SteveCook

As for the biosphere being "conscious". Yeah maybe I'm overcooking the egg there. Ok...I AM overcooking the egg....Alright....I'm probably talking bollocks.....Oh go on then...I'll admit it....I AM talking bollocks.... However, I would still tentatively suggest that the biosphere might still be considered as being seen as behaving as if it is a unitary organism that has (albeit unconscious) goal directed behaviour. Self awareness? No. But in much the same way as the human phenotype is actually an expression of the differing "goals" of individual genes that make up the human genotype (I have put quotation marks around the word "goals" because, of course, genes don't have goals. They merely act as if they do), if any of those genes act in such a way as to endanger the rest of the genotype, the rest of the genotype has whole-genotype defense mechanisms that act in concert with one another to inhibit such behaviour. It's not that all of the othere genes "know" that they are acting as in concert with their genotypic neighbours. It's just that any gene that randomly evolved the tendancy to do so would fare better that genes that did not. Eventually, given enough evolutionary time, we end up with genotypes that look and act as if they are a unitary goal-directed entity. In the same way, i guess I am trying to suggest that, at least at some structurally similar level the whole earth bioshphere is doing the same. Anyway, I am going to leave this giia thing alone now cos I know it has caused me to drift completely off track with regards to this topic's theme...apologies for the indiscretion

Actually, the brain and most (though not all) of the attendant central nervous system is the one part of us where cells are not replaced as a matter of course. There is some evidence that if a part of the brain is damaged, then some regeneration of cells takes place, but this is rather limited and happens more vigorously the younger the individual is. All of which makes obvious sense, given that the brain is where we store memories. It would not be very clever if all of the cells of the brain were fully replaced every few years.l It would effectively mean that any memories we possessed would only extend back as far as the oldest neuron. So, it is simply factually incorrec to say that all of a person is a person is literally no more than 10 years old at any point in their life.

Ah...well...I must agree with you that I have provided an incoherent account of my argument. Because, in fact, I pretty much agree with the definition of conscious that you set out above. That is to say, it is an emergent property of distributed brain function. However, having "emerged" from this process, consciousness may well have a self-directing life of its own despite the fact thats it's very existence rest upon the brain functioning that is operating "below" it. Which leads me back to my earlier post. Namely that of the Ghia Theory of a self regulating biosphere. If, for arguments sake, we accept the definition as outlined above of what consciousness is, then the various systems of the bioshpere of the earth, when acting at once and in concert, might be seen as evoking consciousness. Indeed, the biosphere does seem to behave in such a way as to imply conscious goal directedness. Now, the scientific proponents of this theory are always at great pains to qualify their theory with the statement that the biosphere merely acts as if it is consciously goal directed. It just seems to me that if we would baulk at the thought that consciousness could emerge from the distributed simultaneous action of various biological systems of the Earth's biosphere, then we should similarly baulk at the idea that consciousness emerges from the distributed action of all of the neuronal systems of our brain. My own feelings on this are ambivalent. I just feel that it is inconsistent to baulk at the idea in one sphere whilst holding to be tenable in another. Though, I intuitively feel my own consciousness to be real as I experience it. So I guess I must consider the possibility that the whole earth biosphere is also conscious or "sentient" in some "emergent" sense.

