It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Evolutionary View of The Mind

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Long ago, something called a Eukaryote, a single-celled organism with a nucleus filled with DNA, evolved the technology to 'merge itself' with other single celled organisms with a similar DNA filled nucleus. A complex centrifugal spreading and centripetal accepting between cells lead to evolution: those cells which received the proper 'fit' - the right nucleic acid sequences - evolved the capacity to 'merge' with other cells into a singular structure - a mat.

It was primarily through 'horizontal gene transfer' episodes like this which allowed evolution to occur. Think about it like this: a coherent whole is interacting with other coherent wholes. There's something special about this state: being enveloped by a vacuole, a chemically semi-closed barrier which sets 'you' up as an 'other' to the outside world. This philosophical idea - so high up - is paralleld by the fact of common ecological conditions shared by each cell, as well as the kinetic-energetic effect of a phospholipid enclosure on chemical events reacting on the inside, each one 'referring back' to the common condition of an energetic barrier that encloses them.

Every early cell experienced this, which led to the emergence of what seemed like a 'cognition' of one cell "seeking" to survive. Indeed, when it comes to physics, what we call (quite legitimately) life's intrinsic will to survive, may simultaneously be a self-organizational process with iron-clad physical laws - of which we are merely ignorant, and project our stories upon.

So lets say entrainment is partly mediating by a 'quantum entanglement' between states which have virtually identical constituent properties, and so, common 'attractors', or ways and manners of 'enfolding' information into a coherent whole.

Evolution only goes forward when a coherent folding is found. The jump from single celled to multi-celled was a jump in quantitative coherency, an adding to and complexifying of internal structure to 'take on' an additional element that can be coherently enfolded within the structure. It's as if the 'circular whole' is built to grow in this way: to experience a structural 'coherency', a very real geometrodynamical 'addition', which extends the property into a higher domain of existing.

Nervous Systems



Before there were spines and a sensorimotor system, there was multicellular cells being 'guided', or electrically regulated, by what ended up being known as the 'neuron'. Neurons eventually evolved into creatures like the Hydra,



The hydra has what's called a 'neural net' which moves the organism in a peristaltic motion. Many neuroscientists have noted the ancientness of the neural net, as well as the fact that our own digestive system expresses the same kind of peristalsis. The hydra teaches us how the nervous system evolved, and for what purpose: to organize and direct the digestive processes of the multicellular whole. Metabolism and the digestive tract are more or less coextensive. Furthermore, the unmyelinated neurons - all 100-600 million of them - of the enteric nervous system, our 'brain-gut', as well as the vagus nerve itself, are subject to whats called 'ephapsis', or ephaptic coupling, whereby molecular events are the neuron orthogonally instigate action-potentials (or electrical impulses) in the neuron, creating what Antonio Damasio regards as a blending of body and mind; or, the assimilation of chemical signals from the gut, which become translated, or represented within us, as 'feelings'. Or more accurately, feelings that reflect dynamical values within bodily homeostasis.

The sensorimotor system, or the cognitive system as a whole, exists, its seems, with constant reference to the belly: to what the internal conditions of the system impose on the dynamical affects of the subjective consciousness.

By the time we reach our grand human consciousness, we are enveloped by multiple layers of cognitive-coupling. For instance, our feelings represent our interactions with others in the environment; they reflect what we expect from them - how safe or threatened we feel is reflected in our feelings. Threat and safety are the basic structural laws that envelop our consciousness, although they're hardly on the radar in most people's representations of "what matters". Most people, like children, are occupied by their "stories as a self". Self as agent, or self as "ability to effect", acts as if the Self which emerges isn't in fact a function of "self as passively experienced", that is, how the experienced self affects and transforms the way the self that acts ("the ability to effect"), acts.

Here's an image to help:



You are a loop. All of reality is a loop. There is no 'tip of the pyramid' that is outside the loop. The tip has no quality; no name; no identity. But the person - you - you are quite real, even if you have a loopy etiology, a loopy nature to you; you are still very real, very personal, and what you are can very well be changed by what you interact with.

As a human, we may seek to run away from the objects that frighten us. The energy they elicit - the index of their presence - will just transform into something else, pushing you this way and that way because of its potency. Only a coherent correlation between the oberver and the object which causes the perturbation will relax the situation; but what if the self doesn't know - legitimately, is too confused/confounded by its own stories?

