A radical explanation for a conundrum about extra-terrestrial life, and what it means for the future of humanity (http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/05/why_we_havent_met_any_aliens.php)

I've recently begun to read some papers regarding evolutionary psychology. I've seen extensive discussion of this in the past here as it may relate to ADHD.

Would anyone here care to comment on how the above paper may relate to ADHD? I have some quarrel with the piece, but wondered whether more knowledgeable folk might broaden my perspective before I go off half cocked. :rolleyes:
Thanks.

That's some interesting question Ian, and I think we need to trace man's evolution from the humble proton (wayyy backkk) ... waving to us from back there in the blackground :-) ... to place all of the various parts of that article into a framework.
I should mention that I have learnt pretty much everything that I am typing in this message, from forum members.
Pretty cool :-) !!! And the shape of things to come, I hope.

So ... in the beginning, there was Escher defying gravity :-) , an image of 3 snakes linking to one another ... but dispensing with metaphor ... phosphorescence ...BTW... more (much) tomorrow :-) ... ... ...

Thanks Chameleon! ... yes, the magic number is '3' at the very start ... but it is to be overtaken by '4' and then '2' ... blue, green, red (the three) (blue and green real close on the EM spectrum) and red some way off ... Thanks HF! ... so more tomorrow ... :-)

SB.

...oops nearly forgot ...!... Thanks Ian :-) ! ... ... snakes and GEB ... and I was kinda' wondering when Escher was gonna' join his two friends ... the '3' of them together, at last ... :-) ... G and B were beginning to worry ... ... ...

I'll gladly speculate on that....

The thing I have noticed is that people with ADHD are incredibly well adapted for living and working in a technological setting. It may be that ADHD is a highly adaptive trait in a high tech setting, and that our continuing dependence on technology might eventually lead to an increase in ADHD/AS/Bipolar since persons with those disabilities often thrive in technological realms.

ME :D


A radical explanation for a conundrum about extra-terrestrial life, and what it means for the future of humanity (http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/05/why_we_havent_met_any_aliens.php)

I've recently begun to read some papers regarding evolutionary psychology. I've seen extensive discussion of this in the past here as it may relate to ADHD.

Would anyone here care to comment on how the above paper may relate to ADHD? I have some quarrel with the piece, but wondered whether more knowledgeable folk might broaden my perspective before I go off half cocked. :rolleyes:
Thanks.

I'd like to make a comment on the original article if I may. It seems like the author has totally missed the point of modern technological innovation. We are in the midst of an information revolution, whose impact will be far greater than the industrial revolution was. Entertainment is just a fallout of information, not the other way around.

My opinion on the Fermi conundrum is that it flows from one important logical fallacy: it presupposes that we constitute "intelligent" life. I'm not being facetious here, on the scale of what is known aout the universe, we are moss growing on a tiny pebble midway up a small to midsize peak on a giant mountain range.

Whether extraterrestrial intelligent life exists or not, why on earth would it care about moss growing on a pebble in a mountain they've likely never heard of on a mountain range that they've never visited?

A radical explanation for a conundrum about extra-terrestrial life, and what it means for the future of humanity

I'm sorry, when I read that, my mind only sees Tom Cruise's crazed face as he jumps on Ophra's sofa. :rolleyes:

I'll gladly speculate on that....

The thing I have noticed is that people with ADHD are incredibly well adapted for living and working in a technological setting. It may be that ADHD is a highly adaptive trait in a high tech setting, and that our continuing dependence on technology might eventually lead to an increase in ADHD/AS/Bipolar since persons with those disabilities often thrive in technological realms.

ME :DI'd think that it's the reverse. There is far more attention to detail required today than there ever has been. As an engineer, everything I build requires three forms of documentation, and often requires precision in the microns range. On the other hand, if I invent something, which ADD people seem to be prone to doing, my invention could be implemented throughout the world. AS though, there certainly seems to be a niche for.

I do know that people with ADD get bored easily. We'd be less likely to develop an obsession with something of no real consequence. Also, one very important benefit of ADDers that directly relates to this article is our tendency to understand things intuitively. For example, we can see the myriad of ways that that article is a poorly-written piece of sensationalist crap. Ian, I can certainly see why you have quarrels with it, let's see if I can count all mine:

1. This article anthropomorphizes possible alien cultures so much it's ridiculous. Very few alien species if any would act almost exactly as we do.

2. Trends are extrapolated to idiotic conclusions. Like, if it's colder today than yesterday, I can predict that it will be colder still tomorrow, and the day after, and so on until we're in a new ice age. But that would be a stupid prediction to make. Likewise, he predicts that because video games are becoming better and more popular, eventually everyone on earth will play video games all the time.

3. He lumps all people together very often. He doesn't realize that there are people out there who would never enjoy playing video games all the time or even devoting time to something that isn't real.

4. He neglects the effect that evolution would have on those individuals who do choose to play video games all the time. Evolution would favor people who are more grounded in reality, or at least attuned to events in the real world enough to reproduce and raise kids. Well, ok, so he does bring this up as a possibility. Really though, it's more of a certainty at least in our species.

5. He doesn't even consider self-engineering. If a species is dying out, surely a few concerned individuals could engineer traits into the population that would increase its vitality or lengthen its lifespan.

6. He tries to make entertainment and progress seem mutually exclusive. You can be a nanotech engineer and still like playing video games on weekends.

7. This quote is so stupid I could cry:
Around 1900, most inventions concerned physical reality: cars, airplanes, Zeppelins, electric lights, vacuum cleaners, air conditioners, bras, zippers. In 2005, most inventions concern virtual entertainment—the top 10 patent-recipients were IBM, Canon, Hewlett-Packard, Matsu****a, Samsung, Micron Technology, Intel, Hitachi, Toshiba and Fujitsu—not Boeing, Toyota or Victoria's Secret.Back around 1900, all those inventions were new! Now they're old news! Some, we've come very close to perfecting, and thus there are no new developments! Where are the new patents? Why, the companies developing cutting edge technology! Big surprise there. And not one of those companies listed is an entertainment company. They all make electronics. And electronics are as much concerned with physical reality as anything else. Saying they're entertainment companies is like saying International Paper makes books.

8. He's a scare monger. He tries to make people afraid of video games for some obscure, half-baked reason.

9. You get the distinct impression that he arrived at his conclusion first and then filled in the steps he took to get to that conclusion later. Like he wanted his conclusion to be logical, and tried to make it so.

10. His assumption that aliens could quickly colonize the galaxy probably assumes that faster-than-light or nearly-as-fast-as-light travel is feasible. Maybe there are aliens colonizing stars, they're just not in a hurry?

Ten is a nice round number, so I think I'll end there, but I could surely think of more if I tried. Since this guy is not a member here, I can insult what he says, right moderators? Anyway, I hope this isn't what passes for evolutionary psychology these days.

My opinion on the Fermi conundrum is that it flows from one important logical fallacy: it presupposes that we constitute "intelligent" life. I'm not being facetious here, on the scale of what is known aout the universe, we are moss growing on a tiny pebble midway up a small to midsize peak on a giant mountain range.

Whether extraterrestrial intelligent life exists or not, why on earth would it care about moss growing on a pebble in a mountain they've likely never heard of on a mountain range that they've never visited?This assumes that intelligence is a simple numerical value, which isn't really true. For instance, an ant could not fathom the existence of humans, but we can certainly imagine the existence of extraterrestrial life. If aliens did populate this galaxy, we would certainly see evidence of them, much as ants see evidence of us. But unlike ants, we would be able to process that evidence in some way, and at least see that the evidence is indicative of extraterrestrial intelligent life.

This is assuming of course that this extraterrestrial life is not also extradimensional.

Heritable variation in personality might allow some lineages to resist the Great Temptation and last longer. Some individuals and families may start with an "irrational" Luddite abhorrence of entertainment technology, and they may evolve ever more self-control, conscientiousness and pragmatism.



Okay I disagree here.......some ADDers may get obsessed with video games but others like me may not even know how to play them.............toooooooooooo much sitting in one place!

TV not interactive enough.....subjects tooo slow plots way to predictable .redundancy loop deluxe! I am lucky to make it through an hour show......if it has commercials the chances of me actually making the whole show decrease dramatically as I tend to loose interest and wander off for ????

I do use the internet a lot but it is hard for me to stay in one place too long. My body parts begin falling asleep!

So maybe the world will be inherited by those who can not still long enough to become over indulged in "entertainment" of the virtual kind!

(an evil) Ha Ha Ha...............meadd823 wiggles off!

