Most Interesting Question.

[IglooDame]

You say it is the same, yet obviously it is not. The mouse is reacting based on it's own experience. The soldier reacts based on the experience and interactions of others... interaction with other brains.

As I have stated, language, and the ability to pass on this language, many times trumps genetics. The soldier who jumps on a grenade, is for all intents and purposes, a fool. But he has been taught that fighting his instincts is good, productive... "honourable". Do animals have any of these senses? Absolutely not. And I have never seen a male zebra charge a lion on nature shows. In fact, they all tend to run together.... evolution has made behave this way, and even gave them stripes to help.

Speaking of interacting with other brains, we can use the example of the baboon - the prime male will direct younger male baboons in shifts to sit high up in a tree to watch for leopards and give enough warning that the rest of them can get into the trees in time. I don't know of an observed case where a baboon has sacrificed himself for everyone else, but it is certainly an example of interacting with other brains.

I also consider developed language to be the spark of civilization. I think farming was probably a result of populations hitting critical mass where they could not readily live off the land any more and had to cultivate additional food.

 

[Pirate]

Do you think language sparked civilization? Or did civilization require a language?

Do we define civilization as sedentery lifestyles? Or do we define civilization as the beginnings of culture?

I tend to go with the latter, but that means civlization started way back with the making of beads and jewelry - art is a sign of culture. Another sign of culture would be ceremonial burial (no I'm not just going through the Civ tech tree). All of this might mean that Cro-Magnon people started the spark of civilization, well before recorded history or the founding of cities.

 

[betazed]

I think farming was probably a result of populations hitting critical mass where they could not readily live off the land any more and had to cultivate additional food.

IMHO, it must have the the other way round. Farming -> excess food production -> critical mass of people -> specialized professions not related to farming (food production) -> property -> protection of property -> soldier castes -> control of soldier castes -> leads to some form of goverment -> Civilization

Language obviously came much before farming.

Also we need to define what exactly is "civilization".

Do we define civilization as sendentary lifestyles

I would define it as the presence of some form of goverment that has authority over a domain of people.

 

[IglooDame]

Also we need to define what exactly is "civilization".

I would define it as the presence of some form of goverment that has authority over a domain of people.

Debating the start of a somewhat vague concept that we haven't even defined? Jeez, we must all be off our game this week.

 

[Mark1031]

Well I think we can define the start of civilization in the same way as in civ. Your nomadic tribe always starts with farming/irrigation. From there everything follows. However, the oldest known Homo sapien sapien fossil is 130,000 years old, while organized agriculture is only about 10,000 years old. Why the gap? If it was a difficult idea to come up with and required just the right climate and indigenous plant species I could understand that. But the paradox is then why did it apparently arise independently several times all in the space of a few thousand years?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well I think we can define the start of civilization in the same way as in civ. Your nomadic tribe always starts with farming/irrigation. From there everything follows. However, the oldest known Homo sapien sapien fossil is 130,000 years old, while organized agriculture is only about 10,000 years old. Why the gap? If it was a difficult idea to come up with and required just the right climate and indigenous plant species I could understand that. But the paradox is then why did it apparently arise independently several times all in the space of a few thousand years?

Well, everyone learns to speak because our parents were speaking. I guess the first languages needed time to evolve from simple syllables designating signals to more elaborated thoughts. Only two places in the world "pretends" to have invented farming and cattle breeding :South East mediterranean shores and Central America. What is funny is that both places are known for their very irregular coasts. But anyway, who really knows when farming has really started ?

 

[betazed]

Well I think we can define the start of civilization in the same way as in civ. Your nomadic tribe always starts with farming/irrigation. From there everything follows.

I am not too sure of that. There were many island communities who were sedentary and harvested all that they needed either from forests or the oceans. So they never farmed. Would you not call them civilized? Also (I am not too sure of this) did the Indians (native Americans) always farm?

However, the oldest known Homo sapien sapien fossil is 130,000 years old, while organized agriculture is only about 10,000 years old. Why the gap?

A part of the gap would be that it took quite a while (almost 40,000 years) for homo sapien sapien to come out of sub-saharan africa and into the Middle East. I can't see how they could have learnt farming given the natural resources in Africa. So maybe part of the delay can be explained that way.

But the paradox is then why did it apparently arise independently several times all in the space of a few thousand years?

I am slightly vague of this. What are the examples of independant but simultaneous appearance of farming? AFAIK, it originated in the golden crescent and migrated from there in three directions. One towards the Indus valley, another towards Central Asia and a third towards Europe.

 

[Mark1031]

Well certainly new world civs (Aztecs Myan) must have developed it independently as there was no apparent communication with the old world and the seperation clearly pre-dates farming.