That is everyone's situation today in this world (even my self, but to a lesser degree). We are enveloped by stories that operate as genes do inside our cells, but outside our minds, between people: they encode and process the energy that controls our bodies, so that our genes encode the stories, and the stories project outwards again, doing what they do: making us feel good.

If the stomach controls us, isn't that an interesting coincidence? Our minds so badly 'want to be free' - or at least, thats what the culture we live in tells us. Yet, the flow of reality and matter appears to move inwards: the gut pulls the mind towards it - to 'honor it', as it were. Similarly, the world exists; were social animals that are unnable to 'play god' without looking like total egomaniacs who are suffering from a biophysically conditioned disorder of bodily coherency. The city was built and it imposed its effect on its most enthralled builders. The builders - having two levels - ecology of feeling, and the words that represent it - confused the power of words for the reality of the ecology of feeling. They chose matter over mother.




posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Your grasp of the subject far exceeds mine.
My view of evolution is basically "dumb asses die."
Therefore they do not reproduce.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Decent.

There's never enough written about our 'second brain", the neurons of the
digestive system. They do have a potent effect on us.

In meditation, one of the first things you learn is to quiet the stomach
via the vagus nerve and the parasympathetic nervous system.. as the
"noise" the stomach generates is considerable, and distracting.

No progress in meditation is possible without this first step.

You basically mention memes as external societal transfer units..
another subject that needs more development.

The human personality is functionally dominated by memes..
encoded by it. Would not exist without them..



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Long ago, something called a Eukaryote, a single-celled organism with a nucleus filled with DNA, evolved the technology to 'merge itself' with other single celled organisms with a similar DNA filled nucleus.


A complex centrifugal spreading and centripetal accepting between cells lead to evolution: those cells which received the proper 'fit' - the right nucleic acid sequences - evolved the capacity to 'merge' with other cells into a singular structure - a mat.




So for some reason, DNA just happened, and so did similar DNA and they just happened to be able to communicate thought they were different
That would take an awesome designer

So much assumption with so little logic and science



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

There is no need to bring religion to this thread.

All honest scientists, which is most of them, readily admit that they
don't know what happened "before" the "big bang".

And honest scientists are known to bring up anthropomorphic ideas
as well..

Science is the "art of the middle". It can't know before the beginning
nor after the end.

So there is no reason to attack science every chance one gets..
it's perfectly fine to discuss "the middle".

Not everything is religion. In fact very little is religion.

I hope you see that I'm intending this to be a kind response,
and not an attack.

People who push their unwanted obsession with religion
(or metaphysis/spirituality or what have you) tend to
get beaten up a lot.. it's an unfortunate thing.

Kev



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Raggedyman

There is no need to bring religion to this thread.

All honest scientists, which is most of them, readily admit that they
don't know what happened "before" the "big bang".

And honest scientists are known to bring up anthropomorphic ideas
as well..

Science is the "art of the middle". It can't know before the beginning
nor after the end.

So there is no reason to attack science every chance one gets..
it's perfectly fine to discuss "the middle".

People who push their unwanted obsession with religion
(or metaphysis/spirituality or what have you) tend to
get beaten up a lot.. it's an unfortunate thing.

Kev


You went into a huge crazy diatribe based on your beliefs as if it was a reality
You started the religious nonsense

Not a drop of proven science offered
Your religious obsession kev, not mine

Science is not the art of the middle, that's childish, science is repetable observable and testable, you make it a religion
edit on 23-2-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Uh huh.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Raggedyman

There is no need to bring religion to this thread.

The OP already did:

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1

They might as well take some credit for it. It does explain why they are so popular in certain circles.

On another note, why is the OP phrased as if this is the way it happened (stated as if it's factual that this is the way it happened, stated as if this is the case) when in all likelihood, the OP has fallen for the slogan 'science does not deal with absolutes' and all its many agnostic variants of expressing the notion that one can never be 100% certain?

Is the storyline in the OP factual/absolute/certain/correct, without error/true or not? It's presented that way, but most people promoting or expressing their adherence or faith in evolutionary philosophies (without admitting that these are beliefs), tend to use phrases such as "most likely (scenario)" or "indicates that..." (showing their love of agnosticism, in particular when it comes to promoting mythology or explaining their beliefs therein).

