Instead of seeing themselves as evolved biological creatures . . .
We sure are.
Seems we agree.
Except, it also seems me, this video, and “philosophers” are not saying what you think we should say,
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:19, topic:11813”]
That certainly makes sense, and it is exactly why it’s time that philosophers start incorporating biology into their conjectures about human consciousness, because tools and strategies for behavioral change must grow out of an evolutionary-biological awareness,
[/quote]
But it makes no sense to you?
How many times do I need to say it? How many references to evolution do I need to show? Maybe if you cut and paste yourself again, then I’ll change my mind.
Addendum
A little reading on Chalmers and Nagel, made me think what you are saying is that there is no hard problem of consciousness. I’m not wedded to an answer. The responses to the hard problem are just as interesting as the problem itself for me. If there was a test for what my belief is, perhaps I would agree with those who say there is only the easy problem.
What you say seems close to Eliminativism or Strong Reductionism
But putting a label on you is not my goal. I’m just looking to understand what you’re saying. If you say no one is saying the things you are saying, yet I can find pages of them, that’s hard to understand.
Not sure how these facebook embeds work, but this wasn’t in another format. It’s a short, about Socrates’ view on this idea. He used words like “soul” and “character” which I don’t think fully capture the evolved mechanisms behind the way we swap cleverness for wisdom. It’s another example of how long we have recognized these traits, but it’s always a rare person with wisdom, usually marginalized from power, who sees the problem in someone who has knowledge and authority but can’t accept they are wrong.
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Freel%2F25281314934890080%2F&show_text=0&width=267" width="267" height="476" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>
Then start by addressing my actual words.
Neither! It’s about learning from what actual physical scientists are discovering - striving to understand what they know - as opposed to philosophizing and keeping it within our mind-bubbles.
Yes, there is a big difference between knowing some information and understanding that information.
But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question,
Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science.
The first sentence is a hypothetic, rather than actually cataloging all the evidence at hand, and appreciating there a many nooks and crannies full of details, that our science has yet to reach, but oh so much scientists have learned to point the way.
So instead, the assumption being presented is that unless every single component of consciousness is transparent and understood, or we are not allowed to make it a rational assumption that the answer to those questions are within the fine details we haven’t yet unraveled.
Instead the assumption being projected is that until, every last infinitesimal cog is unraveled, we get to assume there are actually skyhooks, a touch of magic beyond physicality that makes the whole body-brain- environment-mind connection possible.
That is no different from Mike Yohe claiming science doesn’t know enough about Earth’s systems to be capable of blaming humanmade GHGs for current global warming driven climate changes!!!
Also you constantly spank me and come up with other stuff, in this case those two links, but you never actually deal with the words that I’m writing down. Always pulling it off into another arena, and away from what I’m actually trying to get across.
.
.
If you say what I write confuses you, then for gosh sake, why not include full quotes of what I wrote and spell out your confusion or questions?
opps
.
.
.
.pihb ;h[uhh
I or these links don’t say anything about skyhooks. It’s insane that you keep saying that while accusing me of not addressing your words.
Your quotes have not changed much for a long time. I’ve addressed your words directly dozens of times.
No idea why you think that.
Because you twist my words. I didn’t bring up Socrates to make a case for understanding evolution. You keep trying to make my threads about the problem of hard consciousness and an understanding of evolution. This thread discusses evolved traits of humans and how we know more about them now than they did in ancient Greece and even up to the more recent use of human gullibility by Nazis. I’m applying this knowledge while you just keep saying,
but you don’t connect dots from the sciences to the problem of people being taken in by the propaganda. You say,
and for me and you, that’s true. It’s also well documented how the world changed after Darwin. There’s no question that awareness, and the awareness that the universe is bigger than we once thought, has changed how humankind views itself. But the question I’m exploring here is, why hasn’t everyone in the world got on board with this? Why didn’t everyone become at least some version of a deist, like Thomas Jefferson thought we would? How does a modern person look at an elementary science book and say that it’s not true? If we can’t get passed that, how can we get to teaching an appreciation of being that evolved creature?
My point is we can’t really understand our minds without a deeper appreciation of evolution since it created our consciousness!
You keep trying to make my threads about the problem of hard consciousness and an understanding of evolution.
HEY, it’s not my Hard Problem. I’m not the one making money and careers on insisting that a biological physicalist understanding of our consciousness is impossible!
But when someone brings up consciousness, denuded of its evolutionary heritage, I will call it out.
This thread discusses evolved traits of humans and how we know more about them now than they did in ancient Greece and even up to the more recent use of human gullibility by Nazis.
I agree we know much more, so why the heck do so many, ignore so much, of what scientists have learned? Instead flocking to philosophers who are all about making a playground of their intellectually gifted minds, and way the heck too often forgetting all about touching base with down to Earth physical reality.
