Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
MH2: Do you get the notion of undecidable?
Not here I don’t. How does decidability relate to truth?
P.S. I should have offered that what is true must be final, accurate, and complete. Close only counts in horse shoes and nuclear weapons.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
Human reasoning is on a continuum with reptile and mammalian predator/prey reasoning as well as at least mammalian mother/child reasoning and empathy.
Finally eeyonkee has supplied the other half of the explanation. I've been troubled on this thread with the portrayal of the evolution of consciousness as predominantly predator prey responses. Mother child empathy and father child protectiveness have been the missing half. Together, they form a more complete picture, and when the advanced human brain is added, the creative artistic and reasoning aspect is covered as well.
That's a more holistic description that people can more readily identify with as they try to construct a naturalistic paradigm of human behavior and aspirations. The chief critique of atheism from the religious point of view has been the lack of a foundational ethical system amidst all the talk of red in tooth and claw. Now we can strive to be the various best evolved humans we can be.
Of course a widely used meditation in the Tibetan tradition is to imagine your mother or any mother and child and try to expand that primal love to your closest family, relatives, neighbors, city, country, and world including all living beings within.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
^^^^^^
Well, maybe not simply "the other half," but an additional and relevant perspective.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
So what would you add Mike?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Good question, Jan.
As you are no doubt aware, I’ve had conversations with Healyje about evolution, and I think the idea or claim is too broad and general if it explains everything about life. I don’t mean to review that discussion here.
If we’re talking about “how did we / our species get to where we’ve gotten to,” then we could well bring everything in, to include the kitchen sink. Evolution is a theory, an abstraction, a model, and as such it is parsimonious. It leaves many things out in its summarization.
I’d be willing to add in all the things that Paul talks about if we are looking for insight: myth, story, narratives, polarities, the collective unconscious, soul (for Werner). These are ways of seeing and knowing, and they help to inform us of how we’ve gotten to where we are at (if we could actually describe just where we are at).
I’d also add in things like history, especially events that appear to be outside of human influence . . . things that fall outside of genetics like historical accidents—small in nature, but with seemingly huge influences down the road that were impossible to predict. Base could tell us something about geology and how it’s impacted what physical resources were available to human beings.
Where folks are at also relies upon where they’ve been historically. You can refer to karma. Economists might call it path dependency. Post hoc propter hoc: what came first? Historical events or genetics? Aren’t they mutually causative in some places? Disentangling such things amount to fiat.
There is also conscious thought as a basis for change. Isn’t this what many scientists and engineers and enlightened philosophers want to argue for? With reason, we can lift ourselves up out of primitive savagery. Education, parenting (nurture), various disciplinary practices, institutionalization, philosophy, the courts, policy, programs, and so forth are all man-made, socially constructed systems that purportedly end up creating, influencing, forming how people see, reason, and hence impact how they behave. For many folks, behavior and achievement are the measures of who and what we are.
We could go on, but I think you get my drift. Pointing at any one or two things does not explain who or what we, you, or me are.
Theories seem to be mechanisms for conversation. We like talking, imagining, arguing, being involved with others in life in such ways. Isn’t this why we have culture? Reading and participating on this thread now and then is fun, isn’t it? But, it may simply be a form of death denial. It gives us something to focus on.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Jeez, DMT! This is certainly not what I believe. My whole point about the predator-prey dynamic is that it likely prompted the evolution of the imaging apparatus that was a prerequisite for the self-directed imaging that evolved in humans. Of course there was no one path to intelligence.
Selection works at two levels, sexual and "natural". So you only have two choices (although "both" could be correct) with respect to what caused human intelligence over and above the intelligence of other primates.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 5, 2017 - 12:23pm PT
|
An interesting concept to ponder is how to reconcile the external (objective/objects, forces, phenomenon) with the internal (conscious, experiential, subjective).
My sense is that this is accomplished by way of awareness, a kind of primordial empty set (metaphorically speaking - go ahead and grind on what empty set means in math), which is filled with both the external and internal stuff of consciousness.
Considering that reality is seamless, inner and outer, objective and subjective are almost certainly arbitrary terms, but this is a discursive exercise, after all.
An interesting side show or adjunct theme is the mingling of evolutionary and inherent forces, which are both at play here. Any attempt to "explain" all of consciousness from one or the other runs into dead ends.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Human reasoning is on a continuum with reptile and mammalian predator/prey reasoning as well as at least mammalian mother/child reasoning and empathy.
Here the assumption is that on that continuum human intelligence is one polarity with some sort of single cell creature at the other end, but if, in fact, you imply any continuum of intelligence the continued implication is for an intelligence far greater than our own. And then how far can we take the notion of such a continuum within a universe so vast and we have to ask what is the limit of intelligence? And what do we call the final term of intelligence in the universe? It's almost an argument for the existence of God.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
. . . awareness, a kind of primordial empty set (metaphorically speaking - go ahead and grind on what empty set means in math), which is filled with both the external and internal stuff of consciousness
It may be better for your arguments to avoid any math/physics analogies. They haven't worked well in the past. Just a thought. Maybe stick with literature. Sycorax could help.
. . . but if, in fact, you imply any continuum of intelligence the continued implication is for an intelligence far greater than our own
That's a huge "if". An increasing "continuum" is not required to move above a limiting value. This could also be an argument for difficulty levels in rock climbing to increase indefinitely. That could happen, but only incrementally beyond a certain point, with higher and higher ratings dependent on modifying the meaning of "difficulty". And perhaps that could happen with "intelligence" as well - but beware of those up and coming robots!
It's true that in math the logarithm curve keeps going up indefinitely, but at a slower and slower rate as time progresses. But, the arctangent curve, although always rising, is trapped below pi/2.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
How about squirrels? They can climb circles around humans. Should we start upping the YDS scale by considering these cuties? They even look down on us, chatter, and shake their tails in ridicule!