Looking through the OP, the only reason I can find in there for believing in the storyline described in the OP, is something to do with the subject of "similarities". But if one applies that logic consistently to other things that exist that are similar, one ends up reasoning that trucks evolved from busses by natural causes (caused by the laws of nature) exclusively because they look a bit similar and conveniently ignore that both were designed and created by intelligent beings (but because these things are full of characteristics that show evidence of foresight and planning, this logic is conveniently not used consistently in that manner, it would make the storyselling business a bit too transparent). Living things are likewise full of characteristics that show evidence of foresight and planning​—pointing to an intelligent Planner. And that includes the human brain.


Blind Chance or Purposeful Design?

Years ago, British mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Sir James Jeans wrote that in the light of advancing scientific knowledge, “the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.” He also stated that “the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician” and that it provides “evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual minds.”

Other scientists have arrived at a similar conclusion since Jeans penned those words. “The overall organization of the universe has suggested to many a modern astronomer an element of design,” wrote physicist Paul Davies. One of the most famous physicists and mathematicians of all time, Albert Einstein, wrote: “The fact that [the natural world] is comprehensible is a miracle.” In the eyes of many, that miracle includes life itself, from its fundamental building blocks to the amazing human brain.

DNA and the Human Brain

DNA is the genetic material of all cellular organisms and the molecular basis for heredity.* [DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid.] This complex acid has been compared to a blueprint or a recipe, for DNA is packed with information, which is encoded in chemical form and stored in a molecular environment that is capable of interpreting that code and acting on it.
...
In most organisms, DNA is bundled up into threadlike bodies called chromosomes, which are safely stored inside each cell’s nucleus. The nuclei, in turn, have an average diameter of about 0.0002 of an inch [5 micrometers]. Think about that​—all the information that produced your unique body is found in tiny packages that have to be observed under a microscope! As one scientist rightly said, living organisms have “by far the most compact information storage/​retrieval system known.” That’s saying something when you reflect on the memory capacity of computer chips, DVDs, and the like! What is more, DNA has by no means revealed all its secrets. “Every discovery reveals a new complexity,” says New Scientist magazine.* [When Charles Darwin formulated his ideas on evolution, he had no idea of the complexity of the living cell.]

Is it reasonable to attribute such perfection of design and organization to blind chance? If you were to stumble across a highly technical manual a million pages thick and written in an efficient, elegant code, would you conclude that the book somehow wrote itself? What if that book were so small that you needed a powerful microscope to read it? And what if it contained precise instructions for the manufacture of a self-repairing, self-replicating intelligent machine with billions of parts, all of which had to be fitted together at precisely the right time and in the right way? To be sure, the notion that such a book just happened would not even enter one’s mind.

After examining current research on the inner workings of the cell, British philosopher Antony Flew, once a leading champion of atheism, stated: “The almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), [show] that intelligence must have been involved.” Flew believes in “following the argument no matter where it leads.” In his case it led to a complete change in thinking, so that he now believes in God.

The human brain too leaves many scientists in awe. A product of DNA, the brain has been described as “the most complicated object in the universe.” Even the most advanced supercomputer looks positively primitive next to this approximately three-pound pinkish-gray mass of neurons and other structures. In the opinion of one neuroscientist, the more that scientists learn about the brain and the mind, “the more magnificent and unknowable it becomes.”

Consider: The brain enables us to breathe, laugh, cry, solve puzzles, build computers, ride a bicycle, write poetry, and look up at the night sky with a sense of reverential awe. Is it reasonable​—indeed, consistent—​to attribute these abilities and capacities to blind evolutionary forces?

Belief Based on Evidence
...

Source: Is Belief in God Reasonable? Awake!—2010

Ticker Tape Machine & Information Processing in Living Cells (short version)
Molecular Machinery of Life

Coming back to something mentioned above:

If you were to stumble across a highly technical manual a million pages thick and written in an efficient, elegant code, would you conclude that the book somehow wrote itself?

Other terminologies or ways of phrasing that concept of 'wrote itself' are "self-organization(al) scenarios", "by necessity or law" (see Stephen Meyer's video at 1:40), "self-assembly", "the universe can and will create itself..."(quoting Stephen Hawking from his book "The Grand Design"), "cosmic bootstrap principle", "bootstrap model" (see video by John Lennox from 16:10 - 23:04), "chance and necessity" (Michael Behe's video at 29:21 - 39:30).

