|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
There is something to be said about individual parts working in unison as a larger whole.
The human brain isn't even a product of human DNA-specific evolution of function.
"A new study provides evidence that some retroviral DNA became integrated in the regions of the genome that influence regulation of genes in the brain, manipulating the cells’ basic function. This could help explain why brain cells are able to have so many different roles, and could even influence our intelligence or our susceptibility to disease. "
"We have been able to observe that these viruses are activated specifically in the brain cells and have an important regulatory role,” Jakobsson said in a press release. “We believe that the role of retroviruses can contribute to explaining why brain cells in particular are so dynamic and multifaceted in their function. It may also be the case that the viruses' more or less complex functions in various species can help us to understand why we are so different.”
There is also something to be said about the attitude of "science" in Darwins day and age, which at the time was looking to make a clean break from any spiritual "voodoo" (including larmarkism) and the scholars of that day and age ran with this theory of evolution because of its break from anything having to do with spirituality or even purpose.
And it is quite logical.
However, Darwins theory of natural selection is very likely only a small observation surrounding evolution. For one, if Darwins theory were the only way, we would not see accelerating and increasing complexity in organisms over billions of years.
There is no mechanism in natural selection which calls for that. Actually, the complexity of life is far greater than what one would expect given multiple mass extinction events, and Darwins theory of the fittest.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#21645111 - 05/06/15 05:34 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It was also recently discovered that neurons constantly rewrite their DNA.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150427112559.htm
Ahem, from page 1. "Proof you ask?
Consciousness leads to a greater awareness of reality, a greater awareness of reality leads to advantageous insights and/or radical changes in behavior..even within a single persons lifetime.
When we do things, with the intent to get better, whatever we do, we get better at..This is the concept of practice. Practicing anything increases all muscles and brain matter associated with the action. Since the action was conceived within consciousness before it actually took place, this means that consciousness is the medium and all else secondary effects in regards to evolution.
Where most scientific minds mess up is by denying their own consciousness and thus see all secondary as the primary, denying consciousness even further as a manifestation of their own denial."
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
Edited by hTx (05/06/15 05:37 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx] 1
#21645191 - 05/06/15 05:51 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
This really has a universe of theoretical applications.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
I thought it was the opinion of most neuroscientists that consciousness is an emergent property of all of the specific functions of the brain being interpreted at the same time?
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: I thought it was the opinion of most neuroscientists that consciousness is an emergent property of all of the specific functions of the brain being interpreted at the same time?
Why limit consciousness to such a narrow definition?
Would you say a plant is conscious if it is alive?
It doesn't even have a brain.
And other living things..you can cut off a flatworms head and it will regrow its brain complete with previous memories...
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#21645955 - 05/06/15 08:22 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I think anything that has sense organs has some level of consciousness. I think consciousness is a spectrum, with humans being on the far right of that spectrum with dolphins, chimps, killer wales, bonnobos ect ect being just to the left of us and the most basic forms of life with sense organs all the way to the other end of the spectrum.
I wouldn't marry this idea, I think it makes the most sense to me. I wouldn't marry any theory of consciousness personally it's pretty elusive even to define.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: I thought it was the opinion of most neuroscientists that consciousness is an emergent property of all of the specific functions of the brain being interpreted at the same time?
As a matter of fact, that is the opinion of most neuroscientists. Thing is, that doesn't make it correct. There is as much evidence for epiphenomenalism as there is for idealistic monism, or anything else under the sun, because as this point we just don't know, scientifically. Every camp has some evidence to support its view; none of the camps, including opinionated professional neuroscientists, knows the truth at this point. We just don't yet know how consciousness and the brain interface. So it's all conjecture.
But we can all hold strong opinions either way.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
I'm not saying it's correct but it's more convincing (I think it's the best idea) then any other theories out there.
