Conscious Reasoning I would say that the basic facts that we have, with which to start the search for the cusp of instinctive and consciously reasoned behavior might be: 1) Somewhere in the chain of life, from its mysterious beginning to the present, there exists a point when the behavior of creatures is influenced by something we call consciousness rather than something we call instinct. 2) Using computer lingo, we can classify instinct as behavior caused by hardwired algorithms. 3) Reason is a means to control behavior based upon real time assessment of real time circumstances. 4) Reason requires that data from the senses be ordered into some fashion that will facilitate real time inferences, this is called conceptualization; followed by inferences made from these concepts. 5) We have, from computer modeling technology, empirical evidence that the neural system that control perception and mobility have the capacity to conceptualize and to infer. In other words, the essential elements of sensorimotor control are also similar to the essential elements of reasoning. 6) If biology has created the structure that has the elements for reasoning, it is logical to conclude that such a system would not be duplicated for reason but that this very same system would be modified in whatever manner is necessary for it to function also as an instrument that can reason. Instinct controlled the behavior of creatures until consciousness kicked in and now humans are controlled to a large extent by reason rather than instinct. Throughout time the evolutionary process, which includes instinctive behavior, maintained some form of equilibrium in the world. With the introduction of rational creatures this evolutionary process has been drastically disrupted. As reasoning creatures that have disrupted the evolutionary process, we must replace this evolutionary process with a rational process that can duplicate or improve on the natural evolutionary process. If we cannot perform this prodigious task adequately the whole shebang will be flushed down the toilet. Secretary of State Powell said in regards to the Iraq war that “if we break it, we own it”. I think we can say the same thing about our human activity and natural evolution. We break natural evolution and thereby we own the problems caused by that action.
Somehow the line between reasoning and consciousness seems blurred in your post. Do you think they are the same thing? As far as humans being mostly controlled by reason: I don't buy it. They may rationalize many decisions, but this is something else. Recent research has been showing that humans can change opinions about products and other individuals when they recieve unconscious cues. In other words they can (very easily) make decisions because of information they did not consciously process. From my own experience, my sense is that people do not often know the reasons they believe things, do things and react in certain ways. Reason and consciousness - which I see as quite distinct are the tip of the iceberg.
To pick but one hole... you can not break the evolutionary process, natural or otherwise. Evolution occurs, has occurred and will occur, regardless of humanity, as a result of humanity, and to humanity. If humanity is unable to adapt quick enough to a change in environment then it will die out - simple "survival of the fittest". If that change in environment is also caused by humanity then we would have been the architects of our own demise... ironic, but all part of evolution, nonetheless. So to say that reasoning creatures have disrupted the evolutionary process is nonsense.
Would systematic gene modification change this at all. Is that a qualitative difference. In other words the changes in humans would not be due to mutation and success of certain traits. Would it still be natural selection? I am not saying humans are not natural, but the old evolutionary theory would not really cover what would be happening from that point forward. Or..?
i say qualitative as natural selection is for dullards and misfits besides, it like takes forever and is capricious as shit what evolutionary theories? larmark's acquired inheritance? breach of the weismann barrier? directed evolution? retroviruses? epigenetics? mutation when do we want it? we want it now the qualitative criteria will be determined by the rise or fall of modded organism
an uneccesary and pointless presumption. eons rather than points are the preferred timscales in evolution. a "mysterious begining" pinpointed, leans towards a theistic or alien hypotheses. i feel hard pressed to classify. perhaps satiating hunger. the rest seem learned if variables and preferred outcomes are mapped into the routines, a variety of responses could be elicited in an entirely mechanical way. no thought required this is tough. ah yes. i gotta can the sexual imagery. deadlines and job preservation brave words buddy all you gotta do now is break it down and justify if hard data is hard to come by, i'll settle for.. roleplaying from the pov analogous systems in ai tech modification rather than duplication why? if intel can have dual processors, why cant i? wonder if there are redundancies built in a single kidney? liver? i see no disruption perhaps the intial premises that led up that conclusion are erroneous? never fear gore is here why that no good filthy piece of shit he will pay for the blood of millions this i vow
What do we do when we reason? I would say as a minimum that to reason is to conceptualize and to draw inferences from that conceptualization. All creatures the tadpole and the human must have this minimum capacity to reason. The tadpole must categorize ‘eat no eat’ and ‘friend no friend’. Categorizing is the first step in conceptualizing and inferring and thus reasoning. I think that it might be worth while to think of how the most primitive creature might conceptualize. Take a primitive sea creature that has only the ability to perceive light and shadow. That creature has a zone of shadow detection let us say of 5 feet. In this detection zone it can distinguish too big or not too big for eating and decide to get away from the shadow. Perhaps it has another zone of one foot that it can decide friend or foe or eat and not eat. In this zone it must infer to get away or to chase after. From this we might decide that conception is a structuring process where containers are an important element in conceptualization. A container might be an important element in the imagination of the creature. The creature has the ability to infer based upon a container schema. There is an inner and outer and a border between in and out. The creatures must be able to deal with container schemas and make inferences within this schema. Also the creature must have some sort of schema for following or predicting the path of something perceived. The creature must be able to infer is the shadow going this way or that way. So conceptualizing consists of a number of standard forms for organizing the elements of a perception so that the creature can draw inferences. The human has this same capability only greatly more sophisticated. This conception and inference process is the foundation of reasoning. I claim that there is unconscious reasoning that all animals with neural networks do and then there is conscious reasoning that only humans do.
