Evolution is a basic, biological process

1618033988749894848204586834365 (or may I call you approximately 1.6?),Have you been reading Brainstorms by Daniel Dennett, chapter 10?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Phi, that will do.
No but I am going to google it now.
Thanks.

Phi = (5^1/2+1)/2 or 2/(5^1/2-1) and it is also the ratio between the "diagonal" of a pentagon to the side and many other things .... the Parthenon is based on a golden ratio rectangle.just to help a little

Now this makes sense, except I'm still having a problem figuring out what this thing is that is making a mistake about the nature of consciousness.There is still an illusion, but the illusion is not that consciousness exists--it exists--but still something or other is making a mistake. It's "our perception" that is wrong.We--our consciousness?--thinks that the consciousness is incorporeal whereas it's really corporeal. The brain maps an apple--round, red, etc.--and provides a unified representation of the apple. A representation is like a picture except that it is really broken up into electronic codes in the brain.
The purpose of this is so that we can identify the apple as the apple. But not only an apple, but appleness.But when the brain starts trying to do the same thing for this process of putting little bits and pieces of info. together about ITSELF, it gets confused and as a result produces this aura of incorporeality because there is nothing outside to match it up to.(I've been trying to put what you said in my own words to see if I understand it).In other words, the brain does not know what consciousness is, and so it can't produce a representation of the process of consciousness. There is no sensory input to help out the brain to tell it what it is.Consciousness is a process, not a condition or state of being. The process is that of producing unified representations so that it can identify things. These are the little pictures in the mind, such as a concrete memory of a house that no longer exists. But you also have pictures (in code) of things that you are looking at. In both cases, memory or visual consciousness, the process is the same?(just rambling).So the answer to my above question--what is making the mistake about the nature of consciousness?--is the brain itself.Consciousness is the work that the brain does (well, part of the work). The brain can do the work but it cannot "represent" correctly the work itself. Therefore it seems to us like "mental space."This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-05-2005 17:22 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-05-2005 17:52 AM

Soplar,Reading the opening post reminded me of an essay recently written by Ernst Mayr on his 100th birthday. It is titled "HAPPY BIRTHDAY:
80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery" and can be found here. In my opinion, it is one of the greatest essays on the development of the Modern Synthesis. Not so much because of the breadth of information it covers, but because of it's simplicity and honesty. TheLiteralist should give it a once over. It's a great summary of the development of the Modern Synthesis, the theory of evolution that was developed from Darwin's ideas.The following paragraph from Mayr's essay is almost a step by step portrayal of your opening post. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did: Oh, and a picture of the sex idol that is Ernst Mayr:

Hi LoudmouthMany thanks for providing this — haven’t looked at Mayr’s work in some time. He’s rather amazing person This extract from Stealing Time seems to say it all I hope that, if I reach his age, I am still as active. A couple of comments on the excerpt you quote. Avery was apparently not looking for DNA during his investigations, and was very cautious in his statements re the relationship between DNA and heredity. Of course, others followed up and many became convinced, e.g. W&C. While the deduction of the DNA shape by W&C was an important step, Mayr doesn’t mention (at least in this excerpt) what I believe is an even more important step, the determination of the genes sprinkled along the DNA molecule, since knowing the genome, one can then begin to examine the fabrication of proteins using the gene blueprint and in particular examine the effects of defects in various genes such as the BRCA and P53 which are involved in cancer.Soplar

