MrDarwin

Albert, I'm afraid it's you who has gone off the deep end, if you think that's what I was asserting.

Conchobar

I don't believe that about you Albert.

I do disagree with you on part of your post. Yes everything about life is genetic, EVERYTHING. That includes sexuality, altruism, morality, all behaviours, and all neuropsychological functions. That includes consciousness, cognition, language, association, perception, vision, all forms of sensation, reflexive motor programs, basic hard wired motor programs(crying, walking, eating) and complex learned motor activity such as playing piano or operating a PC.

Consciousness itself is brain based in the ARAS, the Ascending Reticular Activating System. Of course it is connected by a vast array of axonal routes to diencephalon, thalamus and ultimately all areas of gray matter cortex so tht consciousness is also awareness and automatic processing. Yet if a lesion (small haemorrhage or stroke) interrupts the ARAS in the brainstem the person is rendered deeply comatose. The ARAS is varied in different people. Some have a weak ARAS and have attention deficit disorder. Others are very strong and are very alert, quickly responsive, activating concious mechanisms rapidly. There is good evidence that it is also genetic.

You were right, everything that we are is determined by our genes from the bump on our nose to haemorrhoid in our arse, and many genes govern brain structuring, hard wiring, synaptic density, up and down regulation sensitivities, and neurochemical transmitter production. It is all programmed. Our experience, memory, only colours the activity to some extent but the basic mechanism is dependent on the genetic (HOX) genes programmiing it. You would not have consciousness without some genes for the ARAS and its connections.

Conchobar

http://www.villagephotos.com/viewpub...sp?id_=2443539

Wounded King

Do you actually know what HOX genes are conchobar?

You seem to think they do alot more than they actually do.

Majestyk

Possibly. There's quite a lot that I haven't gotten yet.

Sorry, I don't know from where else consciousness can be produced.

You're right, I don't get it. Mystical prose aside, I am still in awe. In all the galaxies in our universe, all the stars in our galaxy, and all the planets in our solar stsyem this is the only place where we have found, chocolate pudding.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Maj.,
How egocentric of you! Of course our brand of human consciousness requires a human brain. But what about the consciousness of our leucocytes that we chemically fool into recognizing as us what is not us so that we don’t reject transplanted organs? And why can’t a rock be conscious?

Even when you are unconsciously sleeping, you’re conscious enough to wake immediately to a loud noise. Ergo, you are still conscious even when you yourself are not aware of that consciousness. So cut rocks some slack! Have the decency to assume as much about them.

Tho we or even rocks are not aware of rock consciousness, rocks may be latently conscious and brought to rock consciousness when, for example, they’re made molten or vaporized, at which time they remember all those eons they were asleep at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, just like you waking up in the dive you live in and remembering for the 100th time that it’s time you moved to a better part of town. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Peez

I understand that it can sometimes be difficult to maintain one's cool here, but I nevertheless encourage you to make every effort to do so. Keep in mind that others here may be struggling to maintain their cool in the face of your postings. You have not brought it up (at least, I have not seen it brought up). Please explain what it is and how it is relevant here.No, I have explained how altruism in general could evolve by natural mechanisms. If you wish to make a distinction between various kinds of altruism, it is incumbent on you to explain what the distinction is.This is a curious analogy, since I have not done anything like "throwing a paper aeroplane" at all. If one was to use such an analogy, it would be more accurate to say that I have explained how a paper aeroplane flies using the principles of aerodynamics. Now I am asking you do (metaphorically) explain to us what is different between the aerodynamics that govern the flight of a paper aeroplane and the aerodynamics that govern the flight of a metal aeroplane.This is meaningless without a definition of a "conscious decision."Please define "programming" in this context.Again, meaningless without definitions of the terms used.No, it is not. I do not understand why you persist in making such outlandish statements, as we have explained that you do not understand evolution. (I am doing my best to avoid becoming sarcastic) It might be, but you should first a) define "conscious," and b) explain why you think that human altruism is a "conscious process." If you say so.I have never claimed that "human altruism is.. an evolutionary process," rather I have explained how altruism can evolve by natural processes. Even ignoring this, given that (1) is incorrect and (2) has not been demonstrated or even explained, (4) is not supported.

Peez

Peez

Albert's comment is unjustified, I would almost say disingenuous, as Kctan made a point of putting ‘evolving' in half-quotes (what are those things called?) and in any event was clearly referring to the "evolution" of the thinking that the baby was doing, rather than "evolution" of the baby itself. That being said, "evolution" has a specific meaning in biology, and the growth of a tree from an acorn is not considered "evolution" in the biological sense (though it could be called "evolution" in a more general sense).

Peez

Majestyk

I certainly hope that rocks are not conscious. I'd feel terribly guilty about the time I was, making little rocks out of big rocks with, a sledgehammer.

You, seem to be viewing consciousness as a thing that is coherent unto itself whereas I, view it as a phenomena generated by the brain. It's not the electrical impulses or the chemicals, themselves that make consciousness. It's the pattern in which they are arranged that make consciousness. It is fleeting. Consciousness does not exist from one moment to the next but is continuously generated as the pattern changes. When the generator ceases to function, the pattern dissipates and there is no more consciousness.

Sleep, coma, and sensory deprived states are areas where we can argue the semantics of being conscious and consciousness itself. In all of these cases however we are still talking about coherent synaptic and neurotransmitter patterns.

Where do we begin to define consciousness? What is the threshold? Is sentience a prerequisite? Or is a simple stimulus/response mechanism enough? And are we any more than elaborate stimulus/response based organisms?

Are starfish conscious? Maybe. They don't appear to be. But I've seen time-lapse photography that suggests that the frequency of their pattern of consciousness may be to low for us to perceive. When time compressed we can witness behavior that appears to have motivation beyond what was previously ascribed to them.

If, the starfish have consciousness that operates on a different scale of time than ours then, could their not there be other patterns that we do not recognize, simply because of their scale? Sure if, the starfish is a valid example.

Are rocks conscious? Or could they be conscious when, they become molten? I doubt it. It may be possible that I'm missing the big picture but I don't see any evidence that suggests a coherent pattern is present within a rock that would manifest itself as consciousness. I could be wrong.

None of what I have speculated on here, requires a supernatural plane of existence.

Egocentric? Sure, depending on the perspective applied. I don’t see myself existing after my body ceases to function. But then that also means I question whether I really exist or am just a self-generated hallucination. Either way, whatever “I” am will some day cease to exist. On a cosmic scale. I don’t exist. That is to say I’m so insignificant at that scale as to make my relevance, non-existent. Is this more egocentric than someone who believes the entire universe was created solely for the purpose of his or her own immortality?

GunnerJ

For all you know, that could be the only way they reproduce.

Majestyk

I was seduced? I feel used, now.