You're correct. It is too deductive. I need to provide evidence. I will.... One more bit of deductive reasoning before I go though...hehe In response to your your point about some tribes in Africa being very tall whilst others are pygmy like. I would reply by pointing out that the "environment" a species exists in is not merely the inorganic world around them. It is comprised of all of the environment around them, including other life forms. What I mean by this is that if one type of species has evolved to exploit an environment by having certain characteristics, any other species that "wishes" to exist in the same environment is forced to evolve different characteristics that allow them to exploit the environment in another way. It may well be the case that had the first species not existed, the second might have taken a similar evolutionary path to them. This opportunity was not available to them, though. Thus, they a forced down another evolutionary trajectory that ends up somehwere else. Obviously, all of the above would similarly apply to sub-sets within a given species also. There is one final thing that occurs to me.... It is very easy to dismiss an argument by either accusing it of relying merely on facts without having those facts hang within a coherent theory or to dismiss it by accusing it of being all theory and no facts. Whilst, this approach is perfectly acceptable in moderation, if used dishonourably it provides for a clever intellectual trick. It basically means that unless an argument is fully conversent with all of the facts and unless all of the facts are hung together into a watertight coherent theory, all discussion on it can be effectively be prevented from even starting. I am not trying to excuse my own shortcomings regarding my previous post. Your critisisms are indeed valid and I need to deal with them. Nevertheless, such critisisms should not be used as a defacto method of closing down an argument.

Ok. Fair enough. My initial thoughts on this subject have been vaugely set out and I must account for that. Let me try again and see if I can make a better job of it..... Perhaps I should avoid the word "emergent" since it rouses such a vitriolic response in you. Let me phrase the meaning of my earlier post in another way. What I am trying to suggest is that consciousness is a "consequence" or "effect" arising from the distributed action of all parts of the brain operating at once and in concert. Consciousness, in this sense, has no meaning unless it occurs in the whole brain functioning context I have just mentioned. It is in this sense, that I call it "emergent" because its "existence" "emerges" out of that whole-brain functioning. Thus, ff we were to take any individual part of the brain and inspect it for evidence of consciousness, we would arguably find nothing there; because there is nothing there. At least at the level of the constituent part. to use the old psychologcal term "Geshtalt". The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

I use the word "optimum" to describe various features of an organiosm precisely because envoronments change. what is "perfectly" fitted in one place and time is inlikely to be so in another place and time. We would never end up with one perfect species precisely because the environment is constantly changing. To assume that just because natural selection is always pushing organisms to a theoretical level of perfection does not mean they will ever reach it. To think that is to have a naive understanding of Darwinian evolution.

At the risk of sounding tautologous.... I define "perfrect" by the only standard that matters evolutionary outcomes. I will attempt to illustrate my point by virtue of what is arguably a self evident truth.... Each and every human that exists must be comprised of a set of phenotypic chartacteristics that makes them extremely well suited to staying alive and prospering at least to the extent that they have what it takes to stay alive long enough to pro-create. So must all of their ancesters all the weay back to the very beginning of life....long before humans ever walked the earth. Each and every one of their ancesters must have had what it takes to survive.....if only one of them didn't, their descendant living today would never have existed. So....tautologically speaking all racial groups must have very nearly the optimum set of characteristics (cognitive or otherwise) that the environment in which their ancesters evolved required.

