Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Is evolution cyclic, or linear?


tana

Recommended Posts

Fun movie. Certainly not what I was expectiong for the ending.

I agree that two exact replicas would develop differently as their separate experiences dictate, but I also think that it might be peripheral to the core of awareness.

I can't find the site I'm looking for, but what I've come to understand is that in the brain there is a correlation center. It is what the spiritualist would call the seat of the spirit or soul. To the materialist it is simply a separate brain function. It doesn't think, it listens, correlates, comprehends. It is what allows a person to whistle, while they work, whilst also thinking about their girlfriend. Some say it is not malleable and adaptive like other parts of the brain, but that it remains constant, as it isn't a thinking center, but a comprehension center.

If this is the case then it might seem that there could be a core that would describe the person, and that persons DNA would recreate him, minus a few memories perhaps, but still, the same person in the correlation center of the brain.

If I find that site I"m looking for, I'll post it. Here is a diff one that is too technical for my likings.

Link to comment

Something about this thread is starting to remind me of The Prestige. :P

Never seen that film - I'll have to check it out...

tana39,

I'd be interested in seeing details on this 'central' bit of the brain you elude to.

I looked at the link you've provided, but I could only see a short summary of the book, and the summary didn't seem to mention it.

There might be certain parts of the brain who's main function is to help other parts communicate - I can easily see that being true. But I don't think that would necessarily translate into a part of the brain that 'is really us'. That seems like a bit of a leap...

(...kinda like in 'Men In Black' where a man gets opened up and it turns out there is a little alien creature 'driving' the human 'vehicle' like a car...?

...I guess this 'central' part of the brain would be in a similar position? 'It's in the driving seat'...?)

Obviously I'm no expert - but my own amateur interest in this has (so far) lead me to the opposite conclusion.

It seems to me that 'who we are' is spread across all the (active) areas of the brain - different parts of the brain 'enabling' different aspects of 'us'.

My distinct impression is that no one 'central' part has 'overall control'... The brain is simply a sum of it's parts.

I've read about how inspecting people with various different brain injuries demonstrates how that particular part of the brain that was damaged was responsible for a very particular part of the persons 'personality'.

And it's not just 'functional' things like being able to do maths, or remember things. Very specific emotional 'intelligence' seems to be spread out across different parts of the brain too. The ability to emphasise. The ability to imagine what another person is thinking / feeling etc.

One of the weirdest examples I can remember learning about was a person who had a brain injury, and who could then no longer detect the 'emotional' content of a song, or a tune.

For example - they would first play her a very obviously solemn, slow, dreary tune. The kind of music you might hear at a slow funeral procession.

They then played her a very fast, happy, jolly tune. The kind of tune you might hear at a kids carnival.

They did separate tests to determine whether she could actually distinguish one note from another - there were other types of brain injuries that cause people not be able to 'detect pitch'. Play a C3 and then a G3 to them and the person wouldn't be able to tell which note was higher or lower!

But this wasn't a problem in this case - it wasn't as 'mechanical' an issue.

The women could tell different notes apart...

The problem was that - even though she could tell what the notes were - she just couldn't work out what the 'emotional content' of the song / tune was supposed to be. They asked her which was the 'happy' song and which was the 'sad' song.

She couldn't answer either way - she couldn't distinguish the tunes 'emotionally' - which basically anybody else would be able to do.

No other part of her 'emotional intelligence' seemed to be damaged. She could still emphasise, understand what other people were feeling based on their reactions etc. It was only this specific part of herself that had been affected.

Truly remarkable..

It's evidence like this that makes me think that every single little aspect of our personalities - every little bit of 'who we are' is represented at some point within the brain. Not in one 'central' mysterious place, but spread across brain structure.

'We are our brain'...

Link to comment

At the point they are copied they are indistinguishable from an atomic standpoint. Then all the philosophical questions arise, like how soon and how much do their thoughts differ. When or does the copy get a soul? How simple can an organism be and still get a soul? What if man makes a bacteria in a lab, does it have a soul, and when? Science is way ahead of the philosophers on many of these things.

The Majestik does raise many of these questions indirectly while also speaking of twins also.

bu11fr0g,

You say there are 'misconceptions' in my post, but I'm not actually sure what we disagree on... :P

When I was talking about copying a person 'atom for atom', I know that after that there are two different organisms occupying different spaces.