:-) Douglas Adams ... Beetelgeuse!!!

You guys!!!

OK ... so I'm in 2 minds ... oh so yeah!!! ... oh so not :-)
... oh so yeah!!! ... oh so not :-)
... oh so yeah!!! ... oh so not :-)

...can I stop now? ... :-)))

So ... Thanks Tam, centred now ... thanks for being my +1.
But there can be only one (other).

So the decoupling of decoupled couples to make the couple (+ A N other) visible.

... so I can take it from here on in ... :-)

Probably ... probabilistically speaking unintuitively backwards ... all of this!

Ho well!!!

It can be solvde ... just remember ... different layers of abstraction.

Think academic disciplines

physics/chemistry

neurology/psychology ... eep!!! ... I hadn't thought about that.

I thought maybe not along the lines of the f...

We'll survive ... :-)
GLOBAL warming cracks under a model of 3 interacting partners.

Look to the frog ... and we can drop CO2 levels back down to where we need them to be.

Note ---> the fun gae in the corner.

Always the fun guy.

Noting that semantic webs are not supposed to be interfered with and that the clever chappies who created these and open standards and stuff ... knew that at the heart of our future is the even spread of knowledge to all -> into the new data structure ... a 13d structure (combinatorial assembly by connecting the old 4 space structure using bonds.)

Now SML-II and SML-I ... what was that all about!!!
... like you guys need telling!

OK ... thanks for rooting a 13 dimensional free-floating* veggie sausage ... and generating a 14d rooted courgette ... little red courgettes ... I like your style.

*Naughty SML-II ... it's time you get you a whooping ... or at least a whoopee cushion.
Parp!!!

Life on the canopy ... trees ... biodiversity.

The thing is ... that there's a weally weally weally small chance ... but as you guys have kept on telling me ... a chance nevertheless of ... just unintuitive.

And imagine what'd happen if something unintuitive occurred ... well -> it's what we need isn't it ... our drive, shifted back into the realms of where we need it to be ... But how you guys ever did all of this ... I mean, how'd you educate me ... without me knowing?

Silly ADDForums.

:-)

By the way ... the empirical method is trashed ... this is purely a Zeitgeist meets Gestalt proof.
And there is no chance that it is incorrect,
ZERO CHANCE.
There is ABSOLUTELY no chance of this being incorrect.
It is sooo correct ... it hurts.

Ooops ... I'm sitting on my stereo.

I'd just like to make it PERFECTLY clear ... that just like Tom ... well we can't but ~of course~ ... (the other half of this doughnut) solved it.

A torus and reverse torus ... except I don't actually know if these terms exist.
Something to do with 2 inverted 13d shapes ... and maybe call them 'Thinky' and 'Stinky' ... and they fit together generating an even surface ... all around.

I'm talking particle:wave duality.

Nowt to do with -this- guy ... Ize your regular Homey ... 'Marg' ... 'yes Homer' 'Marg, I'm hungry' ... ... ...

*NOT* me ... Voltaire needs a short sharp shock 'buzzz' and Ems needs an Emmy!
Volt baby ... you shouldn't have named yourself after elec ... :-)

What do you mean???

:-)

It wasn't the French revolution ... he just plain smelled bad ... stinked ... steps back ...
Catch that smell ... 'revulsion' not revolution ... now revolution.

Tammy ... thanks and where're Tom and Kay ... S round and round.

kinda' like the my hippie picture 'met my limbic anti S B' ... punnulikes ...

By the way, 'Marg, help me ... I can't figure this out'
In the car ... 'oh, Homey ... not again'
Sub-second, just like the last time (UV) ... always the extra bit ... always immediately ... always 4 ever.

Happy SB!!!

otf ... dropping back to the Big Bang ... as Tom said ... we must keep on ... until we can regenerate the rest.

And so all the way up to the top ... so we've taken it to the bridge ...
and now ... let's bring it on home.

All else can be resolved from here on in ... without too much hassle ... :-)

Tom/Kay ... thanks! :-) but which one? And I'm kinda' confused in a 'who's who?' kinda way ...
but I needed the certainty which came from 'leapin' lizards' ... but didn't see it until afterwards ...
which means that there's something going on up there ... which I wasn't and now am aware of.

Cheeky Tom and Kay!

So .... Solution:

<starts>
-------------------------
-.05 +1.05
Speedo :-) ... doh!!! ... I hate it too :-)

...let that be a lesson to you...
---------->
0.05 + 0.95
-real answer
So ... that's 2 like charges superimposing --->
(.05+0.95) - 1
-------------------------
</ends>

... there's a chance ... OK ... little ... but a chance nevertheless, of the two
electrostatic charges falling in exactly the same space.

+Adey --->'la la la la la'

-Nougat --->'al al al al al'

Two ADDers not paying attention.
They've been told ... pay attention!!!

And then ...

Imagine it ... Adey chompa Nougat accidentally ... bumps into one another ...
Famous last words ...
'Ooopsy'
We've gone and done it now, haven't we? :-)
-------------------------
</ends v. 2> :-) with quite some in the middle ... but all derivable using axioms and beautiful beautiful
emergent theory.
Think cakes in the oven.

Game over? Or the other way ... cheeky Carla meets Stabile ... tapestries and pastries and did I mention ...
vegetarian sausage rolls rock.
OK ... so that's a lie!
Or is it???

The twylight zone ... when what exactly happens! Howling at the moon ... (a closet howler)
We have re-instated mystery ... spooky spooky quantum ... spooky metaphysical.
So sue us.

EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT NOW.

Now --- is that a rap? I've a dog to walk :-) and we've a friend ...
Hmmm ... Nova ... hmmm ... do I really need to ...?...

:-)

Gosh, I just thought ... there has to be a chance that this is all wrong.

OK ... so it was an erm... erm... erm... baa!!! :-)

...but I think that we might even be able to get around that uncertainty.

www.addforums.com (http://www.addforums.com/)

Ooo heck ... what was the question? and ermmm... where am I?
and ... ho yeah!!!

It's all about the pattern rrreally!!!

'And you may say to yourself ... How did I get here?'
Talking Heads ... Once in a Lifetime (water flowing underneath)


1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1
3 builds using bonds.
upwards.
3 is the number that has so fascinated ... from Fibo to Descartes.

wait ... :-)

Another go ...

Running out of juice.
One more go (for now).
2x13d structures ->
e- inside p- in such a way
that electoneutral ep = n

but ... e --> prob function

who's Reimannen?

Imagine ball inside a doughnut --> sphere

Ball inside moving.

ball => e- described by prob dens function.
n varies in weight dependent on position of e- in distribution.

so weak g ie neutron is not of fixed weight.

e+p -> overlaid the start -> bang

branes colliding.

...but e has finite chance of layering on top of p -> bang!!!

outta' juice :-)

smallest and heaviest weight of neutron defined by electron prob function.

somehow ... 13d translates to lower d -> we have transduction of energy through dimensions into lower dimensional space ---> a ballbearing.

transduction of energy across dimensional space.

like a ball bearing ... can get to our guy ... ATP synthetase ...

not 2d -> spin ... but really high d -> captured in e- motion from P to P in ATP

ENGINE.

S
--

ball bearings rotate in 2 directions.

---> we are alive together in a shared reality

we choose.

2 choices.

fundamental??? nature of rrreality RRReality ... later ...

p+e together are of less weight

so ... left and right translate down ... into our perception of rrreality == RRReality.

This lies at the heart.

2 waves in our dimension represented as particles only on combination in the correct dimensional space ... generating 2 equal and opposite 13 dimensional structures which appear as particles in our space when combined.

2 possinilities.

energy from waves ... 2 wave functions + and - ---> in 13 d ... 2 doughnuts ... 2 shapes ... mirror images ... transition Left through centre to Right ---> 3 states.

Energy obtained by taking this energy ie the shift in direction of ball bearing.

mass derives from higher dimensional interactions of this sort ... translated down to our lower dimensional space.

mass derives from e/static ...

our dimensionality is wrong? ...

1 wave -> all forces ... if examine different dimensionalities of space.
Magic number 3 .... need 3 dimensional views ... all built upon one another.

1 structure generating 3 different energies in different dimensions ...
energy acquired by crossing dimensional space.

somewhere in all of that is instinct.
Biological instinct is related to 'energy' transduction.
To transduce energy.

3d-4d-13d

Here is a good link on the Fermi Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

love, actually.

Evolutionary psychology is best seen through a study of love ... actually.
semantically ... 'agape'

Thanks guys ... and apologies ... needed to see what happened.