Hi PhiHas a nice ring doesn’t it? I recognized the golden ratio soon after I joined — I think it’s rather clever.There seems to be great interest in the problem of mind which could be argued is a bit off track except that the evolution of the mind is germane — I address that in another response, but re the issue of the relationship/interface between mind and body, I think the situation is quite clear.As mentioned in other responses, the brain is a complex electrochemical interconnection/web of neurons. The mind is produced when there are active interactions in this web. For example, one of the major functions of the brain is to continually monitor the environment surrounding an individual. The brain does this by accepting and processing inputs from our sensory organs e.g., eyes and ears. There is no mystery as to why the eyes and ears are connected to the brain via short, high bandwidth neuronal networks. If we are awake/conscious, our minds are aware of this input and processing principally by hearing sounds and seeing objects. Once sounds or objects have been stored in the hippocampus, our short term memory, we can think about the meaning of what were are seeing hearing.Now, if something happens to the brain, the mind is affected. Much of what we know about how the mind works has been learned from the study of persons whose brains have been unfortunately damaged. If we die, the brain ceases to function and so does our mind.In that debilitating disease Alzheimer’s, degradation in the brain leads to a corresponding degradation of the mind. At first we begin to have memory problems, then cognitive impairment appears and if it progresses far enough, the mind is so altered, that the person who inhabited the body has vanished.Soplar

Hello, I agree with your post. I am in the medical field and have witnessed first hand many instances of brain damage caused by either trauma or disease. I have searched the faces of those who are in the grim reality of losing they're brian function. Nothing is there when the lights go out. Nothing but meat. I can see why many believe the mind is the life force/soul/self. Yes it is a person, yes it is someones loved one, and yes I grieve with they're loss.However, I have seen nothing that leads me to believe there is a ghost in the shell. People in general want to believe that, it is comforting to think we continue beyond our mortal body. But we are no different than any other organism on this Earth.IMO.We are composed of the same stardust that makes up all other creatures. We are born, we consume, we die. I believe energy is the currency of the universe. So make the most of it is my motto. And for those who believe otherwise, I respect everyones beliefs. Just do not attempt to pass those "beliefs" off as facts. Every person must come to they're own understanding in they're own time. Unfortunatley some run out of time before ever even considering the questions.
"A life unexamined is not worth living" Socrates Peace be with you.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

1.61803,No disrespect intended by shortening it to 1.whatever. Not only was I not responding to your post (so, your screen name was not handy for reference, and it is difficult for me to remember), but also I was joining in the fun you and robinrohan were having...1.etc and ro.etc. or whatever.Sorry, if it sounded like I was trying to take my contempt for atheism out on your screen name. I have found belittling people to be of little use in winning arguments of any sort...even if I am well-versed in the subject being discussed and the other person isn't (though it can be hard to restrain oneself in that case, eh?). It would be even less practical when I am the one less well versed in the subject being discussed--which, painfully, here at EvC includes nearly all scientific subjects being discussed.

If it matters at all The L. I don't see any disrespect in what you posted. I'd say Phi was being a bit sensitive.You are one of the very best "creos" that we have had drop in here. (Even if so very wrong )This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-05-2005 23:25 AM

Hi Abbey, heres everything you ever wanted to know about phiand perhaps some things you didnt know. Peace.

Neds right, all is forgiven. Be of good cheer.

Hi PhiThanks for sharing your insights into some of life's less pleasant moments. When a loved one dies, the loss is eaxtremely painful and we hope that the person has gone to a better place.One of the problems with being aware of ones surroundings and having a memory, is that one realizes that life, as we know it, will someday end. Of course, this has led to a variety of attempts at dealing with this, the most noteworthy being the concept that, somehow, there is some type of existance beyond death. I share Pascal's agnostisism "I'm not sure there is an afterlife, but I'm not ruling it out", but I am convinced that, if there is something beyond death, it is unlike anything we can imagine. Thus, as Omar said Or as Aunty Mame said Live long and well Soplar

1.61803,It's understandable that my comment could appear as slander...that's why I wanted to clear it up.By the way, I have often heard of the Golden Ratio, but never really understood it. So I went to the site...I'll have to peruse it later, but what I've seen so far looks very interesting (I loved Geometry...but have forgotten most of it).I am particularly intrigued by the fact that ¹/_Phi = Phi - 1, I wish all reciprocals were that easy.

Ned,Thanks for the compliment.