 

[betazed]

Well certainly new world civs (Aztecs Myan) must have developed it independently as there was no apparent communication with the old world and the seperation clearly pre-dates farming.

Probably they did it independently. But do we know that they were contemporeneous in their discoveries?

 

[Mark1031]

Well, everyone learns to speak because our parents were speaking. I guess the first languages needed time to evolve from simple syllables designating signals to more elaborated thoughts. Only two places in the world "pretends" to have invented farming and cattle breeding :South East mediterranean shores and Central America. What is funny is that both places are known for their very irregular coasts. But anyway, who really knows when farming has really started ?

That is a very interesting idea . Language evolution as a time delay for civilization. Certainly language capacity in a genetic sense is probably much older but perhaps a threshold of complexity is required to really have thought take off. I know of one study that looks at a human gene that is required for proper use of language and it was subject to much faster evolution than other genes.
BTW I think we can pretty accurately date agriculture onste from the fossil record.

Probably they did it independently. But do we know that they were contemporeneous in their discoveries?

Well I'm not sure of exact time but within a few thousand years I should think. certainly a small time relative to 130K yrs.

 

[betazed]

certainly a small time relative to 130K yrs.

Good point.

However, I do not go by the language theory primarily because our language instinct must have been pretty well honed even when we were no more than hunters in Africa about say 40,000 years ago. group hunting (for humans) must have required equally formidable language skills and coordination.

So, I will venture another guess.

The last ice age ended about 15,000 years ago. Maybe, before that the climate in the places ideal to start farming was not adequate. So, when finally the ice retreated and the climate warmed up agriculture came to be discovered. At least with this theory the timing seems to be right. Agriculture was discovered first about 10,000 years ago.

 

[Mark1031]

The last ice age ended about 15,000 years ago. Maybe, before that the climate in the places ideal to start farming was not adequate. So, when finally the ice retreated and the climate warmed up agriculture came to be discovered. At least with this theory the timing seems to be right. Agriculture was discovered first about 10,000 years ago.

Yes, I 've read that idea and it has a lot going for it in terms of coordinated timing. However, it just doesnt strike me as correct. There are so many places where simple agriculture is possible and I'm not sure the ice age would have that drastically altered the conditions in the latitudes where it did take off. And if it made it less favorable in some places it would have made it more favorable in others.

 

[Neomega]

That is a very interesting idea . Language evolution as a time delay for civilization. Certainly language capacity in a genetic sense is probably much older but perhaps a threshold of complexity is required to really have thought take off.

From what I have read and seen, the movement of the vocal chords forward, (which is a human specific trait), is not that old as far as genetic advances.

Some show I saw on discovery channel pretty much made it the deciding factor between the neanderthals and the homosapiens.

 

[Neomega]

Good point.

However, I do not go by the language theory primarily because our language instinct must have been pretty well honed even when we were no more than hunters in Africa about say 40,000 years ago. group hunting (for humans) must have required equally formidable language skills and coordination.

According ot another book, "the Third Chimpanzee", hunting was actually a pretty rare occurance. Just the excitment of it created a great deal more art and history than of gathering berries.

 

[Neomega]

You are asking the same thing I am trying to ask, namely where do creative and original thoughts come from? I questioned imagination in my very first post. We agree on most points and I really don't want to prove that we have no free will, but where we disagree is on the nature of perception and choice. You say I can go about my personal experience and make a choice, but that choice is seemingly the result of a chain reaction of electrical and chemical impulses in your brain that causes you to articulate a series of words or perform a certain action, whatever the decision is. If we could trace the inputs into my brain through all the myriad of pathways they take to finally end up with an output, in this case a decision, we will see a chain reaction of chemical and electrical signals swirling around my neurons, along pathways that have been reinforced by other stimuli (internal and external) ever since their creation. At no point, seemingly, do we see an ethereal force or cause that steers a reaction in a certain direction, or adds a component to the chain - seemingly we will not notice a conscience. However the swirls of neural firings will activate certain pathways relating to different options and criteria we have learned for making a decision, creating the sensation that we are considering a choice. In fact we are, but there is no conscience in the drivers seat. The decision is made by the presence of certain signals and pathways that allow the chain reaction to persist towards a final thought. This is where my question appears. Perhaps there is some quantum uncertainty in the bonding of molecules or path of an electron that adds an element of chance to destiny. Perhaps we will find a link between thought and this unseen element so that there is an element of will in the chance. I can only hope and question.

Well, feel free to experiment, but watch out, soem expewriments can make you go insane, and if they don't they will take you to the brink for years.

But I look at it like this. You can try and convince yourself you are nothing more than a series of random chemical reactions and your mind is being guided by this random chain reaction since your conception, or you can accept that your brain can control it's own developement.

Sort of like your brain is merely the computer, you are the program. The program does not exist in real life, per se, as it is merely information, but without it, the computer is quite worhtless. If the computer were to break down, so too does the program inside cease to exist.