All of the above and yeah ... we are evolving towards 'love'

A happy ending :-)

Love, actually ...

S&&C

The highly evolved aliens have ... 'gone home' ... :-)
Back up from whence we (and they) came.
So ... there it is, Ian :-)

Byeee!

mass derives from higher dimensional interactions of this sort ... translated down to our lower dimensional space.

And really messes with the DSL if ya happen to be holding onto the mouse……




mass derives from e/static ...

don’t forget to remove the wrist watch……… effects physical realm-----oops!




1 wave -> all forces ... if examine different dimensionalities of space.
Magic number 3 .... need 3 dimensional views ... all built upon one another.

Matter / anti-matter
Time / anti-time
Space / anti-space !!!!!




1 structure generating 3 different energies in different dimensions ...
energy acquired by crossing dimensional space.

Consciousness=sub-consciousness!

-9 = (–three squared) or beats me I just have my head phones up to loud! Oh yea found the whoopee cushion!

Is that + or - or both?



Timh sorce case it was missedthe first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox)

Quote***
The age of the universe and its vast number of stars seem to suggest that extraterrestrial life should be common. Considering this with colleagues over lunch in 1950, the physicist Enrico Fermi is said to have asked: "Where are they?"[1] If there are a multitude of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy then why have we not seen any evidence, such as probes, spacecraft or radio transmissions? End Quote***

Elementary we live in the rural area- of Milky cookie galaxy!

How many majors do ya see when ya live on a farm in the middle of bfeeeeee!

Maybe they all have ADD. Too many distractions between here and there! :p



Quote***
Either the initial assumption is incorrect and technologically advanced intelligent life is much rarer than we believe, our current observations are incomplete and we simply have not detected them yet, or our search methodologies are flawed and we are not searching for the correct indicators. End Quote***

Gee told ya thay had ADD!



Quote***
As there is no evidence on Earth or anywhere else of attempted alien colonization after 13 billion years of the universe's history, we must assume that intelligent life is rare in our part of the galaxy, or that our assumptions about the general behavior of intelligent species is flawed.End Quote***

Look beyond what ya see………perhaps we already are most just don’t know it :eek: thus the colorful post-/-/-/! :o

Nope no ADHd around here! ;)

==++==

I'd agree with you, but that would be like agreeing that the number seventeen can disambiguate more exuberance than a hamster...

Wish we could have actually discussed that issue as it's a personal interest of mine.

actually discussed that issue as it's a personal interest of mine.

Please excuse me as I think my medications have worn off but which subject?? The evolution thing or the hampster....sorry I am just unsure at this point!

Oh I'm totally gonna comment on this one.... At lunch time so I don't get in trouble. :-)

Already in enough trouble at work this week. :-/

Quote below a paragraph of page 1 of the article.

"Teens today must find their way through a carnival of addictively fitness-faking entertainment products: iPods, DVDs, TiVo, Sirius Satellite Radio, Motorola cellphones, the Spice channel, EverQuest, instant messaging, MDMA, BC bud. The traditional staples of physical, mental and social development—athletics, homework, dating—are neglected. The few young people with the self-control to pursue the meritocratic path often get distracted at the last minute. Take, for example, the MIT graduates who apply to do computer game design for Electronics Arts, rather than rocket science for NASA."

MDMA, BC bud! Yeah he just threw that one right in there didn't he?
Is he really putting entertainment technology in the same category as drugs here? I have my own assumptions about what this has to do with ADD, Autism, and other disorders. I just learned that interactive videogames deplete the dopamine levels in our brain leaving us exhausted and unable to concentrate. I think I read something in Dr. Amen's book about the screen of a computer causing entrainment. When you see a screen on camera it captures it refreshing itself every 30 sec. or so and we are able to pick up that rhythm even though our eyes can't percieve it somehow luring us in. I find this plausable. When you think of a young mind trying to make sense of some of the commercials they see on tv it's no wonder there's such a rise in developmental disabilities. I mean a huge part of development is understanding the visual world through our senses.

I agree with an earlier comment about how tv plots are predictable and I myself do not know how to play computer/video games. But the people that are developing this type of entertainment are getting the big bucks.

I don't understand the alien idea. But what I got out of the article is that somehow all of the innovations in technology have not been put to good use and that we are actually harming ourselves by overindulging in these innovations. Therefore we lose sight of our values or moreover our biological nature and have as humans become weaker beings.

But I think it is important for him to differentiate between entertainment technology and information technology. There was an engineer who commented earlier on how things are so much more detailed now. We can use innovative technology for "the good".

Personally, I chose a career path in Computer Graphics but have since changed my mind. I don't want my purpose to be making things look more appealing so people are more attracted to them therefore encouraging all of this "XBox playing" that the writer speaks of. I am an artist and I would rather not use my talent for something that manipulates others, but instead would like to challenge the ideas of others. I am now on my way to becoming a teacher.

Please excuse me as I think my medications have worn off but which subject?? The evolution thing or the hampster....sorry I am just unsure at this point!Evolutionary psychology is very interesting to me. The hamster thing was just a more polite way of saying "WTF!?!" to SB_UK's posts.

When you see a screen on camera it captures it refreshing itself every 30 sec. or so and we are able to pick up that rhythm even though our eyes can't percieve it somehow luring us in. I find this plausable.Maybe you're thinking 30 milliseconds? A TV's refresh rate is about 17 milliseconds, but it's generally expressed in hertz, ie 60 Hz. Since changing the refresh rate on your monitor doesn't change how appealing that watching it is to you, and because that frequency is well above the 8-30 Hz your alpha and beta brain waves are, I'd be skeptical of this. I do agree that children need to have more of their senses engaged when they're young in order for their minds to develop properly. TV is flat and noninteractive, and probably not stimulating to young minds.

I agree with an earlier comment about how tv plots are predictable and I myself do not know how to play computer/video games. But the people that are developing this type of entertainment are getting the big bucks.TV plots are usually predictable once you've seen a LOT of TV. And at that point you're probably already a customer. People whe develop entertainment are usually paid as well as they are because one, entertainment can be duplicated, distributed, and sold indefinitely, and because there is a large demand for what they make.

I don't understand the alien idea. But what I got out of the article is that somehow all of the innovations in technology have not been put to good use and that we are actually harming ourselves by overindulging in these innovations. Therefore we lose sight of our values or moreover our biological nature and have as humans become weaker beings.Have we become less fit for surviving in the wilderness? Overall, yes. Have we become less fit at living on this planet? Heck no. A lot of people don't like that we are moving away from our roots and our nature, but then again, cholera and famines don't seem like they'd be much fun.

But I think it is important for him to differentiate between entertainment technology and information technology. There was an engineer who commented earlier on how things are so much more detailed now. We can use innovative technology for "the good".
I agree completely. The majority of information technology companies are involved in stuff other than entertainment. That's where the money is. You just don't hear as much about these companies because, well, they're kind of boring.

Personally, I chose a career path in Computer Graphics but have since changed my mind. I don't want my purpose to be making things look more appealing so people are more attracted to them therefore encouraging all of this "XBox playing" that the writer speaks of. I am an artist and I would rather not use my talent for something that manipulates others, but instead would like to challenge the ideas of others. I am now on my way to becoming a teacher.Well, you can always do illustrations for magazines or instruction manuals or something. What are you hoping to teach? I know there is a need for good technology/computer teachers out there, especially ones who can stay up to date and aren't trying to teach MS-DOS to seventh graders.

Evolutionary psych, in a nutshell, is pretty much just looking at human behavior in light of human natural history. It's positing that if natural selection affects the brain, then it had an impact on brain function to include the mind.

One of it's primary precepts is that the brain IS NOT a general purpose computer, but in fact is a collection of highly specialized modules. One of the nice things about evolutionary psych is that it posits empirically testable hypothesis about human behaviors that traditional psych and sociology have had trouble grounding in hard science.

Detractors often suggest it is "Deterministic" often making ridiculous statements to the effect of "Is there a "jerk" gene then?" This shows a woeful misunderstanding of exactly how genes work. Even in traits that are indisputably under genetic control there is variation of expression caused by the environment. In short the whole Nature/nurture argument is a very badly phrased way to sum things up based on misunderstandings about how things actually work.

The idea that evolution played a large role in the way our minds work seems pretty indisputable. About a third of our genes are responsible for our nervous system, and many mental traits are passed down from parents to children, ADD being just one of them.

I like that evolutionary psychology can explain a lot of human behavior that seems to be completely irrational, as well as many useful things that people do automatically but not because of logic.