No I am saying that the way our brains function in absolute terms has been very important in our evolutionary history. What I am questioning the historically local tendancy to view a particular sub-set type of brain functioning as being superior to another as measured by an IQ test. If an IQ test is designed such that it measures certain cognitive functions whilst ignoring others, it will get the results it is looking for. That is not to say that the things it is trying to measure are not objectively there to measure. Merely, that the choice to see them as being the most important cognitive characteristics is dependant on what is considered to be valuable in a given time and place. In this time and place, the cognitive skills that best map onto the requirements of an industrial civilsation are considered valuable. And why wouldn't they be. Of course they would. It is just that we should remember that such cognitive attributes have posess no intrinsic superiority in and of themselve. Relatively speaking, they most certainly do have a value in modern industrial society though since they represent the difference between a brain surgeon and a janitor (sorry to keep using that example - I'll think of a new one if the need should arise again...). I can well understand that the distinctions I am making could be seen as being somehwat pedantic because, of course, we do live in a modern industrial society that does reward certain cognitive capacities as measured by an IQ test. I suppose I just take a broader view and see such differences from an evolutionary perspective. Yes, cognitive differences do exist. Yes, such variability is likely to be greater between racial groups than withing them. Yes, this variability is important in every day terms (see earlier post for a definition of "everyday"). But again, I come back to my point about biological difference. From an evolutionary perspective, "superiority" can be defined as that which allows a genotype to lever itself more effectively into the next generation than might have been otherwise had a given characteristic not been present. Nothing more, nothing less. Thus, racial differences in cognitive functioning do exist. Whether such differences are defined as superior or not is entirely dependant on the needs of the time and place. What this means, is that some racial groups by virtue of the cognitive characteristics that are statistically more prevelant in their group, will be disadvantaged in certsin environements. Thus, IQ tests will tend to place people of Afro-carribean descent on average 15 IQ points below their caucasian counterparts. What has been measured here though, in absolute evolutionary terms is "difference". Not superiority. Obviously, though, within the relative context of the requirments of a modern industrial economy, such differences can make for a substantial difference in life chances. I am intellectually suspicious of arguments that promote such differences in terms of superiority or inferiority. Such arguments per-suppose a meaning of such terms that do not in any way relate to the reasons why these characteristics evolved in the first place. The cognitive capacities of an Afro-Carribean are perfectly evolved to suit the environment in which they evolved. If they weren't, then they would have evolved different capacities. Such capacities also largely map onto the requirements of modern Western industrial society. But not quite so well as their Caucasian counterparts. Which leads me onto a reply I wish to make to "Viking" regarding his argument concerning higher agression levels in certain racial groups....This must wait for the next post though....cos I need a coffeee....

From an evolutionary perspective a higher IQ as compared to a lower IQ is completely irrelevant. From a 21st century industrial civilization's perspective it is very relevant. In other words, a higher IQ can be seen as "superior" only in the relative sense that it makes the difference between a janitor and a brain surgeon. Don't misunderstand me, I live in a 21st century civilization and so I must take into account such differences as measured by an IQ test when choosing what subjects I will study and what job I am capable of getting. however, these concerns are a mere drop in the oceon of the evolutionary history of my species. It may be that the capacities that are held as being "superior" right here and right now turn out to be a copmplete liability in another place and time. I would reiterate a point I made in my last post. We only see brain functioning as being so terribly important because we are humans and brain size is what has been largely selected for in our recent evolutionary history as a means by which we most effectively survive and procreate. For other organisms, entirely different biological meachisms have assumed greater importance. Its merely a matter of evolutionary persepctive. But, to concede your point, at least relatively speaking, I would rather the brain surgeon removed my tumor as opposed to the hospital janitor!

I am actually denying Man's cognitive superiority over other life forms. Although this might seem to be an odd position to take given that an earth worm is very unlikely to engage in a conversation such as this, the importance or "superiority" of the cognitive capacities that make such a conversation possible is relative to what it take to survive and make copies of oneself. For humans, having a preposterously big brain seems to be the order of the day. For an earth worm it does not. Both organisms seem to get along fine with the pheotypes that natural selection has conferred upon them. I am guessing that the earthworm thinks (assuming earth worms can think) that it is a terrible shame for all of the other unfortunate life forms that they don't have the capacity to burrow through the soil like they can.

