Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Brain Evolution
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 43 (480454)
09-03-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by onifre
09-03-2008 4:49 PM


Heres a great link that should answer many of your questions.
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
Tell me you didn't go to U of I!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by onifre, posted 09-03-2008 4:49 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by onifre, posted 09-03-2008 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 43 (480552)
09-04-2008 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Straggler
09-03-2008 6:07 PM


Re: Brains
Any thoughts (or links) on the nature and evolution of consciousness and the relation of this to brains? How "conscious" are jellyfish? Insects? Lizards? For example. (whatever the question "how conscious" even means )
If by consciousness we're talking about being sapient, then I think that language is an important component.
You need to have 'words' to express complex abstract thoughts in.
Monkeys Shout Complex Thoughts | Live Science
quote:
By playing back recordings of calls at monkeys, Zuberbhler, Arnold and their colleagues unexpectedly found that males could arrange hacks and pyows to convey at least three different kinds of information to other monkeys ” the event they witnessed, the identity of callers, and even whether they intended to travel.
Scientists had suggested that stringing different sounds together into complex ideas occurred relatively late in human evolution, speculating that such combinations only happened when doing so became easier than adding new signals to a large, unwieldy repertoire.
I'm short on time but this is an interesting topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Straggler, posted 09-03-2008 6:07 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2008 7:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 43 (480642)
09-05-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
09-04-2008 7:49 PM


Re: Brains
Are mice more conscious than cockroaches?
Are dolphins more conscious than rats?
I'd speculate yes to both.
If by consciousness we're talking about being sapient, then I think that language is an important component.
I don't think consciousness and sapience are the same thing.
Me neither, but sometimes people interchange the words.
Nor do I think language is a pre-requisite for consciousness (although it may increase it!!)
Me neither, but I do think its a pre-requisite for sapience as is conciousness. And as consciousness increases, sapience is approached.
I am still not sure what is meant by the term "more conscious" even though I feel we instinctively think of increasing intelligence as resulting in increasing consciousness.
I'd say visa versa; that increasing consciousness results in increasing intelligence.
wiki on consciousness:
quote:
Consciousness defies simple definition. It has been defined loosely as a constellation of attributes of mind such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, and the ability to perceive a relationship between oneself and one's environment.
More conscious would more self-aware, it'd be having a better ability to perceive a relationship between oneself and one's environment, etc.
For example, something that doesn't have eyeballs would presumable be less aware than something that does, so it'd be less conscious (although not necessarily).
Is an insect more conscious than an insect? A dog more conscious than a fly? etc. etc. etc.
Well, getting down to the gnat's ass on where to draw the lines is practically impossible. But generally speaking, its easy to see that a dog is more conscious than a ant by looking at how they react to the environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2008 7:49 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 09-05-2008 2:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 43 (480740)
09-06-2008 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by onifre
09-05-2008 8:45 PM


Re: Evolving Consciousness
A very quick reply, onifre
With that definition you are 'conscious' of space, where as your newly arrived friend from 10,000 years ago would most certainly NOT be as aware(or conscious) as you, I, or Mr. Kaku of space.
I'd say that you are talking about intelligence, instead of consciousness, in this whole post.
Replace every "consciousness" with "intelligence" and I agree.
As Anatomically Modern Humans we're all at the same level of consciousness as those 10,000 years ago but not the same intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by onifre, posted 09-05-2008 8:45 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by onifre, posted 09-06-2008 8:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 43 (481002)
09-08-2008 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by onifre
09-06-2008 8:24 PM