Agreed. :-) I have seen, on occasion some interpretations of it that certainly feed some of the mainstream mistrust of it though. A few years back a book was published called "The moral animal". It was a bit extreme to say the least and was not written by a scientist in that field but by a writer who clearly had a political agenda.

"Stone age present" was published around the same time and is a much more realistic approach to what Evolutionary psych really says. It also cites some truly fascination work by folks like Cosmides and tooby (pioneers in the field).

I recently read a fascinating new hypothesis about the relationship between humans and dogs. Recent molecular evidence pushes the domestication of dogs back enormously. Originally it was assumed they were domesticated about 14 thousand years ago. Then they pushed it back to 40 thousand years ago. Now the molecular evidence pushes it back to right around the emergence, or just before the emergence of anatomically modern humans. In short they were probably with us before we became "Modern".

More interesting still, there is evidence to support the idea that the presence of dogs influenced human evolutionary development as much as we influenced theirs.

Domestic animals typically have some brain shrinkage compared to their wild ancestors. Oddly enough in relatively recent history (sometime in the range of ten to 80 thousand years ago) modern human brains shrank as well. Domestic dogs underwent a ten to thirty percent shrinkage (depending on breed). Human brains shrank by ten percent (more than being more skeletally gracile should account for). The interesting part is in WHERE the shrinkage occured. In dogs and later domestics the shrinkage occurs in the frontal lobes. In humans the shrinkage occured in the midbrain. Which is where we do most of the initial processing of sensory information.

This is exactly what one would expect to see if our relationship with dogs was symbiotic. They literally entered into this relationship with us of their own accord (as the first humans to associate with the wolves that would become dogs likely did not have true language yet and were on a much more even footing with wolves intellectually). In exchange for our specialization in frontal lobe function they took up the slack in mid brain and sensory function.

Humans and dogs both have remarkable abilities to read each other. Dogs can, for example interpret human facial expressions. Even wolves raised in captivity can't do this. Humans in turn have very little difficulty getting the gist of dog communications.

Fascinating stuff.

It's good to have your input E-boy. What would you suggest for an interesting read for the newly initiated?

Stone age Present was a good read and a good overview. I can't remember the author's name, only that he's a science journalist, but there can't be too many books by that name out there.

Also most of the newer cognitive sciences books out there will cite evolutionary psych studies. Stephen Pinker certainly does often enough (Pinker is heavily involved in the cognitive sciences, but specializes in language aquisition in children). His books "The Language Instinct" and "How the Mind Works" are quite good.

Again outside the discipline itself is Temple Grandin who's book "animals in translation" is a wonderful read. She herself is a high functioning autistic and makes a good many references to ADD, and other disorders in discussing animal and human cognition. She also references Pinker, although she disagrees with him, probably accurately, about Music being an evolutionary accident.

Daniel C. Dennet (although if you read some of his books be prepared to make liberal use of the glossary, websters dictionary, and the internet because he can be a bit difficult to understand at times. He is well worth understanding though), writes a lot of very worthy books as well and often cites the work of other disciplines like evolutionary psych.

Any work you can find by Cosmides and Tooby (although I've not seen any books by them) is well worth the read. They're sort of "founding members" of the discipline of evolutionary psych. Stone Age Present makes liberal use of their study data.

If you feel like reading "The Moral Animal" it does have it's interesting points, but it's so clearly biased and so often in error in it's interpretation of the data that's it's almost an argument against evolutionary psych. Think "political Manifesto".

Behavioral genetics is a nice subject to learn some interesting things from as well. For starters according to the laws of population dynamics any genetically determined trait that occurs in two percent or more of a given population (ADHD/ADD occurs in more than that and is demonstrably heritable) by definition HAS TO BE adaptive. Maladaptive traits don't propogate and for a gene to have a frequency that high or higher it is propogating. So a population geneticist would never have referred to ADD/ADHD, or a host of anxiety "disorders" for that matter as disorders in the first place. Or at least not as disorders based on biological pathology. In contexts more like the environment humans started out in (IE hunter gatherer type lifestyles) ADD doesn't express or manifest with the negative stuff we see in "MODERN SOCIETY". So, I'm inclined to refer to it as a "Contextual disorder". In a nutshell we fall on one side of the curve of normal human neurology and it happens to be a side of the curve not well suited to modern society's rather arbitrary setup.

Those are a few suggestions that can set you up with lots of references and all sorts of new insights in related disciplines as well. These days there is so much overlap between evolutionary biology, anthropology, genetics, psychology, neurology, and sociology that it's hard for me to treat them as entirely separate disciplines. I just see them as additional informational resources.

Good authors for understanding the human condition (including us ADDers) are : Stephen Pinker, Daniel C. Dennet, Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Temple Grandin (who also wrote a book about autism called "Thinking in Pictures" (worth reading for interest alone, but also for the amazing similarities between autism, ADD, and aspergers. Oh I'm not sure what her relationship with the Ratey's is but she references Ratey a lot too), Antonio Demasio ( a nuerologist by trade his book "Descartes Error" is wonderful), and there are a few more worthy of mention who's names escape me. The point is, you are bound to find something that interests or intrigues you and that will likely lead through a trail of even more writers and scientists. Even Nobel laureate Francis Crick had taken up the science of the mind and written on it quite eloquently (I say had because I believe he recently passed away).

Right now I'm reading "In search of memory" by Eric R. Kandel. A nobel Laureate himself. It's about the "New science of mind". It's quite good so far.

Oh I totally forgot Jared Diamond. "the third chimpanzee" was quite good and he won the pullitzer prize for "Guns Germs and Steel". Easily one of the best books I've ever read. His latest is "Collapse" "How societies choose to succeed or fail". Both of those last two books are sort of "Big Picture" looks at humanity, but still plenty interesting.

A deep bow to you. Thanks a lot for all the leads. My librarian is going to shake her head at me again. :D
Cheers! Ian

No bow necessary. One only need look at my inability to be even basically organized to know these feet are made of clay.

Just a bow between peers. I'm not wearing out my knees or anything like that. :D You can look "across" can't you?
Cheers! Ian

Indeed, I'd be willing to bet that a large portion of the discoveries made before recorded history, and many made afterward, were probably made by ADDers. Insatiable curiousity, hyperfocusing, and willingness to take risks would lead to discoveries such as which plants are edible and which tools work best for doing different jobs. Of course, once these things are discovered, anyone can learn them, so you don't need too many people with ADD. Too many of us, and a tribe might forget to do important stuff, like put away their food so animals don't eat it.

Here's a thought:

Most of the diagnoses for ADD are in the United States. Most people in the United States are decended from Europeans who were willing to uproot their entire families and move to a strange new country. This sounds to me like an ADD-ish thing to do. I wonder if the American/Canadian or Latin American ADD rates are any higher than average as a result?

Interesting question, but I doubt it very much at this point.

While it's quite possibe, maybe even probable, that this was initially the case, there was already a large indigenous population here (more than fifty percent of americans have some amount of indian ancestry), and successive waves of immigration have occured for a variety of reasons. Human populations are remarkably genetically homogenous, so once a certain level of population density is reached I suspect the average is preserved.

Diagnostic criteria and the education system in europe are substantially different than here in the states, and that is likely to be the explanation for the difference in numbers presently.

This is, of course, just my opinion, but many of the "Experts" here have already suggested this is the reason for the difference in "diagnostic rates".

I did however notice something HERE with the personality test that was placed in one of the threads. Fully twenty percent of the respondents here had a personality type that has a frequency globally of one percent.

How's that for weird?

Was that the Myers-Briggs one? And was the personality type INTP? I've noticed in another non-ADD related forum that INTP was more common than would be expected, though I can't remember the exact percentage. It used a different test though, so it isn't necessarily a test flaw. This could be explained by several factors like:

1. A positive correlation between ADD and that personality type
2. A general affinity for computers and internet message boards among INTPs
3. A general interest among INTPs of psychology, or quantifying mental processes

As for a possible connection between a higher ADD rate in the US and the personality types of immigrants, it's obvious not everyone in this country has ADD. It does seem like the rates are a bit higher though. This got me thinking about my own great-granddad, who died long before I was born. He came to the US from Germany during the 19th century, and had a bunch of different jobs here. He never did too well at any of them though. Although it's hard to make a diagnosis posthumously, the fact that several of his descendants have ADD may be telling. Although most people coming to this country did not have ADD, there was likely a proportionally larger fraction of people with it among immigrants than among the general population. If this was the case, the difference now would probably be statistically significant, even if it wasn't much.