So - in that sense they are 'not the same person'.

What I meant was that at the point one was copied from the other, they would be indistinguishable from each-other. Without prior knowledge, you would have no way of knowing who was the original, and who is the copy. In that sense they 'would be the same person'. I meant it in that sense.

Of course they will then go on and live separate lives, because they will experience different things from that point...

Do you agree with the above?

Let's start with that for now, and then we'll maybe get on to some of the other things you mentioned...

Link to comment

Never seen that film - I'll have to check it out...

tana39,

I'd be interested in seeing details on this 'central' bit of the brain you elude to.

I looked at the link you've provided, but I could only see a short summary of the book, and the summary didn't seem to mention it.

There might be certain parts of the brain who's main function is to help other parts communicate - I can easily see that being true. But I don't think that would necessarily translate into a part of the brain that 'is really us'. That seems like a bit of a leap...

(...kinda like in 'Men In Black' where a man gets opened up and it turns out there is a little alien creature 'driving' the human 'vehicle' like a car...?

...I guess this 'central' part of the brain would be in a similar position? 'It's in the driving seat'...?)

Obviously I'm no expert - but my own amateur interest in this has (so far) lead me to the opposite conclusion.

It seems to me that 'who we are' is spread across all the (active) areas of the brain - different parts of the brain 'enabling' different aspects of 'us'.

My distinct impression is that no one 'central' part has 'overall control'... The brain is simply a sum of it's parts.

I've read about how inspecting people with various different brain injuries demonstrates how that particular part of the brain that was damaged was responsible for a very particular part of the persons 'personality'.

And it's not just 'functional' things like being able to do maths, or remember things. Very specific emotional 'intelligence' seems to be spread out across different parts of the brain too. The ability to emphasise. The ability to imagine what another person is thinking / feeling etc.

One of the weirdest examples I can remember learning about was a person who had a brain injury, and who could then no longer detect the 'emotional' content of a song, or a tune.

For example - they would first play her a very obviously solemn, slow, dreary tune. The kind of music you might hear at a slow funeral procession.

They then played her a very fast, happy, jolly tune. The kind of tune you might hear at a kids carnival.

They did separate tests to determine whether she could actually distinguish one note from another - there were other types of brain injuries that cause people not be able to 'detect pitch'. Play a C3 and then a G3 to them and the person wouldn't be able to tell which note was higher or lower!

But this wasn't a problem in this case - it wasn't as 'mechanical' an issue.

The women could tell different notes apart...

The problem was that - even though she could tell what the notes were - she just couldn't work out what the 'emotional content' of the song / tune was supposed to be. They asked her which was the 'happy' song and which was the 'sad' song.

She couldn't answer either way - she couldn't distinguish the tunes 'emotionally' - which basically anybody else would be able to do.

No other part of her 'emotional intelligence' seemed to be damaged. She could still emphasise, understand what other people were feeling based on their reactions etc. It was only this specific part of herself that had been affected.

Truly remarkable..

It's evidence like this that makes me think that every single little aspect of our personalities - every little bit of 'who we are' is represented at some point within the brain. Not in one 'central' mysterious place, but spread across brain structure.

'We are our brain'...

Good post Renegade! I do see where you're coming from on this, how brain function, or lack thereof due to injury or birth defect shows an appearance of describing the persons personality traits. I happen to think that it is secondary to some sort of core tho.

I believe that thinking and comprehending are two different things. You mentioned the "Men in black" alien. That happens to be one of my pet themes on here in trying to present a "Oneness" theory. The paradox of the "little man in the head", perusing the screen of its host. The little man will also need another little man in his head to decipher his sensory input.

Although you make good argument, and I haven't been able to locate that "correlation center of the brain" site I am lookin for, I'm just going to present some, IMO, fairly reasonable points,

A few year ago my dad fell off a horse and bonked his head, he went steadily down hill to the point of being in Hospice. For about a year he was bedridden and showed severe dementia and Alzheimer's type symptoms. He rallied, and is now as healthy and sharp as ever. A while back I asked him; what was it like to be a zombie? His response was; he remembers being aware of his awareness, he just couldn't think, he couldn't understand what sounds were, words were gibberish. But he was aware of his sense of self.

