On Consciousness

[dlorde]

Well one of the clues would be the variety of expression of those traits. People do not all laugh and smile in the same situations

So smiling, laughing, crying have different meanings in different cultures? Do you have any examples?

Now when you say 'temper tantrum' do you mean just breaking down and crying? Or do you mean throwing things?

Crying, shouting, squirming, stomping feet, throwing stuff; that kind of thing. I'm trying to think how that kind of behaviour would be learned...

Those behavior other than the crying, are vastly changed by behavior modification techniques.

How is evidence that they can be changed by behaviour modification evidence that they are not inherited? I'm thinking Pavlov & Skinner...

Co-operative play, such variety and differences in expression (and even seeking of it), I am not sure how it could be biologically driven, could you clarify why you think it would be?

It seems to be common to many (most?) mammalian species. You not being 'sure how it could be biologically driven' isn't contrary evidence

Now I agree that without controls it would be hard to establish, but it is commonly considered that play behaviors are learned behaviors, they again do not express themselves in all members of a species in the same situations.

'commonly considered'? there's a fallacy in there somewhere...
Lack of consistency isn't evidence of learning. Not everyone has blonde hair, but few would argue against a strong genetic component.

I know I made a sweeping statement and we can take this to another thread if you wish. I just find that the arguments for hardwired behavior in humans are rather weak.

It's my impression that such behaviours are common across many cultures, and even species, that inclines me to think otherwise. My impression may well be mistaken. Given your assertion, I thought there might be some solid evidence behind it, but I couldn't figure out how such evidence might be obtained.

No biggie; I thought I might have missed some particularly interesting research.

 

[Modified]

Not for humans as much as other animals. Ungulates walk within minutes of birth, mostly reflexive if I recall correctly. And they start hopping around and running, very interesting and obviously hard wired to a huge extent.

I have read that humans are the same way. They are born "knowing" how to walk, just too weak to do so.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I have read that humans are the same way. They are born "knowing" how to walk, just too weak to do so.

I bet walking on all fours is inborn but on two legs is learned by watching.

The basic things we do, like beating our chests to assert superiority over others, are inborn tendencies. The details, like posting on this forum to chest-beat, are learned. I don't know how you'd pick a percentage like 99% but, yea, it's just a figure of speech. The important point is that we are the most adaptable, least sphexish creatures on Earth because of our central nervous system neuron count.

Sapolsky time!

2:45

 

[steenkh]

The basic things we do, like beating our chests to assert superiority over others, are inborn tendencies.

Chest-beating? Here in Denmark it is never done, at least physically. I have also never seen children do it.

 

[Anders Lindman]

It could be that DNA is an inadequate indicator of consciousness even in the simple sense. The DNA for a plant is basically as complex as a human DNA.

The DNA seems to merely be a blueprint for manufacturing proteins, the building blocks of cells. To make an analogy, take the construction of a house. The DNA is the blueprints for the bricks, planks and nails etc, not the blueprint for the house itself as a whole perhaps.

 

[Anders Lindman]

To elaborate a bit on why DNA is perhaps not a valid indicator of consciousness, if the DNA is merely blueprints for proteins, then where is the blueprint for the whole organism?

In the case of plants, the whole seed is the blueprint for the plant. In the case of birds and reptiles etc, it's the whole egg that contains the blueprint for the whole organism.

Then what about mammals? Is the blueprint for the whole human body included in the combination of sperm and egg? No. The complete blueprint for mammals includes the mother! There is a very advanced feedback going on with signal molecules etc between the blood of the fetus and the blood of the mother.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Reggie Watts = legend. Stream of consciousness music with satirical sound bites is just ... mega win.

Reggie Watts: A send-off in style


His TED talk: Reggie Watts disorients you in the most entertaining way

 

[Zeuzzz]

The basic things we do, like beating our chests to assert superiority over others, are inborn tendencies. The details, like posting on this forum to chest-beat, are learned.

