Yes, didn't you know? They're mostly Disney animatronics! Give a guy a break. I usually scruplousy chk th splling and phrasng of my psts.samcdkey said:They are?
How did consciousness manifest?
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
superluminal said:
Ophiolite reccomended a book which I will read, hence no further posts on this thread, I was thinking re evolution thread' when I made that comment.
meanwhile you interpret my 'style as attack, because of my unrelenting pressure for information and more questions when answers are provided or my view that the answers are inadequate/insufficent. THIS is what happens on every forum. Show me one where the posters agree on anything? Thus to accuse me of attack is your impression, it is NOT the reality. Flamers will get their requested reward but that is not thread related as far I am concerned...just banter.
Ok then! Good question.Theoryofrelativity said:
The first thing is that the complex replication you're speaking of was almost certainly not how replication originated. Let me try to fing some relevant links for you...
Here's some interesting reading:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/90/may09/23124.html
It's wiki, but it seems well edited and has lots of supporting links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/90/may09/23124.html
It's wiki, but it seems well edited and has lots of supporting links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
superluminal said:
oh thank you, can you post them in other thread please.
meanwhile I am off to bed, busy weekend, I won't be around. No parties.......
Ok.Theoryofrelativity said:oh thank you, can you post them in other thread please.
meanwhile I am off to bed, busy weekend, I won't be around. No parties.......
superluminal said:
excellent contribution, thank you
I note for benefit of all:
from above link
"
Ordinarily, it takes the complex biochemical machinery of a cell to
reproduce protein molecules. The building blocks of life simply don't
replicate themselves by themselves they need helpÑlots of itÑfrom
enzymes and above all from information carried in DNA and RNA.
How the whole business of molecular replication got started has been and
remains one of the central mysteries of the origin of life. The origin
of life is a classic "chicken-and-egg" dilemma. In the presumed
molecular evolution on primitive Earth, what came first, proteins or the
nucleic acids RNA and DNA? And remember that the enzymes necessary to
make proteins are themselves proteins, where did they come from?
Amazingly, the laboratory-made molecule that Professor Rebek and his
colleagues have created can reproduce itself without the "outside"
assistance of enzymes. As such, and because of its specific
constitution, the molecule embodies some of the "template" qualities of
a nucleic acid, and some of the structural qualities of a protein.
The researchers say in their paper, "At best, this can be regarded as a
primitive sign of life; at the very least, the system offers a bridge
between the information of nucleic acids and the synthesis of amide
bonds. It should be possible to design systems capable of peptide
[protein] synthesis on a nucleic acid backbone and thereby provide
models for events that occurred some time ago." "
but really it needs to be in other thread, I'll sort tomoz. Need my beauty sleep.
supe:
That is an interesting article; but for true replication, one would need the ability to regenerate the base molecules somehow or at least recycle them.
What do you think?
edit: I meant the Rebek article; you've added more in the time I read it.
That is an interesting article; but for true replication, one would need the ability to regenerate the base molecules somehow or at least recycle them.
What do you think?
edit: I meant the Rebek article; you've added more in the time I read it.
Are we carrying this on in the other thread?samcdkey said:
Theoryofrelativity: This is an excellent post, yet two pages down and you still haven't received one good reply. That is pitiful. The two links above do not answer your question, nor has anyone else even addressed it yet.
You state: "I ask a few little questions and all I get is 'read a book'...that answer says more about you than me. If you can't answer the questions fine...just say so. Science admits it does not know the answer yet to the origin of life.
I'm not attacking the responses, I am just delving deeper, and I want to know how does a self replicating organism given the complexity of replication spontaneoulsy appear? This could be answered with 'it's not that complex...followed by info on the structure of early organism' etc. But that has not been forthcoming yet."
This is an admirable reply that clearly articulates your noble quest for knowledge. Your comment is absolutely correct and should serve as a role model for others to guide them in their postings on every other thread.