Re: Evolving Consciousness
I wouldn't doubt that you could switch consciousness with intelligence since it's a very gray area which people can confuse, (and because both intelligence and consciousness increase almost together). I meant consciousness though because my point was that you can't become intelligent or knowledgeable about something, untill you are conscious of it's existance.
I guess we're kinda talking past each other.... I think the problem is in that word "awareness".
I don't think that we, today, are more conscious that us 10,000 years ago.
You're saying that because we're more intelligent, then we are more aware, and thus more conscious. But I don't think we mean the same thing by "awareness" in the context of consciousness.
For example, we both understand how sound is pressure waves propagating through the atmosphere (we are intelligient of it). A rabbit, on the other hand, cannot understand those things.
Now, take me or you and a rabbit in a field along with a fox. You and I could be completely unaware of the fox while the rabbit is completely aware of it because the rabbit can hear it and we cannot. Our intellignece on the matter of how sound would travel from a fox to our ears does nothing to make us more aware of the fox.
And that's how I'm thinking of "awareness" in regards to us being no more aware than 10,000 years ago.
Obviously, we're a lot more intelligent and have a greater understanding of our environment. But I don't see that as making us more conscious of our environment.
You know what I mean?
I don't think that having more knowledge makes us more conscious, at least not in the way that I am thinking of consciousness.
I guess there's just a lot of concepts that overlap in this subject. Its kinda hard to discuss the subject without having all the concepts nailed down to one word.
Sapience, consciousness, awareness, and intelligence all describe different things, IMO.
Consciousness in regards to awareness is like the opposite of being unconscious, or knocked out.
But consciousness, as in awareness of your environment, like being conscious of your surrondings, is different than just being awake (or not knocked out) IMHO.
And now you're talking about consciousness in regards to intelligence and having more intelligence makes you more conscious.
I guess in that sense, man 10,000 years ago was less conscious, but I don't think they were less conscious in the previous two senses.
And that's where I think we're talking past each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by onifre, posted 09-06-2008 8:24 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by onifre, posted 09-09-2008 8:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 43 (481005)
09-08-2008 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by BVZ
09-08-2008 11:09 AM


1) You say language is needed for awareness, what do you mean by this? Why do you think that the ability to pass on information from one organism to another using some protocol both understand is needed for awareness?
I said that language was needed for sapience. <-- (awareness).
2) Are bees 'aware' because they have a language?
Bees' "language" can be reduced to a simple input/output programm. They dance facing the direction of the flower and for some time indicating the distance so then they can communicate the location of the flower in that way. But that is different than a language in which all the bees would be understanding and aware of the actual existece of the language itself and how it can be used to commincate ideas.
So the answer to your question is "no".
3) Is plasticity needed for awareness?
That depends on what you mean by "awareness".
I doubt plasticity is needed to be conscious in the sense that you are not unconsciouss, or to be "aware" in the sense that you are not sleeping. However, if we're talking about awarenss as in understanding knowledge, then yes I'd say that plasticity is needed or at least important, well, that is as I understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by BVZ, posted 09-08-2008 11:09 AM BVZ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by BVZ, posted 09-09-2008 1:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 43 (481092)
09-09-2008 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by BVZ
09-09-2008 1:41 AM


The distinction between what you call "aware" and "understanding" seems like an arbitrary one to me. Could you explain the difference in more detail?
The difference was between "awake" and "understanding". Just because you're not unconscious doesn't mean that you understand your surroundings.
The word "conscious" can mean both "not being asleep" and also "understanding your surroundings".
So, according to you, a language can only be a language when those that use it know that it exists.
Whoa... slow dow. You're new here so I'll cut you some slack. But you are pushing me into a position and/or putting words into my mouth.
Here's what I said:
quote:
But that is different than a language in which all the bees would be understanding and aware of the actual existece of the language itself
Bees' language is different from our language. I haven't stated whether or not it can be rightly called a language.
Why is it important for the users of a language to know it is a language before it is a language?
In the context of language being key to sapience, if you are not aware of the language you are using then it can hardly be contributing to your spaience.
You asked if bees' having a language makes them aware. Now, if by aware we are talking about sapience, then no. If we're talking about simply being awake, well then obviously they are not asleep but what's the point in discussing that?
I am unable to understand what you are saying without knowing what exactly you mean with "understanding knowledge". Could you explain further?
You can be knowledgable of something existing without undertanding its existence.
I don't think that the bees understand that, say, each second of vibration equals 10 feet distance so since the flower is 60 feet away I must vibrate in the difection of the flower for 6 seconds and then all my buddys will know where it is. It is just an instinct, a simple input/output program.
The bee has to have knowledge of the flower in order to communicate where it is, but they do not have to understand that knowledge.
This distinction between their language and ours means that, although they are obvuously not sleeping, them having what some might discribe as a language does not suggest that they have sapience.
We (me and others) were discussing how understanding knowledge might contribute to higher consciousness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by BVZ, posted 09-09-2008 1:41 AM BVZ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by BVZ, posted 09-09-2008 1:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 43 (481126)
09-09-2008 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by BVZ
09-09-2008 1:11 PM