It's so sad how logic isn't taught in school.... When you say "conscious reasoning", what exactly do you mean, as opposed to unconscious reasoning ????!!!!%%%&&@@
Reasonig is structuring concepts and drawing inference from those concepts. We do this constantly when we perceive. Creatures with neurol networks who move in space must perform such actions constantly in order to survive. Humans constantly reason in the process of perception and movement and humas also self consciously solve problems through this same form of reasoing.
You're missing my point entirely. For the sake of argument, I'll accept all your unsupported and tenuous premisses. The point is this: "conscious reasoning" is superfluous. Unless you care to delineate unconscious reasoning...
Reasoning on its own can be a pretty tenuous term. Although i know what cohbert means id rather describe the process as intuitive inductive reasoning, which yes probably most reasonably evolved creatures partake in - e.g. a pheasant could infer 'every human i have seen, i have seen kill a fellow pheasant, therefore all humans kill pheasants'. So really inductive reasoning is instinctual as anything else, the only difference with humans is that we make our reasoning explicit and we disect the process itself for further analysis. But that doesn't mean we're anymore ahead of the game than the pheasant is! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There's an interesting guy called nassim taleb who states that 'anti-theorising' (not drawing assumptions from limited data) actually expends more energy than it does to 'continually theorise'. We're always theorising about our enviornment and ourselves, making subtle inferences all the time. The problem for me is (as a nihilist) my own nihilism is probably largely superficial, since if we're always theorising about our world and living amongst our own assumptions. To be a true nihilist would mean to be in a constant state of alertness, continually stopping those little inductions we make everyday without thinking about it. It's impossible. I think all you can really do is try to remain aware of your own fallibility.
This is what I have learned unconscious conceptualization is about; structuring concepts is the first step for reasoning and for perception. Categorization, the first level of abstraction from “Reality” is our first level of conceptualization and thus of knowing. Seeing is a process that includes categorization, we see something as an interaction between the seer and what is seen. “Seeing typically involves categorization.” Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories. Human categories, the stuff of experience, are reasoned about in many different ways. These differing ways of reasoning, these different conceptualizations, are called prototypes and represent the second level of conceptualization Typical-case prototype conceptualization modes are “used in drawing inferences about category members in the absence of any special contextual information. Ideal-case prototypes allow us to evaluate category members relative to some conceptual standard…Social stereotypes are used to make snap judgments…Salient exemplars (well-known examples) are used for making probability judgments…Reasoning with prototypes is, indeed, so common that it is inconceivable that we could function for long without them.” When we conceptualize categories in this fashion we often envision them using spatial metaphors. Spatial relation metaphors form the heart of our ability to perceive, conceive, and to move about in space. We unconsciously form spatial relation contexts for entities: ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘about’, ‘across from’ some other entity are common relationships that make it possible for us to function in our normal manner. When we perceive a black cat and do not wish to cross its path our imagination conceives container shapes such that we do not penetrate the container space occupied by the cat at some time in its journey. We function in space and the container schema is a normal means we have for reasoning about action in space. Such imaginings are not conscious but most of our perception and conception is an automatic unconscious force for functioning in the world. Our manner of using language to explain experience provides us with an insight into our cognitive structuring process. Perceptual cues are mapped onto cognitive spaces wherein a representation of the experience is structured onto our spatial-relation contour. There is no direct connection between perception and language. The claim of cognitive science is “that the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and the body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.” Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”—Lakoff and Johnson
I disagree somewhat. I would modify your comment in the following manner: I think that the two fundamental things we can do is recognize our own fallability and to learn CT (Critical Thinking).
You wouldn't break the "natural evolution" - you would just have reached a position where you can adapt through self-guided means BEFORE "natural" selection / evolution has a chance to make its own play. So you wouldn't have broken it - just pushed it into the back of a cupboard for a while (perhaps forever)... but you can't break a natural process. (Sorry - I'm probably being too picky). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What of it? How does that in any way counter the point made? Or did you want to make a post about 9/11 for some other reason? Or perhaps you are arguing from emotion - and in doing so completely bypassing any actual reasoning (which would be ironic, given the thread title)? So - again I ask... what of it? :shrug:
That's OK. I was curious and hadn't really formed an opinion myself. I am not saying that one would have ended natural selection, but would the for of selection I mentioned by natural. Is the pattern like the general meaning of those terms or is it something else.?
