Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator

Expand Messages
  • Richard Godwin
    What s the date on that. Now the brain processes are pretty well understood. It remains that IQ testing is controversial. seems that awareness is actually a
    Message 1 of 117 , Oct 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      What's the date on that. Now the brain processes are pretty well
      understood. It remains that IQ testing is controversial.

      "seems that awareness is actually a process by which we inform ourselves
      that we know, after the fact as it were." Probably not. Awareness might
      have begun in confronting other individuals, and then self-awareness
      followed. "You're not seeing if people are aware if they made the decision,
      you are seeing if they're aware of their awareness." At least this is what
      some scientists say. Yes, I think being conscious is automatic. It would
      have to be in order to support evolutionary selection; no time to be
      otherwise and dependent on thought. The tiger already gottcha.

      Consciousness at least is based on a certain neural organization, which has
      been described as centralized functional design in which an upper brain stem
      system organized for conscious function plays a key role, forming a core
      around which an expanding forebrain could serve as a medium for the
      elaboration of conscious contents, culminating in the cerebral cortex of
      mammals. I think at least it should begin with sensory perception, and the
      prefrontal cortex is important for the essentially subjective aspects of
      conscious perception.

      As your friend said, "consciousness, as opposed to sub-consciousness, is
      largely automatic," so as to the subconscious, a considerable amount of
      subliminal processing can occur early on in the occipito-temporal pathway,
      so below-threshold or "subliminal" stimuli receive complex perceptual and
      even semantic processing , but for an unknown reason, these processes remain
      inaccessible to consciousness, which we easily experience from the effects.
      The great mystery yet to be solved is how brain processes translate to
      consciousness. How is subjective experience created?

      Neuroscientists are working on this, for example Pat Churchland (a
      philosopher/neuroscientist: "neurophilosophy") at UC at San Diego. It may be
      that a unique set of neurons in a particular brain regions fires in a
      specific manner, but maybe for each conscious experience neurons across the
      brain synchronize into coordinated assemblies and then disband, perhaps in
      some symbiotic relationship with the rest of the body. Investigation
      generally involves system methodology, of enquiry with both scientific and
      philosophical foundations. In philosophy, the current most prominent
      involved include John Searle ("Minding the Brain" for example, an excellent
      discussion, and on the internet), and Dan Dennett, also on the internet.

      Richard.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Maha Vorsak Pra" <mahavorsak@...>
      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 6:30 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator




      Best on net wrote (on intelligence) Hard to say. It appears to be a function
      of the complexity of a neural network although this is an area we don't
      really have much of a grasp on (and then there's Moravec's paradox).

      Me: I found this which I thought interesting in a mild sort of way:

      “…in a statement signed by 52 psychologists, published in the December 13,
      1994 Wall Street Journal), contend the following:
      1. Intelligence exists as a very general mental capability involving ability
      to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas,
      learn quickly and learn from experience. The brain processes involved are
      little understood.
      2. Intelligence can be measured, and IQ tests measure it well. Nonverbal
      tests can be used where language skills are weak.
      3. IQ tests are not culturally biased.
      4. IQ is more strongly related than any other measurable human trait to
      educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Whatever it is
      that IQ tests measure, it is very important.
      5. Genetics plays a bigger role than environment in intelligence, but
      environment has a strong effect.
      6. Individuals are not born with an unchangeable IQ, but it gradually
      stabilizes during childhood and changes little thereafter.
      http://www.riskinfo.com/warren/intellig.html

      As to Moravecs paradox, I had a friend, Brian Cutillo, now dead; seem to
      have lot of dead friends, age and all that! Brian was a neuro-cognitive
      scientist from M.I.T. one of those people who was far to intelligent for his
      own good, it drove him to drugs and death in the end. But anyway, he
      explained to me that in a series of experiments his team did, they
      discovered that the act of being consciouss had, in fact, already taken
      place before we, as individuals, were aware of it. It seems that awareness
      is actually a process by which we inform ourselves that we know, after the
      fact as it were. He did give me the time this takes but, unfortunatly I don’t
      remember it, suffice it to say that it is extreamly fast. So, he was saying
      that what we think of as consciousness, as opposed to sub-consciouness, is
      largly automatic. He would not have found Moravecs paradox, a paradox at all
      but what he would have to say about it, unfortunatly, I don’t know. He did
      not
      think much of the triune brain model, thinking that it was entirely to
      simplistic because that which is supposedly automatic, was only so to a
      limited degree, that, in fact, it could be reconditioned.

      Bestonnet: Animal intelligence isn't really surprising, of course some
      animals are more intelligent than others (and this tends to be reflected in
      how we treat those animals with the more intelligent animals getting more
      legal protection).

      Quite true!

      Me: Anyway, if the above is in any way true, then it seems to me that we
      should refrain from meat eating.

      Bestonnet: Not necessarily, besides, many of the animals we eat are
      meat-eaters as well.

      Me: I hardly think of that as a rational. It’s a bit like: “He does it so I
      can do it as well!”