It’s all about ideas, creating doubts and arguments and “what ifs” and ‘supposings’. And then slamming the door on anyone who wants to discuss (either brashly or timidly) the reality of our modern biological understanding as it related to our conscious abilities.
I don’t?
What about the need to recognize our human self-absorption and self-serving nature?
Nothing can change without our recognizing the fundamental problems.
Like it or not, that is at the top of the list.
But others believe it’s nothing but an insult and should be ignored.
How is growth possible without self examination?
Connecting dots?
How about starting with connecting the dots between our Body + Brain + Interaction (interior and exterior) = Consciousness, Mind.
Absorbing that realty and working out from there?
How about taking ownership of our Gods? Since they are created from inside our hearts and not from out there somewhere?
Rather than relying on God as a “get out of responsibility” card for ourselves.
Instead, way too many believe God is their bludgeon and shield to get their fulfilling desires.
Learning that our God reflects our Ego, is an important key to grasp.
(all important dots to connect)
It’s a good question.
Between Hollywood dreaming.
Gluttonous Consumerism.
Actually believing, too much is never enough.
Disregard for and fear of the other ones.
We’ve dug ourselves one monstrous hole.
Too many people, and events moving too fast for any re-adjustments.
Still the truth is worth broadcasting and defending, regardless.
As for me, fatalism helps, minimizing expectations also works for maintaining a balance. Thinking about one’s death, reconciling with the inevitable - helps make the present so much more precious. And so on and so forth.
Maybe this can help make it clearer:
Is it time to rethink the “Atheist” label?
Yes I know. My point is you keep repeating that. It’s true in a sense, but the way you apply it is too broad, making it less useful. Evolution is integrated in so much of what we know, it’s foundational to science. And the statement is too absolute. I think you can know a lot about psychology (our minds) without knowing the details of DNA or biology. I agree AN appreciation is helpful but I don’t know how deep that needs to be.
That has nothing to do with my opening post.
More off topic stuff. Nothing wrong with the questions, just no relevant to this topic.
Another one of your absolutist comments and a demand that your priorities be everyone else’s priorities.
I rather think I’m refining it.
You certainly talk like you think that, but saying you’re refining it is not actually refining it. Like I said, many steps to get from a deep understanding of evolution to improving skills of critical thinking.
And that’s what you say.
Although you have yet to offer any serious focused critique.
It has always been this same sort of broad stroke dismissal.
Is this really the best you can come up with?
What is it they say about good writing, show me, don’t tell me?
.
keeps improving and accumulating - revealing an interior human reality that is beyond our ability to fully conceptualize. I do know that the more scientists have learned about the lay of the landscape within our bodies—its outlines and contours—the better we appreciate that more amazing biological details await our discovery within those contours.
Today’s consilience of biological physiological scientific evidence points at our human introspective mind being best understood as, a reflection of our body communicating with itself, as it is dealing with life, (interior and exterior.). (Think, Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide)
Why does this matter? Because it makes clear, with solid scientific evidence, that everything one feels and knows gets processed through our senses, body, and brain.
The entire body/brain’s actual dynamic physiological/biological symphony dealing with the living moment, is what produces all of our thoughts and our ability to feel an experience.
All of our thoughts! The totality of our mental-landscape.
Why do I think that appreciating our body/brain producing our mind is such a big deal epiphany? Foremost because it makes clear the unmistakeable reality that along with our thoughts, we produce our own Gods, individually and collectively.
That’s not a bad thing, I believe it’s sobering and healthy, if rather shocking.
None of this does away with God. It does place God firmly within the arena of our own minds. While making it clear that God is not a part of the material physical Earth that created our bodies.
Achieving this realization encourages oneself to take responsibility for their Gods, as it opens a deeper understanding of myself and our passionate impulses. Reaching this level of understanding also provides better tools for moderating and channeling those challenging passions within ourselves.
It doesn’t fix anything, but it does help explain the dance, and reveal constructive options for dealing with the challenges that will keep confronting us.
I think that would be excellent because too many people pretend to know the Will of God - even though, their own Bible warns them that God is beyond human understanding.
Instead, they too often mistake their own Ego for God. …
There’s nothing more to critique. You keep saying x leads to y without saying how you get there. This thread on the other, my posts, talk about human behavior, the studies that help understand them, the real world examples of how people have been manipulated by having these evolved traits hacked.
I’m asking you to tell me. It’s your claim that deep understanding leads to better thinking skills. I’ve shown research that says intelligence is not the only thing needed to reason through data that runs counter to your intuitions.
Then you cut and paste.
I’ve responded to that before. That formula is an explanation of what we know about the nervous system, not a deep understanding of how we became what we are.