Oh I think you may be onto something as far as early population demographics in this country go. I just think the time that's passed since then may have changed the demographic substantially.

But what has happened during that time? The people already living here have passed on their genes to their kids, and more people have immigrated to this country. Many of the new immigrants were probably ADD too, as they would be more likely to leave for another country when reasons presented themselves.

I see your point about different diagnostic criteria in the US too. This difference could be due to it being more problematic here, and thus people are more likely to look for it.

One interesting thing to note is that since perhaps the middle of the 19th century, a disproportionate number of inventions have been invented in the US. There are a number of possible reasons for this though, and probably quite a few of them contributed.

Economics and cultural differences would be a big factor in that last point. Also this trend has slowed continuously to the point that I'd wager it's near invisible today if it even still exists.

Certainly those immigrants had kids. However relative population densities between now and then have been more effected in this country by long term immigration than our own reproductive capacity. Many of these immigrants left home for a variety of reasons that would not necessarily have been related to ADD. Also initially, with the "FRONTIER" culture I'd certainly be willing to wager a large proportion of ADD persons. As for this day and age I think you might still find a larger frequency of ADD in places like Alaska and the more isolated parts of the Northwest. However the rest of the country isn't the "adventure" it used to be.

With the genetic frequency of ADD even at liberal estimates being substantially lower than the non ADD part of the population, and the huge influx of people arriving in this country I lean towards a likelihood of homogenization and actual frequencies approaching the global average closely.

Without wishing to start an argument over the basis of ADD ... if I were to make the statement that ADD is transmitted purely through environmental exposure and not through the penetrance of many 'small-effect' epistatically interacting polygenes ( ~IE~ (to paraphrase) ... that ADD is *learnt*) --- then how might this potentially alter our perspective?

By environmental exposure, I'm referencing changes in mind which are required to handle increased volumes of data, and *not* exposure to pollutants or other chemical entities.

My question isn't an attempt to sway opinions (either way) ... merely asking a 'what if?' ... which might prove fruitful to the mindful :-)

Notably, the contribution of the environment to disorder or character is one of our (the geneticists) greatest bugbears ... it potentially confounds experimentation, and can elevate population size requirements up into the infeasible.

Heritability estimates (measures of 'genetic-ness') can be skewed (to the point of invalidation) by inappropriately designed epidemiological studies. However, rather than travelling down the line of reviewing the flaws in current methodology for defining a trait as genetic, I'd prefer it if we (in this case) simply cut to the chase ... and play theorize on the consequences of a model for ADD as exclusively 'learnt' :-) ... ... ... this line of thought will slam us into 'evolutionary psychology' ... I wager [and I don't gamble :-)].

SB.

attention deficit disorder
~or~
mindful surfeit :-) 'new-world-order'?

Interesting Idea... If ADD were a consequence of an increasingly media rich and attention splitting environment, I would expect to see rates far higher than we do. FAR HIGHER. However, it is interesting to note that the rate of diagnosis is rising. I would posit that part of this is a closer look at women with ADD, and better application of diagnostic criteria, and that some part of it may be due to persons who one might refer to as "borderline".

I certainly know what you mean about where to "Draw the line". But other disciplines have contributed really good stuff on issues like this. For example, up until recent decades the social sciences tried very hard to deny a biological impact on human behavior beyond simple mechanics. So too with some aspects of psychology (although they were more receptive to biology influencing human behavior sooner. Even freud wanted neurological models and hoped for them). End result? Years of behavioral studies that exclude biological influences. These were rigorous science in most respects. In short they still provide an abundance of information giving some idea of just how much environmental influences contribute. Pair these behavioral studies up with ones that do take biology and genetics into account and you begin to get a picture. It's not a picture in sharp focus, but an engineer might say it's good enough for our purposes at the moment.

Part of what geneticists have found out is that natural selection cheats like crazy. If something can be depended on to remain constant you can ditch a whole bunch of "Unnecessary code" right off the bat. Gravity is one of those constants (development in many organisms does not proceed normally in zero G, or in artificially induced high G either for that matter). If we stick to some ideal of general purpose use for the brain, or even take too many things for granted with genetics, for that matter, we are going to miss lots of important stuff. Like the new studies with Gene editing turning out to be so much more common than they thought, or Messenger RNA inheritence (which allows for the inheritence of a trait without a DNA copy of the gene, and is used in some organisms as a sort of "spare" copy of essential systems).

I'm not suggesting that ADD is as simple as one gene to one behavior. Especially since it can express as a syndrome in a variety of different ways. I'm simply suggesting that a multidisciplinary approach can make the complexities easier to break down into viewable snapshots.

I won't ever suggest environment isn't an important influence in behavior and development. I will say you can't put the wagon in front of the horse. People invented culture, not the other way around. It influences us deeply, but it doesn't "MAKE" us. If it did human culture would be infinitely plastic and we would be infinitely plastic in our behavior. Niether is true.

:-)
not being contrary :-) (honest!)
...if we examine 'culture' in our present context (i.e. human culture) ... then mightn't it be seen as the human equivalent of 'bacterial culture' (apologies for the play with words).
By this, I mean that human culture is the definition of an environment within which we can thrive as a species.
Pretty much from day 1 of life, that 'drive' or impulse or instinct to survive has been demonstrated (the single only (and thereby *most*) important precursor to the 'rest'), and I believe that this particular 'drive' in its various guises at different stages of our evolutionary development, might actually be seen as the 'true' driver at the wheel of evolution (towards complexity).

In a sense, then, I guess I'm suggesting that culture (the drive to generate culture) generated modern man (sapiens), and that although man might believe that man is driving culture ...

that culture (perhaps better expressed as the drive underlying the formation of culture)
->drove->
mind (initial generation and development)
->drove->
modern man (speciation event and onwards).

SB.

:-) I know ...sdrawkcab...

FAR HIGHER I agree ... and in time only ADDers.
How much time, though, is an interesting question.

Theoretically quickly though practically as long as we (man) suppresses its appearance.
ADD may be suppressed by environments which suppress mind.

From the other side, and not often seen here ... but the number of ADDerfreak Uni profs who inhabit the highest level of the stratosphere, pushing out our envelope of understanding into the unknown, might surprise.
The absent-minded professor has ADD.
Raging ... maybe not on the forum, because their laptop has been misplaced.

Eccentric, 'mad', lost, nutty ... reality separated academics are ADD :-)
Their ADD has been activated by their drive to *understand* without impediment.

I find it revealing that ADD is most apparent in the young, the wildly eccentric academic, the leftfield 'dropout', the creative ... pockets of society which rest without current society's self-appointed shapers ... 20 - 50 year old occupants of No.1 besuited conformity Avenue.

-just like the post above, apparently but *not* ... ...sdrawkcab...

Suppression of individuality (essentially mind) is intimately interweaved with conformity, and as I mentioned above ADD may be suppressed by environments which suppress mind.

Conformity or at its extreme living life to protocol suppresses the need for free thought.
No 'free thought' ... No mind ... No ADD.

-the good news though ... ... ...

'everythings gonna' be alright'
'everythings gonna' be a-l-lll-right'
'everythings gonna' be alright'
'everythings gonna' be alrie'
No ADD No mind :-)

SB.

TV plots are usually predictable once you've seen a LOT of TV. And at that point you're probably already a customer

Hello I am the one who originally said this and I am hyper active I rarely sit long enough to watch TV. Their plots are really that invisible…..I am 40 some thing and can still count on my fingers and toes how many movies I have actually sat through! So no it doesn’t taking sitting in front of a TV for hours and hour to figure out the same old tired plots! All it takes is watching one or two movies the rest well are pretty much the same!





The idea that evolution played a large role in the way our minds work seems pretty indisputable.

Played a role? Are we not still evolving? Did “Simon” say stop already and I was too distracted to hear?





many mental traits are passed down from parents to children, ADD being just one of them.

Some times our parents pass down “traits” directly by environmental influences i.e. they taught us. But which is what here???? Kind of like trying to pick black out of pepper?





Human populations are remarkably genetically homogenous, so once a certain level of population density is reached I suspect the average is preserved.

Not entirely though I just watched a special on KLRU out public broad casting network. The same genetic “mess-up” that prevent plague survivors from being susceptible to the plague is preventing their decedents from being susceptible to the AIDS virus so one little genetic mutation can make a huge difference in survival. I think it was called DAT35..could be wrong on the name though. When world population were studied for this genetic anomaly only people in Europe and the US had in populations in India, Asia, did not have it at all!