"Nicholas Humphrey sees consciousness as having developed from more primitive sensations which lacked subjective qualities. These arose from early organism attempts to integrate sensory inputs into an internal representation of the outside world. Eventually, through natural selection, the signals began to turn in on themselves. These generated internal feedback, formed multiple representations and ultimately "privatized" sensations. Humphrey suggests that within self-sustaining inward loops, the subjective qualities of consciousness played a crucial role in the perception of time.
Richard Gregory builds on this suggestion of Humphrey, stressing that qualia are useful to "flag" the present moment. Gregory points out that increasingly complex organisms developed a need to identify representations of the present, as opposed to past memory and future anticipation. How does the mind know when is now? By adorning representations of the present with consciousness qualia.
Graham Cairns-Smith says that qualia must play a function to evolve, which implies that they must have a physical bases. He suggests that qualia are generated by biomolecular systems ("qualogens") whose diversified phylogeny matches that of the qualia themselves. He suggests that their underlying nature may be quantum-mechanical: feelings and sensations are associated with vast numbers of microscopic processes bound in some type of macroscopic quantum state.
Steven Mithen examines the fossil record to try and pin down the onset of the type of complex, higher order consciousness with which we are familiar. This type of consciousness, Mithen observes, must surely have grown from interactions among thought, language, behavior and material culture. He traces the course of human evolution in the 6 million years since humans and apes diverged. Mithen focuses on the construction of handaxes by several types of early humans which first appeared in the fossil record 1.4 million years ago. He argues that their construction required not only sensory-motor control and an understanding of fracture dynamics, but also a desire for symmetry, an ability to plan ahead, and internal (unspoken) language. Toolmaking flowed into art and agriculture some 50,000 years ago, representing, Mithen concludes, the "budding and flowering" of human consciousness.
William H. Calvin is concerned with higher levels of consciousness, seeing them as the top rungs in a hierarchical series of a dozen-or-so levels. Percolating upward through this hierarchy, Calvin explains, are the substrates for ideas, actions and sensations which emerge into consciousness by winning a competition with other possible ideas, actions, or sensations. Consciousness is the result of a Darwinian process not only over the course of evolution but in a moment-by-moment competition for a place in the sunshine of awareness."
Source and links: http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Hameroff.Evolution.html
See also: "Information-processing architectures": http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/cogaff/sloman-lmpsfinal.ps
You state: "I ask a few little questions and all I get is 'read a book'...that answer says more about you than me. If you can't answer the questions fine...just say so. Science admits it does not know the answer yet to the origin of life.
I'm not attacking the responses, I am just delving deeper, and I want to know how does a self replicating organism given the complexity of replication spontaneoulsy appear? This could be answered with 'it's not that complex...followed by info on the structure of early organism' etc. But that has not been forthcoming yet."
This is an admirable reply that clearly articulates your noble quest for knowledge. Your comment is absolutely correct and should serve as a role model for others to guide them in their postings on every other thread.
"Nicholas Humphrey sees consciousness as having developed from more primitive sensations which lacked subjective qualities. These arose from early organism attempts to integrate sensory inputs into an internal representation of the outside world. Eventually, through natural selection, the signals began to turn in on themselves. These generated internal feedback, formed multiple representations and ultimately "privatized" sensations. Humphrey suggests that within self-sustaining inward loops, the subjective qualities of consciousness played a crucial role in the perception of time.
Richard Gregory builds on this suggestion of Humphrey, stressing that qualia are useful to "flag" the present moment. Gregory points out that increasingly complex organisms developed a need to identify representations of the present, as opposed to past memory and future anticipation. How does the mind know when is now? By adorning representations of the present with consciousness qualia.
Graham Cairns-Smith says that qualia must play a function to evolve, which implies that they must have a physical bases. He suggests that qualia are generated by biomolecular systems ("qualogens") whose diversified phylogeny matches that of the qualia themselves. He suggests that their underlying nature may be quantum-mechanical: feelings and sensations are associated with vast numbers of microscopic processes bound in some type of macroscopic quantum state.
