Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ??

Soplar,From your reply I get the impression that you want to draw the discussion to a close. If that is the case, then I have no problems with that. But if you want, I could comment on your remarks about throwing a ball, there is an issue there. Please tell me what you want.

---

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

I'd like to hear about that "issue," Para.

Robin,Most of your summary sounds fine to me.However: I wouldn't say "unusual place", it's simply the place where this kind of representations belong. That part of the brain is dedicated to processing that kind of information, as other parts of the brain are dedicated to other kinds of processing. I think it's more like this: each representation is seen by the brain as having some relation to one and the same object, namely the individual whose brain contains these representations. These relations keep popping up in the processing of each and every representation the brain entertains, and it is constantly a relation with the same central object. "This apple would taste well to ME." "That billboard over there is not in MY path." "That stork up there wants to eat ME!" The recurring object in all these reflections is "me". I think that's how the sense of self is created.I hope I am making sense to you.

---

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

Robin,I am going to keep it short for now because it's getting late overhere. The issue is twofold. First, Soplar makes a distinction between electrical impulses on the one hand, which are generated "in response to the mind" on the other. But the mind is (nothing but) electrical impulses. So it seems Soplar is back to dualism again.Second, research by Benjamin Libet has shown that the conscious decision to perform an action is registered in the brain after the actual action has been initiated by other parts of the brain. I don't know whether Soplar is talking about conscious decisions, but if so, the statement about responding to the mind's decision is not correct.

---

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

So what I am calling a meta-quality, you are calling an object known as the "individual." It seems like you are saying that the "individual" is the same thing as the "self."But that cannot be, because these qualities of the conscious representations are what CREATE the self. OUR awareness of the self--there seems to be already a self beforehand.I think it's just some confusion about the meaning of "self."

Hi ParaI think this discussion re the brain and mind is interesting, but, I think it's getting a bit away from the central issue of Evolution vs Creationsism. On the other hand, we use the mind to understand evolution.Soplar

That's why I placed it here in the Coffee House, where we can have discussions about anything.See you around.

---

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

Robin,You seem to have a knack for slightly misunderstanding what I am saying. No, I didn't say that. I meant that all representations in a brain have the property that they are representations in one and the same brain. There may be a process in the brain that notices this fact and creates a coherent sense of self from it. If the process could talk, it might say: It might be that, as prehumans developed bigger and more sophisticated brains, they came to notice that other individuals apparently not always know what they themselves know, that there is a difference between "them" and... well, "me".Research has been done with toddlers who were given a box that normally always contained candy. When they opened it, it appeared there were, disappointingly, just coloured pencils in it. When an adult entered the room and the children were asked what the adult would think was in the box, they would answer: "Pencils". Slightly older children, however, had learned that they could know something the adult didn't know, and would answer the same question with: "Candy", whereas the younger toddlers did not understand that what they knew was not necessarily general knowledge. They hadn't yet made the distinction between "them" and "me". In effect, they had no self-consciousness yet. Well, the meaning of the word 'individual' - something that cannot be divided - is at the basis of the sense of coherence and 'self' that I mentioned. Being a 'self' and being aware of your 'self' is not the same. You can be a self and not know it. An amoeba is a self. Everything it does, it does in its own interests. It's 'selfish'. But it doesn't know it.Please keep in mind that I'm just philosophizing away here.

---

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

Hi Soplar, I don't necessarily think this is the case. I'm currently reading a fascinating book by Steven Mithen, "The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art and Science" (Thames and Hudson, NY 1999). Mithen attempts (with quite a bit of success, IMO) to develop a synthesis of the subdisciplines of cognitive archeology, physical anthropology, developmental psychology, and evolutionary psychology in an effort trace the evolution of the human "mind" from our putative pre-Australophithecus/Ardipithecus ramidus ancestor to modern humans. He makes a very compelling case (whether true or not). In short, the discussion of mind and cognition IS evolutionary and has substantial impact on the EvC debate. I intend to write a review for the Book Nook whenever I finish it. It is worth reading even if you don't agree with his conclusions.

Yes, Of course it was moved. Getting a bit slow -- will try to follow this as well as the Bio evSoplar

Hi QuetzalOne of the interesting things about this forum is that one gets different results depending on how questions are phrased or a subject is referenced. There is no question re the importance of the evolution of the mind to the evolutionary debate, but discussions re whether the mind can represent itself and the extent to which it's an illusion seems a bit off the subject.The book you mention sounds fascinating. I am trying to put together a response that would appear to be along the lines of the book, although I’m sure no where near as well done.One interesting thing about the evolution of the mind and the EvC debate, or the entire science religion (SR) debate for that matter, is that the fact that the mind evolved from a state of essentially non conciousness to a state of conciousness provides the basis for the SR debate. Presumably, the evolution of the mind can be likened to some extent as a person waking from a drunken stupor. At first the person will have only vague awareness of where they are or how they got there. Then slowly, they will become more and more aware and probably begin to have some fear as they may not know how they got into the place they find themselves.So imagine our forebears, sometime between 200 Kya (thousand years ago) and 100 Kya, they began to become aware of their surroundings. They presumably were fearful and had great need for an explanation of what they were beginning to perceive. It would only be natural to ascribe actions of the sun, weather, etc. to supernatural beings. Slowly, this belief structure became codified and when writing was developed, written down. The result is the book of Genesis and similar supernatural inspired writings. Unfortunately, these early explanations were incorrect and slowly science reared its ugly head and challenged the early writings. But the early writings were the work of an infallible, supernatural being; thus the scientists must be wrong. And here we are — the debate continues.Soplar

Well, goodness, Para, it's not like we are talking about the price of beans here. This is a very difficult topic. Of course I might not understand exactly what you say all the time. I'm not misunderstanding on purpose.However, I do understand now, with your latest explanation. I think it was the word "perspectival" that threw me initially.

I don't see what's so "natural" about that. Somebody has never seen or heard tell of a supernatural being, and then all of a sudden he starts assuming there are such things?

Robin,I am sorry if I offended you. I have been thinking of adding a mollifying statement to my last message, but I decided not to, because I thought that my rather longish explanation would signal that I meant no disrespect. Now I wish I had edited the message.

---

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

No, no, no offense. I thought maybe that habit I have, when I run across somebody's ideas that are interesting to me, but not totally clear, of paraphrasing what they said, might have been an irritant to you. But I go by the rule that if I can't state the idea plainly in my own words, I don't really understand it.Some of your ideas are fascinating to me, especially that part about the illusion of incorporeality. Very important idea, that.