I don't delude myself into thinking I can understand consciousness or the nature of being. I'm just an animal.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: I think anything that has sense organs has some level of consciousness. I think consciousness is a spectrum, with humans being on the far right of that spectrum with dolphins, chimps, killer wales, bonnobos ect ect being just to the left of us and the most basic forms of life with sense organs all the way to the other end of the spectrum.
I wouldn't marry this idea, I think it makes the most sense to me. I wouldn't marry any theory of consciousness personally it's pretty elusive even to define.
Ok.
So we have a spectrum of increasing complexity of consciousness increasing with complexity of organisms.
There is an evident correlation.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#21646019 - 05/06/15 08:32 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
"So we have a spectrum of increasing complexity of consciousness increasing with complexity of organisms. "
Yep that's what I think, but there can always be future data which changes everything. I think it's silly especially if you haven't studied this your whole life to delude yourself into thinking you "have the right answer."
Future data could be found in the future at anytime and change the whole ballgame. I think the truth like with a lot of elusive things is we don't know but people are trying to understand consciousness.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: "So we have a spectrum of increasing complexity of consciousness increasing with complexity of organisms. "
Yep that's what I think, but there can always be future data which changes everything. I think it's silly especially if you haven't studied this your whole life to delude yourself into thinking you "have the right answer."
Future data could be found in the future at anytime and change the whole ballgame. I think the truth like with a lot of elusive things is we don't know but people are trying to understand consciousness.
This correlation is largely ignored by mainstream scientific circles.
Why?
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#21646125 - 05/06/15 08:53 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said:
This correlation is largely ignored by mainstream scientific circles.
Why?
Because everyday working scientists think science is a meta-theory which can explain anything and everything given enough time and data.
If you start looking into the philosophy of science you can see where it's limitations are and it's by no means a meta theory for explaining our everything.
Science is really good to give us theories about some things and really bad about others. Psychology for example or sociology... science doesn't really understand much about these things IMO, it understands some things but not in the same way science can explain physics or chemistry.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said:
Quote:
hTx said:
This correlation is largely ignored by mainstream scientific circles.
Why?
Because everyday working scientists think science is a meta-theory which can explain anything and everything given enough time and data.
If you start looking into the philosophy of science you can see where it's limitations are and it's by no means a meta theory for explaining our everything.
Science is really good to give us theories about some things and really bad about others. Psychology for example or sociology... science doesn't really understand much about these things IMO, it understands some things but not in the same way science can explain physics or chemistry.
But if consciousness is so connected to evolution and life, why do we ignore it when it comes to theory?
Is this not an obvious flaw?
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#21646399 - 05/06/15 09:44 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It's not ignored. How the hell are you supposed to study an emergent property form the brain?
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: It's not ignored. How the hell are you supposed to study an emergent property form the brain?
Is consciousness an emergent property of the brain?
Or is the brain an emergent property of consciousness?
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#21646531 - 05/06/15 10:07 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I would say consciousness is an emergent property of the brain unifying all data input from the brain into one cohesive experience of reality. Therefore in order to experience reality you must have a brain to coordinate the data. Which means consciousness can't exist with out a brain (or some other biological system gathering and combining input from the surroundings)
This is just my opinion, i'm not a scientist or a neuroscientist for that matter so my understanding of the brain is just 101 stuff.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
once in a lifetime
sun child



Registered: 02/12/15
Posts: 1,807
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#21648494 - 05/07/15 09:59 AM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: There is something to be said about individual parts working in unison as a larger whole.
The human brain isn't even a product of human DNA-specific evolution of function.
"A new study provides evidence that some retroviral DNA became integrated in the regions of the genome that influence regulation of genes in the brain, manipulating the cells’ basic function. This could help explain why brain cells are able to have so many different roles, and could even influence our intelligence or our susceptibility to disease. "
"We have been able to observe that these viruses are activated specifically in the brain cells and have an important regulatory role,” Jakobsson said in a press release. “We believe that the role of retroviruses can contribute to explaining why brain cells in particular are so dynamic and multifaceted in their function. It may also be the case that the viruses' more or less complex functions in various species can help us to understand why we are so different.”