Steven Mithen examines the fossil record to try and pin down the onset of the type of complex, higher order consciousness with which we are familiar. This type of consciousness, Mithen observes, must surely have grown from interactions among thought, language, behavior and material culture. He traces the course of human evolution in the 6 million years since humans and apes diverged. Mithen focuses on the construction of handaxes by several types of early humans which first appeared in the fossil record 1.4 million years ago. He argues that their construction required not only sensory-motor control and an understanding of fracture dynamics, but also a desire for symmetry, an ability to plan ahead, and internal (unspoken) language. Toolmaking flowed into art and agriculture some 50,000 years ago, representing, Mithen concludes, the "budding and flowering" of human consciousness.
William H. Calvin is concerned with higher levels of consciousness, seeing them as the top rungs in a hierarchical series of a dozen-or-so levels. Percolating upward through this hierarchy, Calvin explains, are the substrates for ideas, actions and sensations which emerge into consciousness by winning a competition with other possible ideas, actions, or sensations. Consciousness is the result of a Darwinian process not only over the course of evolution but in a moment-by-moment competition for a place in the sunshine of awareness."
Source and links: http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Hameroff.Evolution.html
See also: "Information-processing architectures": http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/cogaff/sloman-lmpsfinal.ps
valich said:
excellent reply Valich, thanks, lots for me to think about there meanwhile this bit particularly jumped out at me:
"He argues that their construction required not only sensory-motor control and an understanding of fracture dynamics, but also a desire for symmetry, "
This sentance made me think about 'fractals' and how memory may be stored in our genes, this is my thought process and in the absence of any tuition in these matters please forgive if what follows sounds like compelte crap, but I'm going to say it anyway.
I am thinking that genes carry memories which explains our mathematical ability and how bee's can create honey combs etc. The thought process is thus:
DNA is required in order for species to replicate, replication by its very nature induces the evolutionary process. What if rather than the evolutionary process (as unseen at cellular level) rather than just being about fitter species surviving and weaker dying out also involves the storage of information regarding environment in the DNA as a 'memory' and that 'memory' is passed via DNA genes into the progeny during 'replication' and this is how the progeny has the 'information' required at nucleic state to be able to generate a new and better adapted offspring.
Memories are presently being investigated with theories about their storage in organs other than the brain, but what if the memories are not stored in any organ but are in fact stored in our genes which is why when we give birth the genetic information passed can result in the evolutionary process rather than it being a hit and miss survival of fittest effect.
Note, brain damage can result in loss of memory, I theorise that in fact brain damage results in loss of access to that memory, as I think it makes more sense if all memory is stored in the genes...I know this is far out! But think of the many things not understood that would become clear if we thought of memory as being stored in genes as oppose to in the brain or 'other organs' as is now being studied? Is this too far fetched or impossible?
Now if memory is stored in the genes...............
re the fractal thing,
If our genes store memory then our natural desire for symmetry and mathematical ability (and that of bee's etc) could come from our eariliest genetic 'memory' of the construction of the world which is 'fractal' at it's smallest level.
I am saying early organisms were aware of fractal geometry and as creatures evolved, that information was always stored in the genes hence bees can create honey combs and we are what we are with our mathematical ability. Our maths ability comes from our earliest memories of being molecular and part of a fractal universe.
Please help me with this............
All of our world, inside us and outside is made up of fractals, repeating and not so. Is it possible that (gievn the way consciousness began -as you deatil above_ within our cosnciousness, our genetic memory ( I am thinking hre that genes must carry memories
ToR, can we start this discussion all over again? I think you ask wonderful quesitons, that can lead to brilliant conversations, but they just get derailed so quickly for some reason.
When you ask a loaded question, such as "How did consciousness begin?", I think it would proceed most smoothly by making sure the question has a framework, before we leap off to our answers. (Keeping in mind that this is one of the many questions for which there is no easy answer)
First off: What is our criteria for consciousness? The way the question is posed, it assumes that consciousness is binary, either present or not. I prefer to think of it as a continuum, with us on one end (not to be egotistic, but realistic) and let's say a rock on the other end. Somewhere in-between, perhaps between a slug and a baboon, you get self awareness. So let's agree on a line before we try to figure out how it evolved.
