Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ??
Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 127 (176064)
01-12-2005 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by robinrohan
01-11-2005 1:32 PM


Re: About the illusion of consciousness
Hi Robin
I'm sure that the early humans who formulated the first ideas re how things work, didn't think of "supernatural beings", they just thought that there must be individuals with the capability to move the sun or cause the rain. At the time, this was the only explanation available. These individuals were given various names --in english, we call them gods.
As the dictionary says re supernatural
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
Thus these individuals were, per force, supernatural.
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by robinrohan, posted 01-11-2005 1:32 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 01-12-2005 12:36 PM Soplar has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 122 of 127 (176208)
01-12-2005 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Soplar
01-11-2005 12:02 PM


Re: About the illusion of consciousness
One of the intriguing analogies Mithen uses in the book is resurrecting an old (discredited) biological pardigm: Haeckel's ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny. He points out the cognitive abilities of infants, toddlers, etc are somewhat correlated with the putative evolution of modern human intelligence. He describes this evolution as a "play in four acts":
Act I: 6-4.5 mya. An empty stage inhabited by the hypothetical common ancestor of apes and man. No tools, no artifacts. The actors characterized by a type of "generalized problem solving" intelligence similar to our nearest living relatives. Very much like a human new-born: certain hard-wired problem-solving rules, but little else.
Act II: 4.5-1.8 mya. A. ramidus and A. anamensis in scene 1, the gracile Australopithecenes in scene two. Props are the Omo Complex toolset (~3 mya) culminating in the Oldowan Complex toolset (~2-1.8 mya). Mithen takes the existence of purpose-built tools - even if highly primitive - as the beginning for the development of specialized "intelligence modules" dealing with physics of inanimate objects, the biology of living objects etc. The fact that these stones were worked indicates the user had an understanding of final form, utility, etc. Somewhat like a toddler of around three. Note the significant difference between this capability and the tools used by chimps, for instance.
Act III: 1.8 mya - 100 kya. Many scenes, and many actors. Major "events" are referenced by not only a myriad of different hominids, but also by the advances in toolmaking - the Acheulian hand axes of H. habilis and H. erectus, to the bi-facial worked blades of the Lavallois Complex, finally culminating in the beautiful blades of the Aurignacian and Amudian Complexes. Right at the end of this period - when H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis coexist - we see the first beginnings of ritual and religion. Mithen believes this corresponds to the development of "mapping across domains" where the various "modules" begin sharing information rather than operating independently.
Act 4: 100 kya - present: The most exciting act with the dominance of modern humans, the development of agriculture and cities, etc. Evidence of true "religion" appearing around 40 kya (with Asgara's figurine, for instance). Multiple mental "modules" working together and the first development of the capability to have "concepts about concepts". A fully adult mind.
This is just a brief summary - and doesn't adequately express either the evidence or the argument Mithen makes in the book. I really will post a Book Nook topic when I finish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Soplar, posted 01-11-2005 12:02 PM Soplar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Soplar, posted 01-12-2005 11:49 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 127 (176251)
01-12-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Soplar
01-12-2005 12:21 AM


Re: About the illusion of consciousness
Soplar writes:
they just thought that there must be individuals with the capability to move the sun or cause the rain
I still think that explanation begs the question a little. Why shouldn't primitive man have devised natural reasons for such phenomena?
For example, they might think that fire came out of the ground or out of the trees, since they saw ground fires and forest fires. I guess you are suggesting that the uncultured mind is anthropomorphic by its very nature? Since man is a person, he thinks everything is a person or caused by a person?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Soplar, posted 01-12-2005 12:21 AM Soplar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Soplar, posted 01-12-2005 11:58 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 126 by lfen, posted 01-18-2005 3:28 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 127 (176415)
01-12-2005 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Quetzal
01-12-2005 10:25 AM


Re: About the illusion of consciousness
I believe this is much more detailed discussion of my recent reply
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.
So I think we are all on the same page. One of the things I find fascinating is the idea of "an awakening" that occurred somewhere in the last 200 Kya in which evolving humans gradually became aware of the world around them and soon needed an explanation for what they were beginning to perceive. As I mention above, this led to a "religious" explanation in which the explanation of the world becomes associated with an infallible deity. Then when the true explanation appears it comes into conflict with "revealed truth" which leads to the science - religion conflict we are now experiencing
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Quetzal, posted 01-12-2005 10:25 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 127 (176418)
01-12-2005 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by robinrohan
01-12-2005 12:36 PM


Re: About the illusion of consciousness
Hi Robin
An anthropomorphic view is part of it. Also, it is possible that early humans might have thought
that fire came out of the ground or out of the trees, since they saw ground fires and forest fires.
But that wouldn’t have explained how the sun moved since the sun would apparently have required a mover. Also, how would they have naturally explained rain? Something or someone would have had to move water into the sky so it could fall. Of course they couldn’t see anybody or any thing, so they conjured up Gods to do these things.
In general, these early concepts are called animism and are common to all cultures.
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 01-12-2005 12:36 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 126 of 127 (178037)
01-18-2005 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by robinrohan
01-12-2005 12:36 PM


Re: About the illusion of consciousness
Robin,
Julian Jaynes in his book THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND advances some fascinating speculation on this.
It's unprovable but brilliant. I was initially drawn to it because he offerred the most interesting explanation of the use of the Gods in the Illiad. He asked what if Homer was being literal. What if the ancient Greeks actually experienced visions of the Gods and what if these visions made all their decisions for them? What if these visions weren't of Gods, but was the way they experienced the workings of their brain?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 01-12-2005 12:36 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 127 of 127 (179507)
01-21-2005 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by robinrohan
01-10-2005 3:06 PM


Re: About the illusion of consciousness
robinrohan
I am not fully up to speed on the discussion of the brain but are you puzzled as to how the illusion of a self seperate from the brain is achieved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by robinrohan, posted 01-10-2005 3:06 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024