As a person enters into a meditative state many describe that they can attain an awareness, minus the thought stream. As one looks at how thoughts are created, it seems that thoughts arise without our control. We, (or whoever is in charge) is simply riding herd on thoughts, and selecting multiple choice options.

Imperial evidence suggests to me that any system, needs a control center. A president, a chief, a hard drive? a constructor of the puzzle. How would thoughts get selected without a selector, a processing center? Even if it is simply another conscious-less brain function.

If you don't mind my asking, Where are you at on existence theory? Materialism, Idealism, other?

As I posted earlier, I have it at about 80% for, to 20% against, that this is a consciousness based existence. What are your odds?

Link to comment

As I posted earlier, I have it at about 80% for, to 20% against, that this is a consciousness based existence. What are your odds?

Based on the ideas presented in D&C 93, it would seem that existence is 100% agency, which is defined as intelligence, or the light of truth, acting independently and for itself. If this is so, and we are intelligence, we are the very definition of existence as we define ourselves. As a product of agency, action can be material and /or spiritual, including expression in the form of thought, which in turn can also be expressed materially and/or spiritually.

Agency requires choices. These choices are provided as other, co-existing agencies act (including the projection of thoughts) to oppose our actions and existence, or support our actions and existence. Likewise, we oppose or support theirs. As this process unfolds, we adopt or reject thoughts in the process of becoming what we are, just as God abides eternal law.

We choose our thoughts, rather, which thoughts to abide in, whether they are of our own making or introduced to us by others, and we by so doing introduce our thoughts to others (whether intentionally or by others

Link to comment

Hey tana39,

Heh - well, I must say that the 'Men In Black' reference came from listening to a Daniel Dennett talk / lecture.

...maybe you found your inspiration from the same source...?

If not, then you are certainly a more original thinker than I am...! :P

Thanks for the discussion on this - I find it a fascinating topic. And the good part is I think the established science has a long way to go in this subject - which leaves us both plenty of room for lots of interesting speculation...!

A few year ago my dad fell off a horse and bonked his head, he went steadily down hill to the point of being in Hospice. For about a year he was bedridden and showed severe dementia and Alzheimer's type symptoms. He rallied, and is now as healthy and sharp as ever.

Sounds like a great recovery. Congrats to your dad...!

A while back I asked him; what was it like to be a zombie? His response was; he remembers being aware of his awareness, he just couldn't think, he couldn't understand what sounds were, words were gibberish. But he was aware of his sense of self.

Seems to me the above evidence would be consistent with both our theories to be honest...

As one looks at how thoughts are created, it seems that thoughts arise without our control. We, (or whoever is in charge) is simply riding herd on thoughts, and selecting multiple choice options.

Right. This makes sense to me from my point of view too.

I can't remember exactly who described it this way, but I remember someone describing whatever we are 'consious of' at any particular point being a function of many competing parts of the brain, and which part happens to be the 'winner' at any one time...

Imperial evidence suggests to me that any system, needs a control center. A president, a chief, a hard drive? a constructor of the puzzle. How would thoughts get selected without a selector, a processing center? Even if it is simply another conscious-less brain function.

I agree this seems very intuitive on it's face.

...I'm a Software Engineer by professsion - so of course I know about the basic structure of, say, a PC. And in the PC, there is a CPU. A 'Central Processing Unit'. This going right along with your contention above - a 'central' block of processing power that manages and controls all the other parts of the 'system'.

Some systems are like this - no doubt about it.

But some systems aren't like this. Some systems are 'distributed' systems.

One example that I can speak very authoritively about is the system I currently work on for my current job. I work for a lighting company that builds advanced lighting systems for fancy houses, hotels etc. And our system architecture is a 'distributed one'. This means that we don't - in fact - have one central 'processor' in our system which 'controls / commands' all the others. Instead, all the 'intelligence' of the system is 'spread' around the entire building - in many individual dimming units dotted around the building. They all keep in communication with each-other, and let each-other know what they are up to. In this way, the system runs smoothly - with none of the devices being in the position of the 'central / commanding' unit...

One of our competitors, however, do it in the way you are more familiar with. Their systems don't really have distributed intelligence. Their actual light source devices are very dumb. They have what they call 'area processor' devices - and they contain ALL the intelligence. They command all the other devices in the area and tell them what to do.