Hello. There are a number of things I would like to raise for discussion here. I would like begin by putting forward some thoughts on the general principles of biological evolution and natural selection... It is now fully accepted by any rational person that humans evoloved from a primate-like ancester. That being the case we must assume that there was genetic variability expressed as phenotypic variablility in the poulations of our ancesters all the way from there to here, historically speaking. There must have been for natural selection to have been able to act upon those populations in such a way as to select for certain characteristics that eventually led to us. If we assume that all that we are is that which is material, then the brain, being just another physical part of us, must have had the same variability in it all the way from our primate ancesters to us, in just the same way as there was variability in arm and leg length, hairiness etc. We, of course, can still see that variability in our bodies right now when we look at the various human forms in the world. Just take a look at the physical difference between a Masi Mara Warrier in Africa compared to an Inuit from the northern American continent. We obviously have no difficulty in acknowledging those differences. Indeed. we would look rather foolish if we did since they are visually self-evident. Why then, is it so diffcult for some people to assume that such variation does not still exist in another part of our physiology, namely that of the brain. Why would, the brain, uniquely amongst all of our physiology, be somehow immune to the principles of natural selection. Of course it is not. Indeed, given that the one of the main things that differentiates us from our primate cousins is our brain capacity, we must assume that variability in brain functioning was one of the things that was acted upon by natural selection in our ancesters. This then leads on to the subsidiary question of whether variability in brain functioning in humans is significant in everyday terms. Secondly, if such variability is significant, is it spread more or less evenly accross racial groups, or does it exist between racial groups. To answer the first of these questions (whether variability in brain functioning in humans is significant in everyday terms) I need to define what I mean by "everyday". Perhaps a thought experiment might be in order. Imagine a visitor from another planet came and viewed humans from a distance. They might note that all humans are born, live about 60 to 90 years. They all learn how to eat. They are all capable of making babies. They are all capable of passing on their learned knowledge to their offspring. From this perspective, any variablility there might be in brain functioning between humans would be seen as inconsequential in much the same way as there would be little consequence to differences in their other physical attributes such as height, weight, etc. However, if that alien took a closer look, they would find that subtle differences that had at first appeard inconsequential become much more significant on closer inspection. For example, whilst two individuals might both possess legs enabling them to walk and run, one of them was a world class athlete whilst the other was not. Similarly, whilst both might possess a brain that allowed them to perform all of the normal cognitive functions that all humans need to survive in the world, one of them was a brain surgeon whilst the other was a janitor. In the paragraph above, I am trying to suggest that, of course, natural selection will have selected for certain cognitive attributes to be present in all humans because they are so essential to survivial. However, in the last two to three hundred years the world has experienced an industrial revolution where quite specific and tightly defined cognitive capacities make for large differentials in people's earning capacities and life experiences. One might expect from this that otherwise small variability in brain functioning between people will have quite amplified effects on the life experiences mentioned above. So, in answer to the first question....Yes, I do beieve that differences in brain functioning in humans is significant in everyday terms. Regarding the second question (if such variability is significant, is the variability spread more or less evenly accross racial groups, or does it exist between racial groups). I would refer you to my earlier paragraph where I made mention of bodily differences between racial groups (Massi Mara vs. Inuits). We must assume that there is something in the differeing environments of both of these racial groups such that natural selection favoured a different body type for each. Given that the brain is just another peice of physiology, I see np reason why the natural selection would not have favoured certain cognitive characteristics in one racial group whilst favouring different characteristics in the other group. It is simply illogical to assume (as I have said earlier) that the brain is somehow uniquely immune from the process of natural selection. This is not to say that cognitive variability will not exist within a given racial group, merely that such variability will not be so great as that which exists between racial groups given their different evolutionary histories. So, in answer to my second question.....Yes I do believe that differences in cognitive capacities exist between racial groups. I would like, as I close this post, to make clear the following. All that I have written above doies not, in any way imply a superioroty of one type of cognitive functioning above another. To do so would be the same as staing that red haired people were somehow "superior" to brown haired people. The fact is, though, that red hair is different to brown hair. To suggest otherwise is silly. Similarly for differences in cognitive characteristics, to suggest such differences do not exist is illogical. Futher, to suggest such differences are not likely to map on other, more visually obvious, racial differences is to fly in the face of the everything we have learned about Darwinian evolution.