One day, we may be able to do a pathology on a dead brain and retrieve information, like a corrupted hard drive, but the actual program still will not be functional.

 

[Pirate]

Well, feel free to experiment, but watch out, soem expewriments can make you go insane, and if they don't they will take you to the brink for years.

But I look at it like this. You can try and convince yourself you are nothing more than a series of random chemical reactions and your mind is being guided by this random chain reaction since your conception, or you can accept that your brain can control it's own developement.

Sort of like your brain is merely the computer, you are the program. The program does not exist in real life, per se, as it is merely information, but without it, the computer is quite worhtless. If the computer were to break down, so too does the program inside cease to exist.

One day, we may be able to do a pathology on a dead brain and retrieve information, like a corrupted hard drive, but the actual program still will not be functional.

It's not really about convincing myself that my future is predetermined. It's more about asking if thoughts are physical or ethereal. When you say your brain controls things, how does it do that? Through which mechanism? We're looking for the ghost in the machine. Everything about our percieved reality suggests that we have a conscience, that there is something separate from the physical mechanism that is acting on it from within. Sure I can accept any philosophy that makes my life meaningful. But the thread asked for unanswered questions, and the nature of conciousness is still a question.

 

[Neomega]

It's not really about convincing myself that my future is predetermined. It's more about asking if thoughts are physical or ethereal. When you say your brain controls things, how does it do that? Through which mechanism? We're looking for the ghost in the machine. Everything about our percieved reality suggests that we have a conscience, that there is something separate from the physical mechanism that is acting on it from within. Sure I can accept any philosophy that makes my life meaningful. But the thread asked for unanswered questions, and the nature of conciousness is still a question.

It is, and probably always will be. It is hard to define and differentiate.

I think over time, the limited abilities of computers can give some pointers.

There are ways to alter your consciousness, and there are a few books about these experiences. Not something I would recommend.

Your brain, as I said, is the computer. Your conciousness the continuously running program. Your DNA the author of the program.

The program is written to keep itself running, at the core, and reproduce, much like a virus. Beyond that it adds a few things that explain many animal behaviors. Through natural selection, the DNA author of the program has continuously rewritten itself, and as humans, our program has also gained the capacity to learn and adapt, based not only on our own observations through our real world receptors, but also through language, much like the internet, to carry the analogy further.

So "who" is really running your mind? Well you are, through your programming, and if you are concerned who your programmers are, look to your ancestry.

 

[Gothmog]

@Neomega,

You have adequately described the 'ghost in the machine' metaphor, though I am not sure you know it. The question is if the ghost is completely etherial or if it can have some influence on the machine. If we are a nothing more than a program writen by DNA hosted in a computer that is our corpus, can we really do more than respond to input in a way predetermined by our software and previous input? Is free will really more than an illusion created by our programing?

This is why betazed mentioned the Minsky 'hard AI' argument. If we are nothing more than a 'soft machine', and our ghost can affect the way the program runs (i.e. we have limited free will), then it follows that at some point we should be able to program a computer that will then be affected by its own ghost. Or even if free will is an illusion, we should be able to program a computer that will believe it has free will.

I don't know the answer to this query, and truthfully I don't think it really matters if free will is an illusion or not. After all as Poe put it:

All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.

As far as the most interesting question, I think it is the question of first principles. Why is reality the way it is (why am I who I am)? Indeed why is there a reality at all (why am I here)?

Of course to even attempt an answer we must first understand the present nature of reality.

 

[hawai_74]

the paranormal, after death, ghosts... these are my unanswered questions

 

[Neomega]

This is why betazed mentioned the Minsky 'hard AI' argument. If we are nothing more than a 'soft machine', and our ghost can affect the way the program runs (i.e. we have limited free will), then it follows that at some point we should be able to program a computer that will then be affected by its own ghost. Or even if free will is an illusion, we should be able to program a computer that will believe it has free will.

I see computer viruses and worms as the first stage in artificial life. They reproduce, and consume energy. They are far from self aware, but many do have a survival instinct.

In time, we can make a program that is self-aware. I believe it. To me, being self-aware is a recognition that one can have influence on the future for it's own gain or self-preservation.

Of course to even attempt an answer we must first understand the present nature of reality.

I disagree. We must first be able to recognize weaknesses in our innate, human perceptions, before we can make accurate observations of time, energy, human interaction, etc....

If we are looking through everything through a convex lens, thing will appear larger than they are. We must first be sure our lens is a flat, completely transparent piece of glass, and I do not think our perceptions have been studied enough to truly understand the nature of the universe. In fact, I think the issue has largely been ignored, as psychology tends ot focus on more emotional problems, and not on things like the process of definition and classification.