So - from my experience as an engineer - I know you can have (at least) 2 different types of systems. 'Central' intelligence, and 'distributed' intelligence. Both have their advantages and disadvantages...

If you don't mind my asking, Where are you at on existence theory? Materialism, Idealism, other?

I'm a materialist.

As I posted earlier, I have it at about 80% for, to 20% against, that this is a consciousness based existence. What are your odds?

Not exactly sure what you mean by 'conciousness based existence'. I'll look back in the thread and try and catch up. But if it's OK, could you explain...?

Link to comment

Hey tana39,

Heh - well, I must say that the 'Men In Black' reference came from listening to a Daniel Dennett talk / lecture.

...maybe you found your inspiration from the same source...?

If not, then you are certainly a more original thinker than I am...! :P

Thanks for the discussion on this - I find it a fascinating topic. And the good part is I think the established science has a long way to go in this subject - which leaves us both plenty of room for lots of interesting speculation...!

Sounds like a great recovery. Congrats to your dad...!

Seems to me the above evidence would be consistent with both our theories to be honest...

Right. This makes sense to me from my point of view too.

I can't remember exactly who described it this way, but I remember someone describing whatever we are 'consious of' at any particular point being a function of many competing parts of the brain, and which part happens to be the 'winner' at any one time...

I agree this seems very intuitive on it's face.

...I'm a Software Engineer by professsion - so of course I know about the basic structure of, say, a PC. And in the PC, there is a CPU. A 'Central Processing Unit'. This going right along with your contention above - a 'central' block of processing power that manages and controls all the other parts of the 'system'.

Some systems are like this - no doubt about it.

But some systems aren't like this. Some systems are 'distributed' systems.

One example that I can speak very authoritively about is the system I currently work on for my current job. I work for a lighting company that builds advanced lighting systems for fancy houses, hotels etc. And our system architecture is a 'distributed one'. This means that we don't - in fact - have one central 'processor' in our system which 'controls / commands' all the others. Instead, all the 'intelligence' of the system is 'spread' around the entire building - in many individual dimming units dotted around the building. They all keep in communication with each-other, and let each-other know what they are up to. In this way, the system runs smoothly - with none of the devices being in the position of the 'central / commanding' unit...

One of our competitors, however, do it in the way you are more familiar with. Their systems don't really have distributed intelligence. Their actual light source devices are very dumb. They have what they call 'area processor' devices - and they contain ALL the intelligence. They command all the other devices in the area and tell them what to do.

So - from my experience as an engineer - I know you can have (at least) 2 different types of systems. 'Central' intelligence, and 'distributed' intelligence. Both have their advantages and disadvantages...

I'm a materialist.

Not exactly sure what you mean by 'conciousness based existence'. I'll look back in the thread and try and catch up. But if it's OK, could you explain...?

Renegade, thanks for the interesting, courteous and intelligent discussion. I'm sorry I have been slow in responding, just trying to get my facts and research correct. I don't have anything new to add at this time.....but haven't given up.

As to the your last question, I was just trying to quantify the amount of surety a person, I have as to a belief system. I think that the chances that this existence is consciousness based, that is, causation down/mind creates matter/there is an essence of awareness that is timeless and eternal and exists beyond the physical death, and not simply an emergent property of brain function.....is about 80% for, and 20% that I'm wrong.

Curt

Link to comment

As to the your last question, I was just trying to quantify the amount of surety a person, I have as to a belief system. I think that the chances that this existence is consciousness based, that is, causation down/mind creates matter/there is an essence of awareness that is timeless and eternal and exists beyond the physical death, and not simply an emergent property of brain function.....is about 80% for, and 20% that I'm wrong.

Ahh - ok. Got ya.

Well, I guess I'm probably just as confident the other way round... Maybe a little bit more so...

...i.e. I'm confident that consiousness is purely a 'product' of brain activity and nothing more etc...

But - of course - I would readily admit our knowledge of how the human brain 'really works' is still in it's infancy (relatively speaking...)

So plenty of time for me to prepare to eat humble pie... :P

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

By its very nature, evolution has the structure of branching. Is the branching of a tree as it grows skyward cyclic or linear?? I would say neither.

This branching structure makes a cyclic structure impossible without a lot of ad hoc topological manipulation.

Empirically, there is no strictly cyclic structure in evolution itself although evolution gives rise to various "life cycles" as we all know.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...