective reality.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 09:51am PT
|
Researchers have shown for years that men tend to be more confident about their intelligence and judgments than women, believing that solutions they’ve generated are better than they actually are. This hubris could be tied to testosterone levels, and new research by Gideon Nave, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania, along with Amos Nadler at Western University in Ontario, reveals that high testosterone can make it harder to see the flaws in one’s reasoning...
There is a very close relationship between testosterone and dopamine. When either falls below a functional baseline it effects the other. Dopamine is known for providing the brain with reasonable assessments of the external and internal environment: making one aware of on-going trends, track social interaction, and formulating the appropriate range of responses, etc..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9829800
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3949980/
There is clearly some very complex brain receptor conditions and interactive cellular signalling pathways going on between these products of the compound pharmacy of the body.
BTW in a lot of these studies and articles it is always mentioned where dopamine is produced in the human brain . Rarely ever is it mentioned that dopamine is also produced in the eye and that it is closely tied to the retinal system's processing of light and to circadian functioning in the SCN. But also it might be worth mentioning that the business end interaction between T and dopamine probably takes place largely in the frontal lobe and midbrain, the sites of many of the relevant receptors.
It it known that low Vitamin D levels is linked to both low T and dopamine,and that low levels of all three are firmly tied to shorter days in winter.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 10:27am PT
|
I'm posting again. I'm not evil. I'm just weak, like Homer Simpson.
Michael Harris with a few thoughts on the possibility that computers could become the mathematicians of the future:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/03/computers_proving_mathematical_theorems_how_artificial_intelligence_could.html
MH2: I think most mathematicians who are not working in foundations or who are not accustomed to thinking about these axioms in a formal way, would also find this characterization of the axiom of infinity a bit puzzling at first glance. On the other hand, the statement: There is a set of natural numbers, seems crystal clear. Mathematicians did plenty of interesting mathematics for at least 2500 years (Euclid wrote down some pretty cool stuff back in the day) before Cantor came along with sets and even then his ideas were not generally accepted at first. It was later on that mathematicians generally agreed to base their work on axioms using this language.
In theory (at least when we're not speaking categorically) mathematical proof should be reducible to axioms (like these) using formal logic, although such a formal description of the proof would probably be incomprehensible to most human beings. The language we use to talk about the things we study and even to write down proofs is much more perspicuous. Otherwise I doubt we would be able to think about and solve mathematical problems. However (outside of the realm of say, categories) this language should ultimately be definable in the language of sets. There are reasons, I think, we have agreed to this, if you'd like I could could say more. On the other hand, if you want to be a professional mathematician and publish papers in this day and age, you are pretty much forced into this agreement. I don't know any working mathematicians (except maybe category theorists, who get to do what they do anyways) that might feel limited in their work by this agreement.
In terms of these axioms, just remember: even in mathematics, nothing is written in stone!
Hope that helps.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 11:12am PT
|
There are formal proofs of theorems, and these can be dry and uninspiring, a sequence of strange looking lemmas presented in preparation for a quick and systematic finale. This is a kind of AI approach to theorem proving, one that leaves the reader wondering how in the world someone dreamed that up?
I have been guilty of this back when I published papers, but in retrospect what I was doing was making it easy for a referee to validate my efforts, rather than showing the hidden artistry of discovery and creation. What is far more important IMO is a commentary describing the development of interesting ideas. These days a mere sketch of the proof suffices for me.
When you leave the environment of formal publishing and just play with ideas there is a sense of freedom, like solo climbing.
Set theory can be both beautiful and dreadful, a mathematical quicksand that most practitioners avoid - unless you work in those areas. The Axiom of Choice is a prime example of shaky ground.
If, in the future, AI produces theorems that human mathematicians can't comprehend, I suppose applications, also incomprehensible, would follow. We would be left to oil and polish the machines, a pyrrhic victory for mankind.
|
|
okay, whatever
climber
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 12:14pm PT
|
I like John Gill's last sentence, in particular.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 01:16pm PT
|
The Axiom of Choice is a prime example
Wary of the V-scale, crash pads and the Axiom of Choice. You're so old school, Mr. Gill!
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 01:51pm PT
|
Back to sexual selection and evolution.
Sexual selection operates at the individual level but also at the societal level depending on the forms of marriage. A polygynous society will magnify a man's genetic impact while a polyandrous one will magnify a woman's. Polygyny will select for older men with more wealth and discriminate against young ones who however attractive otherwise, never manage to marry and reproduce because they are not wealthy enough. Polyandry will select for women who have major diplomatic skills and prefer an active sexual life.
Monogamy features more opportunity for the masses to marry and reproduce - for better or worse. Late age of reproduction while helpful to individual careers, is not so good for the gene pool. Down's syndrome percentages rise alarmingly with the age of the mother and autism is now being correlated with the age of the parents, including the male. The cultural preferences of post industrial society along with our good medical care are definitely impacting evolution in rich societies and not for the better. Overall, monogamous marriage opportunities and their offspring are devastating the planet.
And then there's 1st cousin marriage, preferred by 1/3 of all societies in the past but genetically dangerous today in the era of modern medicine. While preserving family wealth it also results in higher rates of birth defects among those who practice it. In the past, these genetic mistakes which average about 25%, died.
Nowadays both Arabs and West Virginians who still practice cousin marriage and Amish who have mated among a small gene pool for 200 years now, are all suffering higher rates than normal. In West Virginia it's something like 3 1/2 the birth defects of other Americans while the Amish have such a high rate of rare and severe genetic diseases that it is speculated they will be 100% of the population in another hundred years or so, a self induced extinction if it continues on as currently. Inbreeding is also one of the major hypotheses for why Neanderthals became extinct.
Sexual selection matters to individuals but in evolution, it's the practices of populations, the bigger the better, that counts.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 02:02pm PT
|
Human females are not biologically monogamous - quite the contrary, so it says something about the power of social norms and culture that they, at least to appearances, can override / rein-in a strong biological imperative to the contrary.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 02:37pm PT
|
yangui wrote:
There are reasons, I think, we have agreed to this, if you'd like I could could say more.
You have been generous enough, already.
I have read other mathematicians who point out that what mathematicians call and rely upon as proofs include intuitive leaps that are not supported in the way that formal logic would call for.
It seems to work anyway, though, and I don't think Paramecium depends upon a rock-solid fundamental formal logical proof of its ability to survive, either.
edit:
And I learned a new word:
Perspicuous
adjective formal
1. (of an account or representation) clearly expressed and easily understood; lucid."it provides simpler and more perspicuous explanations than its rivals"
◦ (of a person) able to give an account or express an idea clearly.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 02:50pm PT
|
Stronger than the urge for sexual variety for most women, has been the instinct to provide the best possible circumstances for the survival of children. Recent surveys have found women prefer having affairs with very masculine looking men who are unconventional but choose men with softer features (less testosterone) and more stable situations to marry.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 03:00pm PT
|
Human females are not biologically monogamous - quite the contrary, so it says something about the power of social norms and culture that they, at least to appearances, can override / rein-in a strong biological imperative to the contrary.
Oh, oh... sounds like a metaphysical problem.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 03:26pm PT
|
Ward, your boxed quite incorrectly engages the term "hubris." It would take a wall of text to explain. I put my dick on the table as far as all things literary. Like my marathon time of 2:55, no one on ST can touch me in terms of literature.
Sycorax-woman, you need to try your hand at scrumpy poetry:
some salty Norfolk samphire
cheddar cheese on toast
Cornish pasty with gravy
Melton Mowbray pie
A Kendal Mint cake
Scrumpy jug
Aye!
Scrumpy jug indeed!!
Aye?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!