[QUOTE]Originally posted by Me:
[B]Thanks, Quetzal, you have brought a lot of ideas to the thread!
Originally posted by Quetzal:the evolving physiology of the brain that facilitated the emergent property called "mind") are fairly rare.
I am not so sure of this - it looks like post hoc theorising. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
I agree. But when as teen-ager I was reading the Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (if I got the title correct) that did not seem to me then "post hoc". Indeed years later it does and still does for I think about brain physiology in a way that IS NOT anatomically congruent to the combined teaching of brain morphology in the Dept of Neurobiology and Behavior at Cornell for some inexplicable psychological reason that I have only been able to associate with ICR textual output my notion of the INSIDE of frog brain is the OUTSIDE of a fish brain and this causes all kinds of physical communciation problems among the scientists there when if I assume a common physiology. Obvioulsy I do not need to assume this but I had generated much conversation as a teen-ager in a herpetology club precisiely within the bioloigcal difference of warm and cold blooded animals but that at such an elite instituion only a prof who later went to Scripps was able to see this in me is beyond the pale that events that occurred their then are not even religously interesting but amount to some issue about publishing some data I had on number of salamanders under number and size of rocks for the mind of a herp and fish CAN be compared to a bird and mammal simply by putting the things in a roating can with a false bottom and watching if they cicade the eyes, turn the head or locomote. Frogs do not look as smart as lizards. But who knows this in their mind and not by what they were taught?