Also: Another angle would be to wonder if the thing that we generally take to be consciousness doesn't really exist. Not in the pseudo-scientific-stone-hippy sort of way, but down the avenue that brings free will into question. I'm thinking more along the line that Skinner or Watson might take the same query.
Finally: There are wonderful arguments that language acquisition is the genesis for consciousness. I frankly think these arguments have a lot going for them, but again, they assume a particular definition for consciousness that suits their purpose.
I think that no matter what definition you come up with, you are going to run up against a pretty obvious observation: Consciousness seems to be directly proportional to the number of connections of a particular type of cell (neurons) possessed by the organism. Damage to these cells definitely affects the level of consciousness held by the organism, whether by oxygen starvation, blunt trauma, removal, etc... So any definition of consciousness is going to lead to questions of neural anatomy and chemistry, of which we know a TON. (I know you hate to hear it... but there are wonderful books out there which detail these interactions. I recommend "The Synaptic Self" for starters).
You have another wonderful question here, that merits some back-and-forth... but I think the frustration you are running up against with other members is that they know that much of these questions is semantics, and the rest is material that the scientific community has largely answered, but the answers require years of research and study in order to grasp.
Never forget: Just because you and I don't understand something does not mean it is beyond the purvey of human understanding. Most often, there is someone out there that does know the answer, and perfectly. They just haven't added it to Wikipedia.com yet.
Edit: Oh... and genes do not store memory.
When you ask a loaded question, such as "How did consciousness begin?", I think it would proceed most smoothly by making sure the question has a framework, before we leap off to our answers. (Keeping in mind that this is one of the many questions for which there is no easy answer)
First off: What is our criteria for consciousness? The way the question is posed, it assumes that consciousness is binary, either present or not. I prefer to think of it as a continuum, with us on one end (not to be egotistic, but realistic) and let's say a rock on the other end. Somewhere in-between, perhaps between a slug and a baboon, you get self awareness. So let's agree on a line before we try to figure out how it evolved.
Also: Another angle would be to wonder if the thing that we generally take to be consciousness doesn't really exist. Not in the pseudo-scientific-stone-hippy sort of way, but down the avenue that brings free will into question. I'm thinking more along the line that Skinner or Watson might take the same query.
Finally: There are wonderful arguments that language acquisition is the genesis for consciousness. I frankly think these arguments have a lot going for them, but again, they assume a particular definition for consciousness that suits their purpose.
I think that no matter what definition you come up with, you are going to run up against a pretty obvious observation: Consciousness seems to be directly proportional to the number of connections of a particular type of cell (neurons) possessed by the organism. Damage to these cells definitely affects the level of consciousness held by the organism, whether by oxygen starvation, blunt trauma, removal, etc... So any definition of consciousness is going to lead to questions of neural anatomy and chemistry, of which we know a TON. (I know you hate to hear it... but there are wonderful books out there which detail these interactions. I recommend "The Synaptic Self" for starters).
You have another wonderful question here, that merits some back-and-forth... but I think the frustration you are running up against with other members is that they know that much of these questions is semantics, and the rest is material that the scientific community has largely answered, but the answers require years of research and study in order to grasp.
Never forget: Just because you and I don't understand something does not mean it is beyond the purvey of human understanding. Most often, there is someone out there that does know the answer, and perfectly. They just haven't added it to Wikipedia.com yet.
Edit: Oh... and genes do not store memory.
Consciousness is metaphysical. It was here before the big bang, and before matter. The universe is a thought. Consciousness is god. Consciousness controls the animate, which controls the inanimate. Control is order. Order is the basis for design, science, math, and everything else.