There is also something to be said about the attitude of "science" in Darwins day and age, which at the time was looking to make a clean break from any spiritual "voodoo" (including larmarkism) and the scholars of that day and age ran with this theory of evolution because of its break from anything having to do with spirituality or even purpose.
And it is quite logical.
However, Darwins theory of natural selection is very likely only a small observation surrounding evolution. For one, if Darwins theory were the only way, we would not see accelerating and increasing complexity in organisms over billions of years.
There is no mechanism in natural selection which calls for that. Actually, the complexity of life is far greater than what one would expect given multiple mass extinction events, and Darwins theory of the fittest.
With respect, I think Darwin has been somewhat misrepresented over the years. I feel like certain modern evolutionists, a few of whom have co-opted it for an apologia or press for atheism, and some who have done so in a quite unpleasant way, have maybe made it seem like evolutionists in general are all like this. I sort of feel like a member of a group of people saying, 'hey we're not all bad, we just have a few idiots who aren't representative of us all.'
What I mean is - Darwin wasn't some hard-core, anti-God, anti-spirituality evolutionist. . . Not by any means. Just as a small point, for one, he mentioned Lamarckism as a plausible theory, as well as others, and what he actually believed we might call the same thing today - he believed that actions affect future generations. . Current hard-liners simply shrug him off by saying, he didn't know the genetic material / computers/ research that we have toady, and these make it all simple. Yes, we have a more detailed understanding of genetics in some ways, but this doesn't mean it's the only factor. It's kind of like using super-computers to understand chess - yes, they can get really strong at it, but they still have some limitations on intuition, in other words, computational and combinational isn't the only way.
-------------------- Innocent, Oldfield & Hegerland Julia Delaney, Bothy Band Rasta Girl, Sister Carol Genesis, Jorma K I Wish You Peace, Lawrence Laughing Do Your Thing, Moondog large . . music garden . . veryall peace them hiStarhouse - main Time Traveler's Guide
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Sorry to bump old threads, but this is related.
It seems a fundamental part of Darwinism needs to be revised based on new research.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151103100331.htm
"However, advances in fecundity selection theory reveal that a higher number of successful descendants can actually result from the production of fewer offspring which can be looked after more efficiently. We therefore need to acknowledge that fertility should be more efficient, not necessarily higher, and that males can have a substantial role in influencing the production of efficient broods"
Sounds a lot like consciousness influencing evolution, eh?
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx] 1
#22473009 - 11/03/15 07:52 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: Sounds a lot like consciousness influencing evolution, eh?
Sure does. Funny how everything everyone thinks is so obviously right is usually so dreadfully wrong.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#22473918 - 11/03/15 11:01 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: Sorry to bump old threads, but this is related.
It seems a fundamental part of Darwinism needs to be revised based on new research.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151103100331.htm
"However, advances in fecundity selection theory reveal that a higher number of successful descendants can actually result from the production of fewer offspring which can be looked after more efficiently. We therefore need to acknowledge that fertility should be more efficient, not necessarily higher, and that males can have a substantial role in influencing the production of efficient broods"
Sounds a lot like consciousness influencing evolution, eh?
thank you for the interesting find
This research implies something about biological energy economy only - "fewer offspring which can be looked after more efficiently"- translate this to: a few stronger offspring have a better chance than lots of weak ones, because parents can only catch so much food (in the case of predators for example). (Also this will not apply to many animals like fish and frogs that don't feed their young).
There is really nothing here about either consciousness or intelligence. Strictly economics.
What is different from Darwin's time is the discovery of horizontal gene transfer among bacteria. But this does not effect the macro world much. and again this discovery implies nothing about consciousness or intelligence or foresight in the evolutionary process.
|
|