How is it I started this above and find this is said already, down here at the end???



and play theorize on the consequences of a model for ADD as exclusively 'learnt' :-) ... ... ... this line of thought will slam us into 'evolutionary psychology' ... I wager [and I don't gamble :-)].

Okay??? This would be most difficult for my non-ADD mother to do would it not? I was bounced about a lot growing up but for the most part my mother did most of my rearing? What age group would be most susceptible to this learning of ADD and who taught me to bounce, wiggle and move all over the place?? My mom did her best to teach me how to sit down and shut up……okay in school and Church…well school any way…..my wiggling got us both out of church early….…Now the sit down and shut up lesson took very poorly………… as you can tell. :o





if we examine 'culture' in our present context (i.e. human culture) ... then mightn't it be seen as the human equivalent of 'bacterial culture' (apologies for the play with words).

I enjoyed it….got any antibiotic ideas?





ADD may be suppressed by environments which suppress mind.

Okay I will buy that?




Conformity or at its extreme living life to protocol suppresses the need for free thought.
No 'free thought' ... No mind ... No ADD.

Okay this may have a partial answer to my previous question about the teaching thing…..my mom taught us to think for our selves she encouraged us to think up our own original solutions to problems……by refusing to give answers until the attempt was made by her off spring……. She used to say:

“When I drop dead who’s gonna do the thinking for you if you don’t learn to use your own brain……”

so she has some real interesting children! We do tend to be a bit different like radically odd- No social molds here -lol ---sorry “it” is contagious! Apparently I have a genetic susceptibility!

Mead, There is genetic variation in humanity, but it's remarkably small. No more than 63 million base pairs or so out of God knows how many billions from one person to the next. That's about .02 % difference on the outside from person to person. Molecular biologists (I think that's what they call themselves or maybe it's molecular anthropologists....?) Believe that modern humans went through a population bottleneck between forty and eighty thousand years ago in which no more than 250 - 2000 or so of us survived and that ever person alive today is descended from them. Hence our remarkable lack of variation compared to say chimps. The genetic diversity between to small neighboring groups of chimps (we're talking a handful of individuals here) dwarfs that of the six billion or so humans on earth.

I tend to go big picture on things. :-) Haplotypes that occur in various geographic regions (like blood types or immunotypes for instance) represent both random drift and neutral changes on the whole and adaptive changes specific to a given environment (like the sickle cell trait in malaria hotspots as another example), represent a rather fractional change. It doesn't take much genetic difference to create significant functional variation in things like the immune system or even appearance in general.

SB, Culture is not always an environment in which we can thrive. In fact cultures can be quite bad for individuals and as long as they are effective for the whole group may survive for quite some time. The rules are a little different with them. Modern american culture, for example, has a good many destructive elements. Given a static environment culture would probably come to more closely effect biological tendencies, etc in our species. However it moves so quickly and some of the changes are so profound that this has yet to happen.

SB, I think ADD simply falls on one end of the curve for normal nuerological variations in humans. On the other end of the curve, where those I might think of as terminally boring dwell is a fundamentally different functionality with more or less identical hardware. I don't think these people are "Less" when it comes to thinking or conceptualizing. Being linear may reduce the speed at which bursts of creativity or problem solving occur, but it doesn't eliminate them by any means and clearly it has some advantages because it's been heavily selected for to even still be here.

One recent theory about human social development posits that we are taking a social approach similar to ants, but in which each individual component is far more flexible physically and behaviorally. What if people like E.O. Wilson are more right than they know and these variations in brain function are actually limited specializations? That would mean we are, ideally, interdependent with our differently wired bretheren.

There is already strong evidence that a form of this sort of developmental and neurological division of labor occured between dogs and humans. Initally it was more a symbiotic relationship than a domestication. Both human and dog brains changed substantially as a result. Dogs getting a ten to 30 percent frontal lobe shrinkage (because frontal lobes are a human specialty) and a ten percent mid brain shrinkage for humans because dogs were taking up the heavy sensory lifting for us. If there is anything to this hypothesis and so far the evidence is VERY suggestive, why not some neurological specialization in humans? Especially since we are the only animal on the planet that surpasses social insects in the complexity of how we do business. We're like a hybird of a superorganism and an individual. Being that this specialization became possible around the same time, probably just a bit later, than the thing with dogs (due largely to spoken language and the advent of true human culture) the adaptations for specialization would seem to have to be primarily nuerological. As that would have the most impact in such an arrangement.

I bring all these ideas together from disparate places and expand on some like E.O. Wilson's to explain things like ADD. To my knowledge this isn't something anyone else is suggesting, talking about or testing. It seems like a pretty cool thought to me and one worthy of investigation.

Crap. And here I am not even a scientist. man I need a change of venue. ;-)

See this is what the ADD folks are good at! We need the linear methodical types to keep us on track and also to iron out all the little details we prefer to overlook. This idea makes real sense to me.

SB, you're a scientist, find the flaws in that idea and tell me it's crap. or barring that do that science thing of yours and INVESTIGATE!

Just buy me a soda if you win the nobel prize. :-)

Nobels to *you* :-) ... the idea is all that's important.
As far as I'm concerned, at least.
The bit where the idea is demonstrated using the scientific method has, for a while, been 'bugging' me ... I fear we're moving into realms of science where the method is taking precedence over the idea.
Really ... no matter how many scientists tell you the otherwise, the idea is the all important part ... the fun bit, the bit which precedes the drudgery of formulating that idea into a publication ... trust me though, the process is more like formatting than formulating.
And you are a scientist ... don't let anyone tell you anything else.
A rational thought process, eagerness to answer a question, interest in educating others, overwhelming interest ... all traits which the scientist should have, which most scientists don't and which back up my suggestion that you are a scientist, because you demonstrate all of these traits.
Imagination is the clue, and imagination you have.

So - your idea on dogs and us, I believe are correct.
I don't have any problems with your ideas ...:-)... not in the least.

But if we can play with them ... and see where they lead :-)

... doggy leads :-)))

Why would we throw out the bit of our mind/brain that doggy could shoulder?
Is it because of the overwhelming advantages that thought bestowed on us? I don't think that this is the reason.
I think that there's another reason why this process occurred.
The clue in on my take on these shifts in modular functionality of the mind/brain reflect the drive for modular recruitment (in man's case) - modules capable of recruitment by subconscious and conscious processes related to thought.
As such, sensory awareness of the environment is part of the affector and not effector system ... thought has no capacity to drive current through affector mechanisms ... only intermediate and effector outputs ... so the next question might be
... ... 'so why is there an advantage in 'overclocking' the brain/mind?'

~Good question~
:-)))

Man as individual and component of superorganism.
How about man as component of superorganism, alone?

The idea of a collective consciousness has been mentioned on the forum multiple times over. The last time that I spied collective consciousness, I think, was by Sosninity, and before that, I believe by Nova.
Might this idea (a 'virtual' analogue of the superorganism in man) be our equivalent of the insect world's 'physical' world superorganism?

Such easy questions :-) ... :-) ... :-)

SB.

I'm not sure I believe in a collective consciousness. I believe that individual ideas can propogate through populations thanks to culture but I don't believe that culture itself has any reality or "consciousness" beyond the reality we give it and beyond our consciousness of it.

However, if there are testable questions we should by all means test them and learn what we can. Even if I don't like the answers right off the bat, they're sure to grow on me. :-)

"……to use your own brain……” The question which you answered :-) ... it's the awakening associated with opening one's eyes to internal reality ... :-) ... or rrreality as *façade*.
The awakening pushes us offa' the game playing surface, looking over the game with the question ... big letters ... big font
'w-h-y???'
:-)

'...but ...whyyy???' perhaps describes my default thought in most, any and all given situations.

Followed closely by ...
'why oh y ohhh! y ohhh!!! *y*!!!...!!!...???...???...???...'

:-)

Many of the pastimes, worries, drives which we impose upon ourselves seem overblown and quite unimportant from the vantage point of spectator.

The partial reason for making this observation relates to your other thread (EB), and particularly the feeling of kinda' knowing that your place isn't where you are ... counterbalanced by the inertia of change.
The feelings of seeking change possibly reflect a deeper dissatisfaction between your self (perhaps morality) and your career.
It's part of the awakening ... I felt the change when I dropped medical school ... rather freakily ... I couldn't accept the loss which accompanied becoming a doctor ... seems strange placing medicine into the pot of paths which 'contravene personal morality' ... but there you have it ... ... ...
---the loss relates to the more restricted rrreality which one must inhabit to function in that environment.

All of this relates to the idea of 'no free thought, no mind, no ADD'.

