The mind-body problem.

[casorce]

You have pigeonholed yourself to one type of thinking. The mind is also outside your body and brain. Try reading
"Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness" by Alva Noe
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Our-Heads-Lessons-Consciousness/dp/0809016486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268854423&sr=1-1

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090316201459.htm

[armozel]

Okay on the whole QM thing with regard to consciousness, lets not get too off the deep end. The reality is that according to certain interpretations of the probablistic nature of QM means that observations are necessary for quantum states to collapse into classical states. The problem with this assumption is that it doesn't explain how the first non-conscious matter collapsed such that the given conscious matter then could arise to regulate the Known Universe. This problem leaves up too many things to either blind chance or a blind God (as it were). Thus, the answer to the problem isn't more complications of consciousness as primary (as this would require a justification that isn't part of even QM or any other theory right now). Equally, the primacy of consciousness conclusion has holes in it like the fact the Universe on the whole is very hostile to consciousness (the fact you can't undo your death is proof enough).

Furthermore, certain formulations of QM don't require consciousness for states to collapse. A theory of quantum gravity (which has yet to be proven) would do the trick. Another would be coherence, which has some experimental evidence (and it has a Hayekian flavor that is appealing to this poster). And possibly other theories that I'm not fully aware of at the moment which could destroy the narrative of consciousness and observer bias in QM.

[justmeinoz]

I would suggest that the mind is what the brain does for a living, as this thread appears to have wandered a bit.

[Sandy]

Just as Dr. Lanza postulates that no physical "Theory of Everything" can be complete without taking consciousness into account, so can no theory attempting to solve the mind/body problem be complete without taking into account quantum physics. The seat of consciousness may very well be finally interpreted at the physical quantum level. I'm not naive enough to think that it won't, but it's interesting to get another scientific point of view (I'm not sure how closely pseudo-scientific sensationalist pablum such as Wu Li Masters fits that criterion, but it's not a fair comparison in any case) before dismissing any viable theory out of hand. I have no doubt that science will at some point find a direct physical correlation between the wetware and our consciousnesses; that is after all how this reality works. That still doesn't seem a convincing argument against consciousness being primary to me, being all Taoist as I am and all.

I don't remember where I read it now, but there was an article I read that within the cells there are structures that were originally thought to be part of the scaffolding that supported the inner structure of the cell.  These structures may perform that function, but their molecular structure appear to change slightly in response to quantum mechanical forces.  The implied meaning is that we are somehow wired into the quantum nature of the universe at a cellular level.  This has been passed over by other scientists as being a simple co-incidence and that the minute changes observed at the atomic level are vastly overwhelmed by other physical forces in the cell.

Dr. Fred Wolfe alluded to something similar to this in his book "Star Wave", but that book is about on the same footing as "The Dancing Wu Li Masters".

But you never know...

-Sandy

[brainiac]

I would suggest that the mind is what the brain does for a living, as this thread appears to have wandered a bit.

Haha, I like that way of putting it.

[Anthrogal]

For me, I take an Aristotelian/phenomenological point of view on the mind/consciousness. In Aristotle's "De Anima," he outlined his theory of soul (or rather consciousness) as function. The mind is a function, not a thing. For humans, our function is to think rationally.

From the phenomenological/existentialist perspective, consciousness/the mind is as Husserl called it an "eregnis," or clearing. Just like with Aristotle, it is not a thing. Consciousness is like a clearing in a forest, in order to perceive, there must be an emptiness.

[Anthrogal]

Yes, and to aid the survivablity of the human species, the function of our minds are to use rational thought to discern actions that will determine whether we survive a situation or not.

Think of how vulnerable humans are on a purely physical level. We have weak, inefficient teeth. We don't really have claws. We don't have fur to defend ourselves from the cold. How is it that we have survived? It is by rational thought and cultural behaviours that themselves go through a kind of evolution that we are capable of surviving and dominating our environment.

[tekla]

Nope, it's through development and use of tools

And those tools were developed (discovered) by what?  Oh, yeah, rational thought.  And we have thrived - beyond survived - largely due to social and cultural developments, that again, were products of rational thought.

[Anthrogal]

How can you say that when those very basic tools such as hand axes eventually turned into such things as spears and swords? As Einstein said, invention is 1% inspiration (i.e. accidental discovery) and 99% perspiration (rational thought and physical labor).

[tekla]

Chance only favors the prepared mind.

