What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 21141 - 21160 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Feb 6, 2019 - 05:48pm PT
on point 8)

"Suppose, for example, that some species are prone to speciate, while others are not. If the propensity to speciate is itself inheritable, then the former group will ultimately branch into a large number of species, and the later will not. This difference in tendency to speciate may or may not be related to the fitness at the level of the individual, but may dramatically affect the patterns seen within the corresponding genera and families."
zBrown

Ice climber
Feb 6, 2019 - 06:44pm PT
But does it all add up?

Abstract
Many animals understand numbers at a basic level for use in essential tasks such as foraging, shoaling, and resource management. However, complex arithmetic operations, such as addition and subtraction, using symbols and/or labeling have only been demonstrated in a limited number of nonhuman vertebrates. We show that honeybees, with a miniature brain, can learn to use blue and yellow as symbolic representations for addition or subtraction. In a free-flying environment, individual bees used this information to solve unfamiliar problems involving adding or subtracting one element from a group of elements. This display of numerosity requires bees to acquire long-term rules and use short-term working memory. Given that honeybees and humans are separated by over 400 million years of evolution, our findings suggest that advanced numerical cognition may be more accessible to nonhuman d animals than previously suspected.


http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaav0961
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Feb 6, 2019 - 11:01pm PT
Speciation: Species 'hotspots' created by immigrant influx or evolutionary speed depending on climate
WBraun

climber
Feb 7, 2019 - 07:09am PT
Meh .... modern science ^^^

None of those birds evolved into a smoking Duck .....
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Feb 7, 2019 - 08:21am PT
^^^^^^^

That may be a good thing. Do we really want populations of smoking ducks?
capseeboy

Social climber
portland, oregon
Feb 7, 2019 - 09:23am PT
Some societies are much more adaptive to current selective pressures such as productive life in crowded urban environments. Others such as our own seem to be clinging to an outdated frontier model and then blaming others for out lack of competitiveness.

What would a productive life look like in a hypothetical future where AI and droids do all of the computational and manual labor? Would words like lazy and worthless disappear from our vocabulary or would they be used by AI, or the ones in control of them, as reasons to eliminate those whose services are no longer needed?

Would the word worthless be replaced with inefficient and thus create a 'new' morality based on usefulness.To some degree this is already happening.

In the future, morality and ethics may evolve into meaning something totally different than they do today. Something devoid of what we currently consider humane. Ala, Logan's Run.
Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
Feb 7, 2019 - 10:17am PT
There's an interesting article in the New York Times.

How Beauty is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution: The extravagant splendor of the animal kingdom can't be explained by natural selection alone - so how did it come to be?

There are several other articles along these lines.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/magazine/beauty-evolution-animal.html
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Feb 7, 2019 - 11:45am PT
Okay, so I'm going to order one of Kauffman's books, as I am intrigued. Inquiring (enquiring?) minds want to know.
Norton

climber
The Wastelands
Feb 7, 2019 - 11:52am PT
How Does Consciousness Arise in the Brain?

I found this article published in Science Advances to be interesting and on topic with this thread

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaat7603


jogill

climber
Colorado
Feb 7, 2019 - 12:54pm PT
^^^ "Our results establish that consciousness rests on the brain’s ability to sustain rich brain dynamics and pave the way for determining specific and generalizable fingerprints of conscious and unconscious states."


Good post, returning to the theme of the thread. The evolutionary approaches seem circuitous, but nevertheless interesting.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Feb 7, 2019 - 03:26pm PT
By the way, Jan, good on you for posting that article. I'd read it and suddenly remembered that 2 or 3 years ago, sexual selection was my go-to "thing" when thinking about evolution in humans, and I wrote it about on this very thread.

Of all of the parts of evolution that I know about from spending decades reading about it, so-called (by Darwin) sexual selection has always been the most mysterious in how it actually all works. How is it that a large percentage of (typically) females in a species view some physical trait in the male as the sh#t, and those males that have it have more children, typically far more children than the average male?

If you compare "natural" to sexual selection with respect to the gene, I tend to think about the first as survival differential and the second as progeny differential. The winner in the sexual selection category has the potential to overwhelm the winner in the survival category (Genghis Khan and Wilt Chamberlain come to mind) with respect to total number of progeny some few generations into the future.