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
How about squirrels? They can climb circles around humans. Should we start upping the YDS scale by considering these cuties? They even look down on us, chatter, and shake their tails in ridicule!
This is why squirrels worship geckos.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Paul said
Here the assumption is that on that continuum human intelligence is one polarity with some sort of single cell creature at the other end, but if, in fact, you imply any continuum of intelligence the continued implication is for an intelligence far greater than our own. And then how far can we take the notion of such a continuum within a universe so vast and we have to ask what is the limit of intelligence? And what do we call the final term of intelligence in the universe? It's almost an argument for the existence of God.
Paul, you are making this whole thing much too difficult. I mean c'mon, you don't have to be a scientist to see these points -- facts, if those mean anything anymore. 1) The African apes are more like us than any other animal species on earth - fact. Good so far? 2) There are some really intelligent species that are mammals but not primates, like dolphins, 3) There are some really intelligent species that are not even vertebrates, like octopi.
What does this tell us? Seems to me it tells us that intelligence is not unique to the human, primate, mammal, or even vertebrate lineages. It (well the theory of evolution, really) also suggests that OUR version of intelligence arrived along the vertebrate-mammal-primate lineage (branch of the evolutionary tree).
With that as a starting point, it also seems to me that we have to account for our human intelligence as different from our closest relatives, the African apes. Since we only have around 7 or 8 millions years to work with, it can't be something that involved too many evolutionary steps based on what we know about the pace of evolutionary change. That tells me to look for small changes that could have big payoffs. Co-opting the imaging system that was originally developed to anticipate the "other guy" to start imaging yourself seems like a way in which you could achieve big payoffs with perhaps few, actual, genetic changes. That is, if the payoff is human intelligence.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
What does this tell us? Seems to me it tells on that intelligence is not unique to the human, primate, mammal, or even vertebrate lineages.
eeyonkee, you might dig this Kevin Kelly piece. (Do you know this name?)
The Myth of a SuperHuman AI
"Every species alive today is equally evolved. Humans exist on this outer ring alongside cockroaches, clams, ferns, foxes, and bacteria. Every one of these species has undergone an unbroken chain of three billion years of successful reproduction, which means that bacteria and cockroaches today are as highly evolved as humans."
"The problem with this model is that it is mythical."
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai/
Kevin Kelly also appeared recently on the Harris podcast, where they talk about evolution of intelligence, evo of consciousness, AI and Artificial Consciousness, lol. You should check it out if you have the time.
Landscapes of Mind
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/landscapes-of-mind
Also check out Black MIrror, S03E04, San Junipero. Grade A!
Download it if you have to. It'll blow your mind!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Once you understand both the theory of evolution, more or less, and also what a node is, it shouldn't be hard to get. You are a node on the evolutionary tree. So is every one of your ancestors. Each of us has an ancestral path back to the beginning of life. We wouldn't be alive if it was otherwise.
There is no such thing as "mind". I'm sure that dolphins have minds -- different than ours, of course. But then, ours are different than our neighbors, spouses (often, particularly) and children.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Paul: . . . if, in fact, you imply any continuum of intelligence the continued implication is for an intelligence far greater than our own
jgill: That's a huge "if".
I don’t get it. If we (the species) is not the result of a big “if,” then how is it that you place a limit on what would otherwise simply be a continuation of what we think the species has become. Much of science makes the assumption that what has come before will continue. It’s the basis of forecasting. I think you’d need to formulate the basis of a limit empirically, rather than some imagined generalization of what might be. I think you are too quick to pull out a mathematical construct without specific basis.
eeyonkee: Of course there was no one path to intelligence.
It’s very interesting to me that you highlight or focus on “intelligence” as the basis or metric for evolution. I don’t think evolution makes this claim at all.
A focus on intelligence as the metric for success and importance is typical these days. We get this in most every form we can observe from every corner.
An argument can readily made that evolution has nothing to do with the intelligence of a species. Simply that the species (a so-called category of life) mutated (“adapted”) advantageously over other specie and resource pools.
Check your assumptions, and how they square with the theory if you’re a devotee of it.
Jan might say, for example, that those species that care for their young more completely than others is the basis for “adaptation.” (Hell, it could be many bases or any basis.)
Intelligence is a trump card that may be over-played.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
I don’t get it. If we (the species) is not the result of a big “if,” then how is it that you place a limit on what would otherwise simply be a continuation of what we think the species has become
And where did I place a limit? I think it is just as likely that the evolution of intelligence might rise but taper off like (1) a log curve, as it is it will go up (2) linearly or quadratically to celestial realms. Or, we may perish through wars, pestilence, or famine. If you have insight into the future of humankind please share your knowledge. Our fate is iffy.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
evolution of intelligence might rise but taper off like
So far in the last 5000 years it's devolved.
But since modern science is so clueless to intelligence what can be done.
They actually believe their own brainwashed bullshIt ........
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
Jan might say, for example, that those species that care for their young more completely than others is the basis for “adaptation.” (Hell, it could be many bases or any basis.)
Good maternal care is a particular adaptation of primates which has proved very successful so far, enabling a long childhood of learning, creativity, imagination and social cooperation which has resulted in culture and technology. This idea is found in every beginning biological anthropology book.
Intelligence is a trump card that may be over-played.
Cockroaches of course have a numbers over quality adaptation as do many others.
Which is more successful? Cockroaches have been around longer and are thought to be able to withstand even nuclear war should the super intelligent humans launch that.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
It’s very interesting to me that you highlight or focus on “intelligence” as the basis or metric for evolution. I don’t think evolution makes this claim at all.
And neither do I. This thread is about mind. That's why intelligence is relevant.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!