      Bestonnet: Factory farms can reduce the environmental impact of meat
      production (provided they are run correctly) and much raising of meat is
      done on land that wouldn't really be very useful for growing plants humans
      would want to eat.

      Me: True, but I still find it a dubious enterprise. To my way of thinking at
      any rate, being human is a sort of, striving to creativity, to
      constructiveness. Killing is the antithesis of that. Which, I suppose,
      brings up the question, ‘what is it to be human?’

      Bestonnet: Improvements in technology are resulting in farmland in the
      developed world being returned to nature while the amount of food grown is
      increased and with genetic engineering we've still got a lot of potential to
      further reduce environmental impact without changing our habits (except the
      one about opposing technology, but Luddites have a history of losing).

      Me: Personally, I have no objections to genetic engineering because I do
      tissue culture anyway. In fact we have been doing genetic engineering with
      plants and animals for centuries, most people don’t seem to grasp that the
      only difference really is that we have become more sophisticated about it
      rather than hit or miss. Anyone who ate anything today, on this list, ate
      genetically engineered food but mostly of the, hit and miss in development
      variety. What does bother me and I am hardly unique on this question, is
      that it tends to monoculture, which is quite dangerous, not because you eat
      it, but because of the susceptibility of such crops to disease and other
      external factors.

      Mahavorsak






      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Judy
      Thank you Maha for being so gracious also. Judy ________________________________ From: Maha Vorsak Pra To:
      Message 117 of 117 , Nov 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you Maha for being so gracious also.
        Judy




        ________________________________
        From: Maha Vorsak Pra <mahavorsak@...>
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 4:08:54 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator

         
        Thank you judy for being so gracious.
        Mahavorsak.
        --- On Thu, 11/5/09, Judy <cobbie1919@yahoo. com> wrote:

        From: Judy <cobbie1919@yahoo. com>
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator
        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 8:39 PM

         

        Maha, it could have been me, as I real a lot of books....  No problem for me.
        Judy

        ____________ _________ _________ __
        From: Maha Vorsak Pra <mahavorsak@ yahoo. com>
        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 2:53:42 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator

         
        Hi Judy! I don't know what it is you think I may have said. If it was about there being no evidence that the Jews ever left Egypt led my Moses, I may have said that, because there is no archaeological evidence of that. And I don't remember where I read it, but I did read it because I wouldn't, couldn't make up something like that.

        Vorsak: No it wasn’t that, and as I indicated by the question mark, I wasn’t sure that it was you. It was, I think, in relation to you making a remark about a book you were reading. I tried to find the email in the archives but we don’t change topic headings enough for it to be easy to find much, I couldn’t even find my original remark! Someone said there was evidence for the bible, or some such thing. I said something about having to agree with whomever it was. But all I meant was buildings, locations etc. I remember I mentioned the Iliad. But that wasn’t my first reply, it was second, I believe. Anyway it is hardly a big deal it was simply an observation.

        Anyway, my apologies if I misattributed the remark to you. I don’t mind admitting when I’m in error in the least.
        Vorsak

        --- On Thu, 11/5/09, Judy <cobbie1919@ yahoo. com> wrote:

        From: Judy <cobbie1919@ yahoo. com>
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator
        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 3:41 PM

         

        I don't know what it is you think I may have said. If it was about there being no evidence that the Jews ever left Egypt led my Moses, I may have said that, because there is no archaeological evidence of that. And I don't remember where I read it, but I did read it because I wouldn't, couldn't make up something like that.

        Judy

        ____________ _________ _________ __
        From: Maha Vorsak Pra <mahavorsak@ yahoo. com>
        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 6:00:48 AM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator

         
        Richard: Who said that? Certainly not me! Are you yet again misreading, a
        typical penchant you have? What "intangibles" ? It is clear you know
        nothing about archaeology! Events, events, events. Tangible. Where's you
        evidence?

        Vorsak: I think it was Judy? But I’m not sure. Your gratuitous ad hominem’s and forays into pointlessness, Darwin also spoke of “The Origin of Species as “Origin”, speak volumes about your intellect.
        Mahavorsak

        --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:

        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator
        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 6:57 PM

         

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Maha Vorsak Pra" <mahavorsak@ yahoo. com>
        To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
        Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:56 AM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator

        "The original statement was that there was no evidence for things in the
        Bible that is all. It was a blanket statement. I then said, yes there is
        evidence, unless American fundamentalists are busily building ruins and
        hiding coins to fake evidence. Nowhere did I imply that any evidence from
        archeology etc. confirms intangibles, such as beliefs etc. So your: “So
        please do give you evidence of archaeology.” Is a question born out of
        inattention.

        R: Who said that? Certainly not me! Are you yet again misreading, a
        typical penchant you have? What "intangibles" ? It is clear you know
        nothing about archaeology! Events, events, events. Tangible. Where's you
        evidence?

        Richard.

        Mahavorsak

        ------------ --------- --------- ------

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.