What if the brain is just the attennae, much like how insects such as ants have. Ant's and roaches through their attennae, are said to have a hive consciousness. If you kill a roach or ant, and the ant or roach views itself as a cell and not as an individual ant, you are killing, but due to the hive nature of the consciousness of these beings you are arent killing the being. Insects prove that consciousness is not merely a physical object because the brain is simply a sensory organ. We sense and communicate with our brains but humans just like insects have a hive level consciousness. Some of us are aware of the hive nature of consciousness much like the writers of the constitution were, and much like the creators of capitalism were, and the writers of the bible.
The mind, can be infected by mind viruses. These viruses called memes maybe lifeforms. They obey all the rules of lifeforms, and they evolve. These memes also influence our evolution, so it would be wise of you to do some research on Nootropics, Memetics, and the Noosphere. Smart drugs(Nootropics) allow a consciously self aware being to increase it's own intellectual ability. Memetics are both killing and protecting us at the same time, as race and racism is actually a mind virus. Religion is also a mind virus. However race has influenced our genetic code, through influence over our selection process, and so now the meme has not only infected us mentally, but physically as well, and we still don't no the consequences it has on our evolution as it might actually be slowing evoluton down or even de-evolting us.
Evolution is simply the consciousness selecting it's DNA through intelligent mate selection. In order to evolve, we have to look beyond race and memes, and simply select the best human we can find on the planet earth.
http://www.sidis.net/ANIM1.htm
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html
http://www.prometheanmovement.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=220&sid=00c99d9cf91899648e2b0974a968bae0
http://www.prometheanmovement.org
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=137&t=6255&s=
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r...ig2=dsKaKVrziAvGyx6UZypXeQ#search="Noopshere"
Thought Experiment What if the universe only exists in our collective minds? How do you co-exist with something which exists only because of consciousness being aware of it?
What if the brain is just the attennae, much like how insects such as ants have. Ant's and roaches through their attennae, are said to have a hive consciousness. If you kill a roach or ant, and the ant or roach views itself as a cell and not as an individual ant, you are killing, but due to the hive nature of the consciousness of these beings you are arent killing the being. Insects prove that consciousness is not merely a physical object because the brain is simply a sensory organ. We sense and communicate with our brains but humans just like insects have a hive level consciousness. Some of us are aware of the hive nature of consciousness much like the writers of the constitution were, and much like the creators of capitalism were, and the writers of the bible.
The mind, can be infected by mind viruses. These viruses called memes maybe lifeforms. They obey all the rules of lifeforms, and they evolve. These memes also influence our evolution, so it would be wise of you to do some research on Nootropics, Memetics, and the Noosphere. Smart drugs(Nootropics) allow a consciously self aware being to increase it's own intellectual ability. Memetics are both killing and protecting us at the same time, as race and racism is actually a mind virus. Religion is also a mind virus. However race has influenced our genetic code, through influence over our selection process, and so now the meme has not only infected us mentally, but physically as well, and we still don't no the consequences it has on our evolution as it might actually be slowing evoluton down or even de-evolting us.
Evolution is simply the consciousness selecting it's DNA through intelligent mate selection. In order to evolve, we have to look beyond race and memes, and simply select the best human we can find on the planet earth.
http://www.sidis.net/ANIM1.htm
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html
http://www.prometheanmovement.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=220&sid=00c99d9cf91899648e2b0974a968bae0
http://www.prometheanmovement.org
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=137&t=6255&s=
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r...ig2=dsKaKVrziAvGyx6UZypXeQ#search="Noopshere"
Thought Experiment What if the universe only exists in our collective minds? How do you co-exist with something which exists only because of consciousness being aware of it?
Last edited:
I think consciousness is the universe. What our brains sense is what actually exists because our brains arent the universe, self awareness is the universe, existance is self awareness. But that is just my hypothesis Ron, and you know, our science proves it more correct every day.
Can you please explain what that site you posted means? I cannot translate it since I do not know what language it is in.
Can you please explain what that site you posted means? I cannot translate it since I do not know what language it is in.