Regarding my last post on this topic... I have just finished reading abook by JAmes Lovelock called "Revenge of Ghia". This particular book was concerned with climate change on Earth. However, it is based on a thoery of how the Earth self regulates its climate so as to render the climate ever more fit for life. The general thrust of the Ghia Theory states that all of the organic processess on the earth, when operating simulataneously, behave as if they have a particular goal, that of climate stabalisation. The author goes to great lengths to make sure the reader understands that he doesn't actually believe that the Earth has any conscious intention. Merely that it acts as if it is conscious. Something occurs to me..... Lovelock appears to be suggesting that the apparent goal directed behavious of the earth's various biological systems ais merely an emergent property of all of those systems acting in concert. Surely this is no different to my previous post that suggested that human consciousness is the emergent property of a fully functioning brain. i guess what I am trying to say is that if, for arguments sake, we accept my hypothesis that human consciousness is both real and an emergent property of brain functioning, we mjust also, in principle accept that Ghia (the whole planetary biosphere) is also conscious by virtue of a structurally identical process. Alternatively, we should regard consciousness as being an illusion in both.

Hello there. I have read the number of posts that have been placed on this topic and note that many of the posts refer to consciousness as if it is an actual "somthing". Indeed, in one post, I if I understand the meaning of it correctly, there was a suggestion that replacing aneuron with something else would rob thge brain of the consciousness that was presumably a fundamental property of that neuron. I should like to put forward ther following hypothesis. Whatt if consciousness doesn't actually exist as a phenomena in and of itself. What if consciousness is merely an emergent property of the simutaneous action of all parts of the brain. I suppose an analogy might be one of flight. Imagine taking a plane apart and laying all of the individual parts out on a runway, right down to the last nut and bolt. Each one of these parts would be unlikely to exhibit the properties of flight. No, the only way you would be able to understand the emergent property of flight is to put all of the parts together and throw it off a very big hill. In the same way, I think "consciousness" does not really exist as a physical property of any part of the brain. Rather it "emerges" as a phenomenon wwhen all of the brain is working as a coherent whole. The part of you that thinks of themself as "You" is, I suspect, an expression of the emergent consciousness I have mentioned above. Thus, if we were to replace each of the parts of the brain in turn, I see no reason why that sense of "self" should be affected. All of the above would, of course, require a fantastic technology so as not to affect the proper whole-brain operation which would in turn impinge upon the emergent consciousness. But, for the purpose of this thought experiment, we can assume that the technology exists.

"Why do you assume only physical entities are capable of cause and effect interactions? Doesn't this ignore the rather self evident existence of cognitive phenomena?" In reply to the above I would say: Why do you assume that cognition is somehow independant of the physical laws of the universe? Doesn't this rather ignore the self evidently physical nature of the brain in which cognition occurs? Or are you suggesting that cognition is a non-physical process and, as such, is not therefore subject to the same principles of cause and effect as mentioned in my previous post?

Hello I've been thinking about something... In a classical universe....all interactions are based on cause and effect. So although, in practice, it is not possible to know position and trajectory of all of the physical entities contained therein; it should, in principle, be possible. That being the case, the entire history of the universe was, in some way, predetermined at the very beginning of its existence (including you and me - including, even, my act of writing this post). There is an alternative to the above scheme known as "quantum mechanics". This seems to suggest that cause and effect relationships are not, in principle, knowable because of random fluctuations in the trajectory, velocity and (bugger me!) the very existence of physical entities at the smallest level of physical existence. However, this would seem to be a hollow comfort. This is because these random fluctuations are exactly that: Random. Thus, all that a quantum physical description of the universe offers is that it is still utterly determined. It's just that now we can't even predict outcomes in principle (never mind in practice!) due to the random nature of determinants. Thus, in this scheme, the universe's future history is re-determined every time a quantum fluctuation occurs anywhere in it. So, to reiterate a previous point, my very act of writing this post is just the inevitable consequence of a very, very large number of cause and effect interactions between an unimaginable number of physical entities in the universe's history prior to this point in time. These previous interactions stretch back either to the beginning of time or merely to the last quantum fluctuation. But then....I would say that....wouldn't I.....? It is, in fact very late in the day and I need to go to bed. Although I have written the above in sincerity...I truly do need someone with more intelligence than I to tell me if I am talking bollocks. If so, please enlighten me. Thanks Steve Cook