To be clear, I am stating that with a career in the armed forces, medicine, religion ... any Institution that requires a mindset and application of that mindset in life ... any career predicated on restricting freedom of thought will suppress ADD ... and if ADD does emerge in these environments ... the effect is noticeable ... profound dissatisfaction of the individual, but not through notion of personal disorder or disorder within ... instead more indicative of disorder without.
Therein lies the oft-repeated statement here of ADD as disorder *in current society*.

:-)

SB.

Played a role? Are we not still evolving? Did “Simon” say stop already and I was too distracted to hear?Some would argue that we are not in fact evolving anymore, or at least are evolving more slowly in a direction that is not necessarily beneficial. With industrialization and modern medecine, the pressures of natural selection have virtually disappeared for people in developed countries. Natural selection requires that first, a large portion of the population does not reproduce because of unfitness, and second, that the most fit people have the most children. Neither of these seems to be the case.
Some times our parents pass down “traits” directly by environmental influences i.e. they taught us. But which is what here???? Kind of like trying to pick black out of pepper?A lot of times they try and determine this by comparing identical twins to fraternal twins. Both grow up in a very similar environment and had the same effects on them of maternal hormones. If there is a significant difference between identical and fraternal twin pairs, the difference is assumed to be genetic.

E-boy, the dog thing seems to make sense, especially since dogs occur in nearly every human culture. It would probably be a result of people stopping doing what dogs could do much better, (tracking animals and noticing things in their surroundings) and dogs stopping doing what people could do much better (organizing and leading the group). They already know that sections of the brain that are used less will take on new functions, so genetic evolution wouldn't even have to be happening.

I find it interesting how when a new type of job arises, a subset of the population will take on that job and be very good at it, like auto mechanics and computer programmers. It's not like there is a gene for being good at computer programming, it's that a subset of the population has the required characteristics for being particularly good at that job, even though it hasn't been invented yet.

Tying Agape - or Philia->Eros->Agape into Evolutionary Psychology -
Is there a possibility that these three 'states' arose temporally through evolution?

... philia akin to 'asexual reproduction', Eros to 'sexual reproduction' intertwined with physical pleasure and Agape as 'sexual reproduction' divorced from physical pleasure and in its place, pleasure through satisfaction on a non-physical, intellectual, cerebral 'divorced from animal pleasure' rrreality.

So why mention all of this?

How about a fundamentally different model (there's plenty out about it and a Nobel or two who've their Nobels because of it) ... but a 'protein-first hypothesis', which relegates DNA into blue-print and nothing more.

So ... what's the big deal?

Simply, that we should perhaps be viewing evolution as the integration of 'functionalities' from lower organisms, and not the collection of genes which together associate to form that functionality.

OK -- so example ... ancient gene 1 -> function 1 -> organism 1.
ancient gene 1 -> function 2 -> organism 2 (evolutionary descendant of organism 1).
ancient gene 1 -> function X -> organism 3 (evolutionary descendant of organism 2).

Is X = 1 or 2 OR 1 and 2? ... maybe even 3??? ... or 1 and 2 and 3?

Of course function 1,2 and 3 may be the same ... but similarly the idea of orthologue - paralogue - homologue defines a picture of alterations in functionality (with evolution) from a common derivation.

I don't really want an answer to that question, instead I'd like to ask whether the behavioural components of man exposing the existence of
Philia Eros Agape, may be understood using this model of inheritance of 'functionality'? and *not* gene.
-IE-...that behaviour of higher evolutionary organisms contains components of legacy functionalities. Legacy functionalities geared at some end-point, which may be attained by other 'better' means through other mechanisms by that more complex life-form.
Complexity may be viewed as gene number, but it seems as though complexity is increasingly being viewed as interconnections between nodes in networks, and not simply by development of increased numbers of *isolated* nets.
Herein lies a link into T&Ks' ideas of the shift in logical structure of the mind.

Evolution of man by evolution of the logical structure of the mind towards a more efficient, more highly cross-linked structure allowing us the capacity of potentially fitting more into less :-)

If man is a composite of organism 3, 2 and 1 above (and contains the network components for function 1, 2 and X(3)) --- Is there any chance that the purpose of functions 1,2 and 3 (in the case of love - procreation) - might co-exist, retained without any mechanism for deletion?

Here's the general idea ... evolution in a rhyme :-)

There was an old lady who swallowed a cow.
I don't know how she swallowed a cow!
She swallowed the cow to catch the goat...
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog...
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat...
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird ...
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wriggled and jiggled and wiggled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I dunno why she swallowed that fly
Perhaps she'll die.

Finally - examine ATP ... it's the fundamental molecule of life (energy) the original 'engine' ... the driver ... releasing energy in the transition between ATP -> ADP ... and ATP is also one of the four bases ... the A of A,G,C,T ... therein lies the clue.

Life, I believe can be understood from the perspective of energy conversion (light) in the case of photosynthesis of ADP -> ATP.

So ... ocurring 4 billion years ago - blue-green algae, stomatolites, photosynthesis, cyanobacteria ...

Life force --- the inexorable drive to survive must be similar to the movement of water downwards, or of the poles of a magnet towards one another --- that is, explained from the perspective of an 'energetically' favourable process.

Our inexorable drive to survive must be tied into the laws of physical RRReality --- because at least from the perspective of life ... it's an absolute.

That the original engine was perhaps the biochemical reaction of conversion of ADP (+ light) to ATP on some external substrate, which perhaps went on to involve amino acid organic constructs (pre-cell) as adjuvant, and which ensured its own survival by ---thereafter--- forming a method for replication using its limited chemical toolbox ... from which ATP appears ... the simplest of the bases

-> the pyrimidine whose importance is echoed elsewhere ... since unlike its fellow pyrimidine (T) ... mRNA is not allowed to chemically modify its structure (mRNA has U and not T) ... and also the terminator of mRNA is a polyA signal ... followed by a large tract of AAAAAAAAAAAAAAs ... which protect the first instantiation (mRNA) of DNA immediately prior to protein synthesis.

All in all ... "A" rocks ... :-)

Surely the only reasonable driver for life must be a process, which at its heart is energetically favourable.

The drive to live, the urge for organisms to propagate must condense down to basic energetics. And the energetics argument should translate into some mechanism or machinery, which must convert energy from 1 form into another ... which thereby has the mechanism to power its own proliferation.

Life force as such ... should be reducible, shouldn't it?

From this argument comes a functional perspective over evolution whereby perhaps we can answer the question of why life 'wants' to live ... and why evolution drives us towards ever greater levels of complexity.

Why didn't life stall in evolution at a handful of relatively robust simple single-celled life forms?

The reason for the drive to complexity will surely be applicable at each stage of evolution of complexity which separates the pre-stomatolite ... from the ADDer on ADDforums.

Surely evolutionary psychology will dove-tail with these ideas ... I'm sure of it :-) ... maybe ... :-)
Evolutionary psychology must be some attempt to define how we ended up in this mindful place from that simpler mindless place in time ... if that's what is sought ... we're going to need to work out the fundamental driver of life ...

... for starters :-)))

SB.

'so why is there an advantage in 'overclocking' the brain/mind?'...we're going to need to work out the fundamental driver of life... Dear Prudence, won't you come out to play ...?...

~WhoWhatWhereWhy is at the wheel of life?~

SB.

That flies right in the face of RNA first theories. It's looking more and more likely in biological circles that viruses aren't just interesting "side effects" of the way life works. They have, apparently and very much like many multicellular parasites, gotten less complex in the course of adapting to our presence, which it now looks as though they are responsible for. MiMi virus, for example is HUGE. Bigger than some bacteria, and it's genetic material contains most of what a cell nucleus needs to function. Why? The why they are now looking at is the possibility that our cell nucleus's started out as a virus that settled into a symbiotic relationship with a simple cell. Later viruses would adapt to prey on such chimeras. Going further back into primitive viruses they use RNA. Life everywhere may have started out with RNA.

SB Blue print is a rather messily deterministic way of looking at DNA when you yourself make a point of saying genes are heavily environmentally influenced. I prefer thinking of it as a mathmatical formula waiting for the variables to be "plugged in". And yes I am being nitpicky, but only in good fun. :p

Life force as such ... should be reducible, shouldn't it?


I prefer thinking of it as a mathmatical formula waiting for the variables to be "plugged in". And yes I am being nitpicky, but only in good fun.

Mathmatical....mirror mathmatical......tsuj sekat elttil aixelsyd

Some would argue that we are not in fact evolving anymore, or at least are evolving more slowly in a direction that is not necessarily beneficial.