That idea seems totally alien to me. If that's the main reason your using this forum then your not using it right.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Chest-beating? Here in Denmark it is never done, at least physically. I have also never seen children do it.

So, people in Denmark are better?

I meant it figuratively, not literally. Most everything we do or say is, in its deepest analysis, a way of saying "I'm better than you," and denying that is, in fact, doing it. What makes us human is the subtlety in which we assert superiority over each other, such as competing to appear the most humble, or the most rational.

However, it's beside the point. I was just using it as an example of an innate tendency that's expressed in myriad learned forms.

 

[Mr. Scott]

That idea seems totally alien to me. If that's the main reason your using this forum then your not using it right.

It's not "reason" it's instinct, and it's what's behind cognitive dissonance (we don't like to lose face) and people's persistence in trying to win in threads like this instead of trying to learn. The endless drumbeat on this forum is, "skeptics are better than woos," unless it's, "I'm a better skeptic than you." At this point, though, it's a derail that maybe deserves its own thread.

 

[Clive]

Stumbled over www.closertotruth.com a day or two ago and watched quite a few of the video interviews about consciousness there. Some may find it interesting. Not sure if the site has particular agenda but I've nevertheless enjoyed what I've watched so far.

Most recently watched: http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Why-is-Consciousness-so-Mysterious-Colin-McGinn-/787

That sums up pretty well what "the mystery" is for me. Colin McGinn puts his own thoughts forward at the end - basically suggesting that it could just be that humans simply don't have the necessary/appropriate kind of intelligence to understand this kind of problem, simply because there was no evolutionary benefit to be gained from it.

 

[steenkh]

I meant it figuratively, not literally.

OK, I missed that. Probably because English is not my native language. Sorry.

 

[Zeuzzz]

it's what's behind cognitive dissonance

Scientism vs intuition?

Science is in fact very open to intuition of late, but scientism is not.

(we don't like to lose face)

I love it. It stimulates me. I just hate personal attacks on me and my (subjectively assumed) ignorance, instead of replying to what I say directly. If people reply directly I will respond, always. If people attack me personally via Ad Hominem, I will tend to ignore and just re-enforce my point subsequently with more evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

So smiling, laughing, crying have different meanings in different cultures? Do you have any examples?

That isn't what I said, I said that they are expressed in different situations and are expressed differently. There is also variation among individuals.

So it is a response to a situation that shows a high level of variability.

There is much more to behaviors than a biological response, not all people cry in a similar situation.

So I am not sure we are using the language the same way. Crying is common, but it is not universal. So say you have panic, which is a high level of arousal caused by the parasympathetic system. The arousal is defiantly part of a homeostasis system. So under the broad term of behavior, it is a biological behavior.

But the responses to that arousal is generally not, one is innate, the other is not. Does that language make sense?

Crying, shouting, squirming, stomping feet, throwing stuff; that kind of thing. I'm trying to think how that kind of behaviour would be learned...

If you use a broad definition of learning to include behaviors that are conditioned or more likely to be shaped by repetition then it is learning.

What I would say is that the arousal of the person is biological, and often conditioning or out right manipulation is involved. So it is not hardwired.

How is evidence that they can be changed by behaviour modification evidence that they are not inherited? I'm thinking Pavlov & Skinner...

I consider conditioning, shaping and association to be learning.
Something is not technically an instinct if it can be shaped.

It seems to be common to many (most?) mammalian species. You not being 'sure how it could be biologically driven' isn't contrary evidence

That does not make it hard wired, using the terms from before, it is not a modal or fixed action pattern. If conditioning could produce the behavior then that seems more likely to me.

So again the consequence that creates the conditioning may be biological in nature, ie the CNS responds that is shaped by conditioning, but I would say that is the product of conditioning and shaping.

So it may depend on your term 'biologically driven', the basis of all human behavior is biological.

'commonly considered'? there's a fallacy in there somewhere...
Lack of consistency isn't evidence of learning. Not everyone has blonde hair, but few would argue against a strong genetic component.