Dr. Stephen Meyer: Chemistry/RNA World/crystal formation can't explain genetic information

Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto
edit on 27-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
On another note, why is the OP phrased as if this is the way it happened (stated as if it's factual/true/correct, without error/certain that this is the way it happened, stated as if this is the case) when in all likelihood, the OP has fallen for the slogan 'science does not deal with absolutes' and all its many agnostic variants of expressing the notion that one can never be 100% certain?

Out of space, but I would have liked to edit in this video after that question:


One of the most famous physicists and mathematicians of all time, Albert Einstein, wrote: “The fact that [the natural world] is comprehensible is a miracle.” In the eyes of many, that miracle includes life itself, from its fundamental building blocks to the amazing human brain.


A proper perspective on "life" may help with coping with particular situations (thinking about the Florida shootings now). In Kenya some years ago there was a shooting in a shopping mall, this is one of the survivors. It doesn't seem to have made her very "fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" (Matthew 10:28):

edit on 27-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Raggedyman
And honest scientists are known to bring up anthropomorphic ideas
as well..

"anthropomorphic" may sound really clever but that doesn't make some ideas that are connected to that word any more scientific or any less mythological (or unverified). Btw, it sounds like you're referring to the anthropic principle and various storylines in use to ignore the problem with the observations related to the anthropic principle in relation to evolutionary philosophies regarding the topic of "cosmic evolution" (the terminology "by necessity" that I mentioned before comes into play again):

anthropic principle - google dictionary

the cosmological principle that theories of the universe are constrained by the necessity to allow human existence.


Fine-Tuning​—Evidence of Purposeful Design?

When they examine the laws of nature, many investigators balk at the notion of a cosmos without purpose. They are impressed, for example, by the fundamental forces that regulate the universe. The laws underlying these forces appear to have been fine-tuned in such a way as to produce a universe capable of supporting life.
...
Astronomer George Greenstein states: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency​—or, rather, Agency—​must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”

What do you think? Which explanation best fits the fine-tuning observable in the cosmos? Purposeful design or mindless process?

‘We’re Just Here​—That’s All There Is to It’

Atheists, of course, have their counterarguments. Some shrug off the apparent fine-tuning in nature, saying: ‘Of course the observable universe is capable of supporting human life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it. So there’s really nothing to explain. We’re just here, and that’s all there is to it.’ But do you find that a satisfying explanation for our existence?

Another argument is that it will someday be proved that only one possible set of numbers can work in the equations that express the fundamental laws of nature. That is, the dials mentioned above had to be turned to the right settings for the universe to exist at all. Some say, ‘It’s that way because it had to be that way!’[whereislogic: i.e. "by necessity"; the dials spoken of is in the part I skipped] Even if this circular reasoning were true, it would still not provide an ultimate explanation for our existence. In short, is it just a coincidence that the universe exists and that it is life-supporting?

In efforts to explain by natural processes alone the design and fine-tuning evident in the cosmos, still others turn to what has been called the multiverse, or many-universe, theory. According to this hypothesis, perhaps we live in just one of countless universes​—all of which have different conditions, but none of which have any purpose or design. Now according to that line of reasoning and the laws of probability, if you have enough universes, eventually one of them should have the right conditions to support life. However, there actually is no scientific evidence to support the multiverse theory. It is pure speculation.

After stating that he did not subscribe to that hypothesis, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve said: “In my opinion, life and mind are such extraordinary manifestations of matter that they remain meaningful, however many universes unable to give rise to them exist or are possible. Diluting our universe with trillions of others in no way diminishes the significance of its unique properties, which I see as revealing clues to the ‘Ultimate Reality’ that lies behind them.”

Human Consciousness

The fact that we form theories for the existence of the cosmos is remarkable. In a universe without purpose, such an ability would have to be nothing but the result of a mindless process. Does that seem reasonable to you?

The human brain has been described as “the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe.” No amount of knowledge in the fields of physics and chemistry can in itself produce adequate explanations for the human capacity for abstract thought and our widespread search for purpose in life.

Either the human mind, with its quest for understanding, was put in place by a superior intelligence, or it arose randomly. Which of these two possibilities seems more reasonable to you?

Source: Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? Awake!—2009
edit on 27-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 06:56 AM
link   
The Neurons of our digestive system are indeed complicated and it is like a second brain, mastering sensation on the outer realm of our body I feel is key to being able to gain control of this second brain if you will, a mind over mater type deal for the ages would lean to a solid dealing with this, but a very good OP thanks for the read.
edit on 6-3-2018 by King Seesar because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
8

log in

join