[Anthrogal]

I'd disagree with Einie; early invention was 1% inspiration and 99% desperation. No-one had the leisure time to sit around and muse on ideas - it was survive or die.

If it were true that early humans put no thought into improving their abilities at hunting and other life-sustaining activities, there would have had to have been a point at which rational thought would have had to have started playing a big part in human action. This is necessary in order to get to the modern day, where there is time to think rationally, as you argue.

I would say this point came when humanoids began to talk. Being able to talk led to all new possiblities to do such things as coordinate huntings plans and communicating how to make tools. It would have taken rational thought in order to replicate the building of the tools after the accidental discovery. This started, as the fossil record tells us, with homo habilis, long before the dawn of modern homo sapiens.

[Anthrogal]

But there was a point when blind evolutionary luck turned into cultural practice. The dawn of culture began when humanoids learned to talk. I'm assuming you're making reference to when early bipeds became scavengers and learned to crack the bones of dead animals to get at the marrow inside, beginning our evolutionary ancestors consumption of meat which led to increased brain size. This happened even earlier than homo habilis, and needless to say was before homo sapiens. Trust me, I'm an anthropologist. I wouldn't have been able to get to my senior year of college if I didn't have my human evolution down straight. I know most of our history was blind luck. But the dawn of culture began a new kind of evolution, one that was faster than regular evolution a thousand fold.

[Anthrogal]

Culture, as it relates to adaptation, is essentially a tool used by humans to come to a decision as to the best means to survive in a given situation. Part of this decision is rational thought. Also, although it often does not seem like it, cultural beliefs and practices follow a kind of logic. Although they appear in societies at random, those that give greater survivability to those who pracitice/hold them tend to persist, while those that result in death of those that practiced them die out. If rational thought played no role, people would continue to practice cultural norms until they themselves were extinct.


Also, regarding religion in a completely biological fashion, partaking in religion allows for greater longevity and ability to survive difficult times. As the psychiatrist Dr. Victor Frankl observed among those in Nazi concentration camps, those that had some meaning to their lives survived while those who did not perished. Religion provides this meaning for many people, be the religion true or not.

[Anthrogal]

I meant complete extinction. If rational thought played no role, then our entire species would be extinct. And of course there are some examples of where good practices died out and bad practices survived. Although refined from evolutionary adaptation, cultural adaptation is still a messy process. But in general, cultural adaptation has sustained our species to the present, and part of cultural adaptation requires rational thought.

[Anthrogal]

Because, as I said before, their physical defenses are much better than ours. We are essentially frail, hairless monkeys with no natural defenses. Our primate cousins are either far stronger or far more agile than we our. Animals have developed either instincts or physical defenses against predators and inclimate conditions. We humans have our big brains which allow us to think and strategize rationally.

[Anthrogal]

And as I said before, those tools would not have come about if, through observation and rational thought, those first tools or any style of tools that came after them had not been replicated. 

[tekla]

'Culture' is simply the evolution of memes - and it's not based on rationality

That's incorrect.  In fact culture is often the answer to questions that were answered so well we've forgot what they were.

People DO practice cultural norms to extinction - Easter Island is a perfect example
Example of what?  Do you have some facts as to what happened?  There are several 'theories' (products of both rational, and in some cases, irrational minds) but no one knows.  It could be, as it has been in several cases in the past including the Anasazi, that the society and culture were so successful that they outstripped the ability of the environment to sustain them.  Then again, in both the Easter Island and Anasazi it could have been a changing climate.  But to pretend like you know, well, its just silly.

[Anthrogal]

But you have yet to show how such tools could have been replicated without rational thought. Sure, I can believe that the first flint tool was found by accident. But it takes methodic analyzation of how exactly that first tool came to be by early humans, which requires rational thought. Otherwise, those tools never would have been replicated.

[tekla]

99% desperation

You are projecting.  Tool use - BTW not (NOT) unique to humans - the first time may well be a happy accident.  Repeated usage and development, that's thought.

[Anthrogal]

Yes, but not to the extent that humans do. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in implying that rational thought is unique to humans. I didn't mean to, but I can see how what I said could be interpreted as such. It is mostly that humans can think abstractly that separates us from animals. Yes a wasp can, by a combination of instinct and basic thought, use tools. However, like with apes, it is purely on an action-reward basis. Human beings, with our ability to think abstractly, can perform actions that our not immediately rewarded. Namely, coming up with hunting strategies and the creation of tools. People can create tools while other animals must depend on what is readily available.

And again, you have not mentioned any way that the first tools could have been recreated without rational thought.