Why does 'understanding' require language?
I believe that sapience requires language because the necessary thinking takes place in the form of language. Without language, thoughts cannot take the form needed for sapience.
"Visual thinking" doesn't lead to level of understanding needed for sapience, IMHO.
Isn't an internal model that matches what is being observed enough? Is there reason to believe that language is needed before internal models of reality can be constructed?
What internal model?
Is your position this: Language does not quarantee awareness, but awareness needs language.
Am I on the right track?
Yes (assuming we're talkin' 'bout the same concept when refering to "awareness", which is not mearly being awake but having the understanding required for sapience).
Could you provide me with a link that describes 'sapience' more clearly? I have a suspicion that my misunderstanding is driven by my ignorance. I have googled it a bit, but it seems that everyone has their own idea of what it means.
You're probably not going to find one consensus on what sapience actually is. I gave you a link to the wiki page above in this message and in a previous message.
You can also look at wiki page on metacognition for more details on the concept.
Now, I may step back a little on my position. Metacognition (or sapience) might not absolutely require language in the strict definition of language, but for all practical purposes I'm comfortable saying that it needs it or, at the least, some level of communication.
If we imagine the emergence of sapience in the Homo genus, we going to have to image language emerging right along side it. They go hand-in-hand, IMHO.
Okay. Thank you for the answer.
Okay. Sorry to clutter up your thread with my noise. But at least I think I have a better understanding now.
I'm glad I could help. You're welcome. You don't need to apologize.

Now that I think about it....
quote:
Language does not quarantee awareness
I'll argue this point a bit.
I don't think that bees' really have a language. They have some type of communication system but I don't think it qualifies as language.
Language, in the true sense of the word, does garantee awareness, I think. I don't think that you can have true language without awareness.
But the way we have been using the word "language" to describe what the bees are doing, I will maintain that that kind of language does not imply awareness.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by BVZ, posted 09-09-2008 1:11 PM BVZ has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 43 (481311)
09-10-2008 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by onifre
09-09-2008 8:37 PM


Re: Evolving Consciousness
Here's some definitions of consciousness from dictionary.com:
quote:
1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.
4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
You seem to be connecting #1 and #4... (#3 is just being awake).
You're saying that because we're more intelligent, then we are more aware, and thus more conscious.
No no. Im saying since we are a conscious species, (aware of ourselves) not just aware in the sense that bees are aware, we become intelligent.
I can agree to that.
So, first consciousness emerges within the homo genus, (we can argue how later), then we become aware of our surroundings, and because of this we begin to postulate about it and thus little by little become more intelligent as a species. Slowly reaching new levels of consciousness.
Let me add some numbers to your quote:
So, first consciousness (definition #1) emerges within the homo genus, (we can argue how later), then we become aware of our surroundings, and because of this we begin to postulate about it and thus little by little become more intelligent as a species. Slowly reaching new levels of consciousness (definition #4).
I don't think that Anatomically Modern Humans from 10,000 years ago were any less conscious (definition #1) than we are today, but I do agree that they are not as conscious (definition #4).
I thought you were saying that Anatomically Modern Humans from 10,000 years ago were less conscious (definition #1) than we are today. I might have misunderstood you though.
Is that your position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by onifre, posted 09-09-2008 8:37 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by onifre, posted 09-10-2008 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 43 (481329)
09-10-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by onifre
09-10-2008 12:48 PM


Re: Evolving Consciousness
Well shit. Now we don't have anything to argue about

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by onifre, posted 09-10-2008 12:48 PM onifre 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