There's an old scifi story. I think it's called The Final Question. The story starts with two guys just putting the finishing touches on a giant global computer system, the most power ever built. The guys end up getting drunk celebrating and try to think up a really good first question for the computer. The decide on "Can entropy be reversed?". The computer responds, "Insufficient Data". Time goes by, newer and ever more powerful computers are built. From time to time the same question pops up, the answer is always the same. After millions of years, humanity has spread throughout the universe and fought to survive as the last suns die. With no other choice, the remaining humans merge their conciousness with the massive computer system. Before the last living human merges with the computer, he again poses the question. As the universe runs down, the computer ponders it's last question. All is chaos, and the computer knows what it must do. It says, "Let there be light....."perplexity said:
madanthonywayne said:
That is EXACTLY what transhumanism is about. It's about finally finding a way to free our consciousness(our software), from the limits of our bodies (our hardware). This is why there is now nano-technology, stem cell research, and many other technological solutions to solve the fact that our hardware is what is broken not our software. Our hardware is what falls apart after 70-80 years. Our hardware does influence our software, if the CPU is broken or just does not work, and we can be infected with viruses. But the fact that we are aware of ourselves, including our limitations and flaws, gives us the ability to repair/heal, and upgrade ourselves. If we ever manage to put our consciousness into nano-technology, and ever have the way to get unlimited energy, that will be the answer to the final question. Maybe we would answer this question faster if we actually learned from all the diverse life the planet has to offer, such as from insects which are a lot more evolved in this regard, but this is for folks at MIT and scientists who are building robots and nanobots.
memory said:
"Gobbldeygook.
Does this shit get you laid out in the real world? Those stoned-out hippie chicks probably think you're the cat's pajamas, don't they?"
I'm not doing it to get laid. I'm a philosophy student, a real philosopher, and yes we still exist. Philosophy is supposed to be Gobbldeygook. If not I'd have called it science, and presented math formulas, graphs, and big words to confuse the masses into accepting my hypothesis. You have to admit, that what I'm doing is no different from what science is doing, or from what the string theorists are doing, or from what the open source developers, robot makers and stem cell researchers are doing. You can call it playing God, or you can accept the reality of science and in doing so validate my hypothesis.
He means he wants it translated into moronese. Is there an obfuscatory translator somewhere handy? I know one which would translate for the inner city intellectual (gizoogle) but not into hippie metaphysical nonsense.
Someone does not like philosophy. No, I do not want you to translate it into moronese, as moronese sounds to Asian, how about moronomics, it's one of your words, or how about moronamatics? Just because a field ends in sophy, or ology, does not mean the field is somehow less intelligent than a field ending in onics, or atics. But if you like information packaged in confusing symbols and numbers, thats why you have math, and there are math formulas which prove what I said.
Last edited:
memory said:
Well that's exactly what philosophy is. The philosophy of anything, only makes sense to the few minds capable of understanding it. To most people, they will say "WTF is existentialism?" and more importantly, they won't even be able to understand the definition of transhumanism, as most people don't even know why philosophy exists nevermind what philosopy is or the role it plays in science. No philosophy means no science because science began due to an evolution of philosophy. There was once a time when, no one dared to question religion, and so science wasnt real. It took philosophers who were brave enough to ask the big questions to inspire people to search for the big answers.
memory said:
That is exactly what I said. All words, phrases, ideas, concepts, are complicated nonsense to minds which cannot understand it. I'm not good at calculus, and to me that is complicated nonsense, but not to the person working on understanding the physics of movement, to this person it's important.
Studying consciousness is the same way. Studying linguistics, memetics, or the noosphere is the same way, but it does not change the fact that these are the forces which actually control the direction of science. Like I said before, your perception of reality is based on the software/philosophy, along with the linguistics as just ending a word in "ese" or "sophy" completely changes the frame of the word.
I may not be the most beautiful wrtier or framer of words, but the hypothesis proves itself, and you'll see it in your language soon.