Those progeny carry genes, and it's not the progeny that have evolved, it's both some genes and the breeding population that have evolved. The progeny are like the expendable ensign in a Star Trek episode.
WBraun

climber
Feb 7, 2019 - 04:00pm PT
True to form this thread turned into a massive guessing game within the gross materialist's runaway uncontrolled minds ....
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Feb 7, 2019 - 04:11pm PT
Of all of the parts of evolution that I know about from spending decades reading about it, so-called (by Darwin) sexual selection has always been the most mysterious in how it actually all works.

sexy son...
WBraun

climber
Feb 7, 2019 - 07:05pm PT
Yeah

All these scientists are like trying to screw a lightbulb in a socket and none of em can figure it out.

They're too busy being smart an all ..... even a monkey can do it ....
WBraun

climber
Feb 7, 2019 - 07:20pm PT
That's your bible, lol .....

All the scientists went home to figure out how to get smarter by tomorrow ....
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Feb 8, 2019 - 12:41am PT
Fish Appear to Recognize Themselves in the Mirror
WBraun

climber
Feb 8, 2019 - 08:00am PT
Fish Appear to Recognize Themselves in the Mirror

Just see scientist busy looking looking outside of their own selves.

The real question remains are YOU sure you recognize your own actual self in that mirror .......

Do you people really know what the hell you are doing?
Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
Feb 8, 2019 - 09:01am PT
Here's a quote from the article healyje posted.


"What if self-awareness develops like an onion, building layer upon layer, rather than appearing all at once?" asks de Waal. "To explore self-awareness further, we should stop looking at responses to the mirror as its litmus test. Only with a richer theory of the self and a larger test battery will we be able to determine all of the various levels of self-awareness, including where exactly fish fit in."


It seems to me this could apply to humans also. Consciousness is a spectrum. Some people have more of it and some less.
WBraun

climber
Feb 8, 2019 - 09:08am PT
Good comment ....
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Feb 8, 2019 - 09:09am PT
Relating to Jan’s pointer of the NYT’s article entitled, “How Beauty is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution.” A couple of quotes:

. . . females might evolve preferences for certain valueless traits, like bright plumage, that just happened to correspond with health and vigor. Their children would tend to inherit the genes underlying both their mother’s preference and their father’s trait. Over time, genetic correlation would reach a tipping point, creating a runaway cycle that would greatly exaggerate both preference and trait, glorifying beauty at the expense of the male’s survival . . . . “Animals are agents in their own evolution,” [Prum] . . . . “Birds are beautiful because they are beautiful to themselves.”

It seems to me that the article and theories presented in it all emphasize utilitarianism. Indeed, utilitarianism is a core value expressed in evolutionary theory (as well as the readers of this thread). That constitutes a bias, imo. One should understand that unless an evolutionary narrative suggests utility, it cannot be considered scientifically.

If one reads the readers’ comments about the article, it’s surprising (for New Yorkers) that so very many present criticism that is circular: “aesthetics cannot be a basis for selection because that’s not how the theory works.” (“First there is the theory, and then there is the data.”) Wrong. This is bad scientific thinking; the logic goes the other way. (Oh well.)

Is there something about beauty that requires reflection of higher life forms? Can only human beings (for example) appreciate beauty for its own sake? Could lower life forms express notions of “beauty” or uniqueness simply as statements of existence? (I don’t know about you, but I do.) What I’m suggesting is that aesthetics could be pure expression of life that evolution has come to employ. Which came first: the expression or the found utility?

In my world, nothing needs getting done or brought into being. Everything tends to take care of itself. In this world, everything is, at its core, an expression. What I am and do are expressions. Now and then I look into a mirror and see what’s being expressed. Some of those images might seem more pleasing, more truthful, more at-ease than others. What is *this* that’s being reflected back to me? What I see is a constellation of expressions. To posit that every expression (even in evolution) must be utilitarian or instrumental—and related simply to survival—seems to have taken utility too far. Is this the paramount value in the universe?

One can walk through life working to establish how things relate to each other causally, to categorize and define “things” as they appear, and to manipulate those things for productive purposes. On the other hand, one can walk through everything in life aesthetically, expressing one’s own being and uniqueness simply for its own sake. Existence could be its own justification and explanation. (However, one probably needs to tone down the verbiage of the committee in one’s head—aka“monkey mind”--to see or experience it.)

I can understand how research and investigation could be forms of aesthetic expression, but “play,” humor, ambiguity, etc. seem to be generally missing in the musings of some materialists.


Messages 21141 - 21160 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