Here’s an example of how Sapolsky connects dots. In most interviews and anything he talks about, he tells his answer to why we do anything, how we react to anything. He usually starts with what we just experienced, where we just came from. Was it calm and peaceful or did we just witness an accident. He might go back to what we recently ate, then how our week has gone. He keeps going back to parenting and in the womb and through millions of years of evolution. He says he is able to overcome those inherited reactions for a few minutes at a time and not very often.
In this video there is a link to 52:29 about how we judge. He talks about the prefrontal cortex and how it’s different from the limbic system. We know that animals like to punish, including their own. That’s dopamine, something we share with animals. Sapolsky, when he’s being rational and answering as an academic, says punishment is never appropriate, but his brain is feeding him the same rewards that make him feel like doing it. As he says, “it’s a bizarre feature for us, almost certainly, evolutionarily, it’s ‘third party punishment’, from game theory”. He goes on to explain it, why it’s costly, and how we evolved so it feels good.
… experts who have been at the leading edge of modern science, and capable of clearly explaining it to all who are curious to learn - David Attenborough’s 1979, “Life On Earth” - Hazen, Lane, Sloan-Wilson, Solms, Damasio, Sapolski, Levin, Turin, Reber, among many others.
Like you’ve pointed out, it’s about connecting the dots.
If my days weren’t filled with lots of obligations and distractions I can’t turn my back on, I’ve be way further along, but it is what it is, I’ll keep plugging away at it. If I had some serious constructive criticism, rather than non-stop ragging, that would be good.
“You’re saying the same thing” Well, WTF has Chalmers been repeating the same thing and no one seems to mind, hell even Hoffman seems to continue doing great off of his off the wall science-fiction dressed up as rigorous mathematics.
There are only so many fundaments to drill down to - I can’t help the ADD.
Evolution and our development has gone down the same stream,
science fiction is for those who need to change it up, because life gets so boring so fast.
What Pinker and the like?
And where am I talking about intelligence, I’m talking about drilling down into the foundation of our Being, the stuff that comes before the intelligence gets piled on top.
You seem very content repeating the same stuff yourself - look at the shape of this world, in spite of all the intelligent experts debating each other endless, usually about distractions rather than focused on constructive resolutions - dancing around the same MayPole.
While human behavior continues degenerating under the relentless pressures and negative consequence of our self-indulgence thoughtless (and all too often negative) behaviors and this world that is coming apart at the seams.
You want status quo, but that’s melting out from under us.
Sure, I can’t fix anything, but I’m making better sense of it, than someone who was capable of saying, just a couple years ago, “I’m not worried about Christian Nationalists” - so excuse me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt and continue on my journey to make better sense of it than, what you’ve offered—which is basically, to get back in line and shut up
Let me try a different approach. This is what I say sometimes to new members, the ones who just post things and don’t really engage: The forum functions best when people post not only links or references but they add their own thoughts, as stated in the rules, that should be “meaningful development or responsive discussion”. Now, let me show how I don’t think you are NOT doing that.
I just linked Sapolsky and you didn’t even mention it in your response. So, you’re off topic and posting a repetitive list with no meaningful development. We have discussed the people in that list elsewhere, some of what they say I have strong agreement with you, so no idea what you’re conveying here.
So, you’re busy, join the club. And this is name-calling and abusive. Simply calling my words unserious. If you don’t like them, quit trying to get me to click on those same old links that I’ve already clicked on.
Way off topic. If you want this forum to be a place for you to complain about Chalmers and Hoffman, I’ll just ban you now. I really liked your in-depth analysis of Hoffman. Chalmers, I’m not a fan. What does all the attention they are getting have to do with this thread?
Don’t know what this means.
Same as above for Chalmers and Hoffman.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t just playing with words, but the frequency that this happens is not good. You use the words “deep understanding” of evolution. That would require some intelligence, maybe I should have said “knowledge”. Either way, I was trying to respond to your comment.
Another insult. I create new topics all the time. I don’t cut and paste like you do.
What is this? Are you blaming me for the shape of the world? What do you think I’m doing here? I’m looking at how the ideas humankind has generated since we were almost taken over by Nazis have grown, been studied, been applied to this mess we are living in.
For once, answer this, where the heck did you get that I want status quo?
Is that a quote from me? If I said it, you are taking it out of context.
Another from Philosophy Coded. I never actually read Machiavelli, but of course I’ve heard the name many times and had some idea of it being a guy who told people how to be evil. This presents his work as more of a survey of evil Princes of his time, showing how they maintain their power through lies. In the first minute, it says the people who believed them weren’t stupid, they were susceptible to the same things we now understand as neuroscience and psychology.
At one point it says you can’t “will” your way out of these propaganda tricks, but by the end it gives some advice. It’s basically, use science, which was in its infancy in Machiavelli’s time. This video, going back much further than Bonhoffer, makes clear that there isn’t something that powerful people are able to do now that they weren’t able to do then, or that the masses somehow got stupid or lazier. Rather, this is us, it’s how our minds work.