Commonly considered was just a short cut to not writing a path and a half about one small thing.
Strong genetic components are defined in certain ways when it comes to behaviors. MAP and FAP, I already stated and will reiterate, there are of course large biological components to all human behavior, The question is which kind of behaviors we are talking about.

It's my impression that such behaviours are common across many cultures, and even species, that inclines me to think otherwise. My impression may well be mistaken.

Well so is conditioning and biological consequences of repetition.

Given your assertion, I thought there might be some solid evidence behind it, but I couldn't figure out how such evidence might be obtained.

First comes the definitions and the movement towards common language. There is a difference between (innate: reflexes, autonomic behaviors , MAP, FAP) and (learning : conditioning, association, training, social training). So it also depends on the use of words like innate and instinctual.

No biggie; I thought I might have missed some particularly interesting research.

That depends.

 

[Dancing David]

I have read that humans are the same way. They are born "knowing" how to walk, just too weak to do so.

There sure seems to be a whole lot of practice involved. Months worth (mostly the cruising phase where they hold themselves on other objects).



Ungulates don't have a practice phase.

 

[Dancing David]

OK, I missed that. Probably because English is not my native language. Sorry.

I missed it to, oh darn the language differences.

 

[PixyMisa]

That sums up pretty well what "the mystery" is for me. Colin McGinn puts his own thoughts forward at the end - basically suggesting that it could just be that humans simply don't have the necessary/appropriate kind of intelligence to understand this kind of problem, simply because there was no evolutionary benefit to be gained from it.

I'll take a look at that video, but in the meantime could you please explain the evolutionary advantage of tensor calculus, quantum electrodynamics, hadron spectroscopy, or stratigraphy, all complex fields that we understand very well?

...

Okay. Watched the entire video. It's just another argument from incredulity. He expects to find a magic bean, and therefore any explanation that doesn't involve a magic bean can't be the right one. He says of eliminative materialism "It's implausible because it's so difficult to accept [the implications]." He has the answer, rejects it for blatantly invalid reasons, and invents a whole new area of ignorance to justify his own irrelevance.

Same pathetic crap as always.

 

[Modified]

There sure seems to be a whole lot of practice involved. Months worth (mostly the cruising phase where they hold themselves on other objects).



Ungulates don't have a practice phase.

But is that practice or strength training? Balance is a lot easier when you are strong.

 

[Dancing David]

And just to make for some clarity, I believe that humans do have biological predispositions. There are certain things that do seem easy for humans to acquire, but as a rule I would look for general traits first as a biological preference.

So take something that those who work with profoundly autistic people have to deal with, training them to focus on humans rather than inanimate objects. (Seriously, this being done at three yo helps them later in life)

Now it seems likely that humans would have a predisposition to pay attention to other humans. And there is some data that would indicate this, mirroring neurons for example.

But the problem with even this is that there is a lot of conditioning and association between infants and adults and juveniles. There are some very strong reasons that much of the human's ability to focus on other humans and social signals is conditioned and reinforced.

So even when we look at how people living with autism are different in their response to social cues, it is hard to sort out what is conditioning versus what is some other predisposition that is not functioning typically.

And again my preference is to believe that the more general principle is more likely to have a genetic determinant. So associative and conditioning patterns. But there is some evidence for social perception as a predisposition.

And when you look at a very complex behavior such as juveniles engaging in rearing of younger siblings it get very complex. There is a mix of reason that this can and does occur, with sometimes strongly bounded social norms. So is it imitation of adults, is it socially reinforced, does it provide positive consequences to the older child, is it a biological predisposition. A very tough set of lines of thought.

And some great stuff to study, like with social cuing, there is a huge impact on children raised by people with affective disorders and blunt affect. Or the preliminary data showing some chimps that carry sticks around and perhaps in a 'doll' like manner.

 

[punshhh]

Breathing is instinctive. You do have to learn how to eat, though.

Its interesting that breathing is both instinctive and conscious simultaneously.