Some??? Upon what basis are these ideas derived. Would like to request for expansion, especially “not necessarily beneficial”?


Exactly what does mutation or evolution entail, who determines beneficial from not so.. We are under some impression that this evolution must take some hundred thousand years….

I shall admit my dyslexic math suggestion my be a bit confusing to those who are not so “enhanced” here is a person who may be able to explain it differently..Mean while I have finally found the spell checker on this lender lap top connection to the internet.


Better explination of the above post (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm)


Quote***
The Frame Shift is not a mild mutation. It is HUGE. We still have a 3-letter string, but each letter is different. Shifting the reading frame one digit gives us three NEW characters: q (1110001), 2 (0110010), and r (1110010).
This particular Frame Shift scrambles the perfectly fine word "bed" into the unintelligible, meaningless word "q2r." In this case, the Frame Shift is not only a drastic mutation, but has completely altered the meaning of the word "bed." In this case, at least, information has been "lost"or "degraded," just as creationists say will happen ALL THE TIME - EVERY TIME.
And that's where they are wrong. While most Frame-Shift mutations do indeed scramble meanings and degrade information, not all of them do so.
Here's an example of a frame shift creating information: here, the word "gas" is coded as g (1100111) + a (1100001) + s (1110011). When we apply a Left Frame Shift to the long code for "gas," we do NOT end up with a meaningless phrase such as "q2r." In THIS case, we end up with a new, meaningful word: spy.
Frame Shift mutation process has created new information. It's important to note that context really means something as regards interpretation of these words. For example, if the word "luz" was generated, that would mean nothing in English, but it means "light" in Spanish. Without a common language and culture, words won't mean anything! It's different with DNA, because the "context" in which DNA strands are interpreted is the world of chemical reactions. The "meaning" of novel strands of DNA lies in how these strands are transcribed, what the new proteins look like, and (most importantly!) how the proteins react with other molecules, perhaps even affecting the organism's lifestyle.
Now, let's get back to Biology, and the case of the bacterium which has evolved the capability of ingesting nylon waste (see Kino****a et. al.). This case is most interesting. Nylon didn't exist before 1935, and neither did this organism.
Detailed examination of the DNA sequences of the original bacterium and of the nylon-ingesting version show identical versions in the gene for a key metabolic enzyme, with only one difference in over 400 nucleotides. However, this single microevolutionary addition of a single thymine ('T') nucleotide caused the new bacterium's enzyme to be composed of a completely novel sequence of amino acids, via the mechanism of frame shifting. The new enzyme is 50 times less efficient than its precursor, as would be expected for a new structure which has not had time to be polished by natural selection
End Quote***





From this argument comes a functional perspective over evolution whereby perhaps we can answer the question of why life 'wants' to live ... and why evolution drives us towards ever greater levels of complexity.

To reach as far as our minds will allow……however every thing seems to have this drive mutation bacteria, to wild animals to H.Sapians when healthy all share the desire to live and find ways to do so most efficiently……complexity seem to provide this efficiently and effectiveness.





I fear we're moving into realms of science where the method is taking precedence over the idea.

Redundancy loop…….over end over and over……..






I'm not sure I believe in a collective consciousness. I believe that individual ideas can propagate through populations thanks to culture but I don't believe that culture itself has any reality or "consciousness" beyond the reality we give it and beyond our consciousness of it.



An idea propagating through population is right in line with believing that mutation making the digestion of nylon must take tens of thousands of years and equally understandable… ....I am not too sure either.....don't want to be any way..........however some things merely are as they are….. Patterning does not take a social scale…. Neither does acquiring a specified state of mind which is similar to others……or ways of using the mind. These things are teachable and learnable to a certain extent......the behind the scenses is what is most difficult to evolve........

Kind of like this is how I understand it.......

In the same way one reads my idea which IS MERELY conveyed by a bunch of magnetic signatures representing a bunch of arbitrary lines and curves placed in a predetermined order(my words on your computer screen) …… thus my idea goes from my mind and is presented to yours to accept or reject…. You in turn will repeat this process … although it works it is rather inefficient………however it a basic out line to shared consciousness…….the same but different possible by dyslexic math……explained above.

Hope this makes sense to some extent!

That's a pretty cool way of putting it.

I write to you and you write to me.
The closer we approach an understanding of one another - the closer we approach a shared consciousness.
This idea shouldn't be confused with language of exchange.
Write 'the man pats the dog' in Swahili and I won't understand - straight off ... however restricting ourselves to English .... the closer we become able to communicate on the most abstruse of abstract concepts ... the closer we approach a shared consciousness.

My thought pattern replicates within your mind, and v.v.

I believe that ADD facilitates this form of 'shared consciousness' ... that this form of shared consciousness may translate into collective consciousness ... given the removal of impediments in communication between one and all ... and that ADD facilitates shared, collective consciousness ... much moreso than nonADD thought which suffers from a seeming advantage, which is anything but --- the capacity to circumvent internal consistency.

How so? The metalevel. Cheeky little metalevel --- so good and yet so bad :-) !!!

Oi vey!!!

SB.

…however every thing seems to have this drive mutation bacteria, to wild animals to H.Sapians when healthy all share the desire to live and find ways to do so most efficiently ~why?~what is desire?~
……complexity seem to provide this efficiently and effectiveness. ~how?~what does complexity provide?~

:-)

SB.

And who exactly am I?
No ... *really* --- I've gone and forgotten again.

Oi vey!!!

This idea shouldn't be confused with language of exchange.

I merely used a model that all reading could relate, for explanation of how thought exchange is already happening….using the unfamiliar won’t help to explain any thing…….not all are able to recognize “unfamiliar format” must use familiar one! Magnetic lines and curse, in predetermined pattern representing thought eeenergies.





Write 'the man pats the dog' in Swahili and I won't understand - straight off ... however restricting ourselves to English

However you can tell by mere observation without the need for language.

I attended a Hispanic service which was all in Spanish…everyone but me spoke spanish...… discovered where the bathroom was located by watching the small child in front of me…………… the “pee-pee” dance transcends all language barriers! :p




I believe that ADD facilitates this form of 'shared consciousness'

Lack of boundary isolation or categorization … while maintaining the ability to relate…or empathize…… the same way I found the rest room in a place where no one spoke English!




How so? The metalevel. Cheeky little metalevel --- so good and yet so bad :-) !!!

Well they did fail to pass out code books(perhaps they got lost sitting next to the car keys :rolleyes: ) however this form of communicating can be like sailing in uncharted waters…..it has it’s ups and downs……. But I do like a good adventure! :D




~why?~what is desire?~

Theories is all I got here but the most obvious is

The desire to NOT die!! :faint:


Living has known factors, not all is known however we know more about living from the moment we are born than we do about dieing because that hasn’t happened…. Well not to me…………………

(Pause for effects)

Yet-lol

Are we not more attracted to that which we know than that which we do not know??? We know more about living via experience……





~how?~what does complexity provide?~

Diversity….collective consciousness in order to be successful would have to be similar patterning with respect for the individual. Although parodoxal on the surface it is logical in undercurrent.


I can maneuver my thinking pattern to match another’s without having to change my self as a person….like I can see the front of a building and the top of a building without having to change the building.

Like one can speak English without having to forget how to speak Spanish..




And who exactly am I?

You are as you should be! Uniquely you! ;) Some one who’s presence I rather enjoy, you are interesting (even when you feel,,,,otherwise)




No ... *really* --- I've gone and forgotten again.

Man, I hate it when that happens-lol*~* One way to ditch old baggage is to loose it from time to time***

I've ALWAYS been multi-dimensional through my reality. I made cultures in grammar school. It was clear that we could easily be bacteria in the step up. geezz. 3D is an instance in time. I include that dimension in my mindedness.
I've been all over. Do I "know" anymore now? Yes, everything from then until now. Big whup. Except for those weak brain cells I've blasted.

This thread was absolutely relieving to read through, these last two pages in particular embellished my thoughts exactly, maybe exactly, close enough. If I fall into Chicagoese it's because I feel outclassed.

"Mi Mi"
'pee pee'
-Swahili-
Oiveee!!!

For sure :-) RNA preceding DNA ... I checked with the guy that put MiMi into the public domain ... and he mentioned that he was rather taken aback by its peculiarly large genome.

He sent me a ranking (based on genomic bp) and 'fershure' --- MiMi is rather a big chap ... and will slot into place, exactly as you suggest ... however, I think we need to go even further back ... pre-viral or -bacterial ... :-)

I think that perhaps the proton pump and sodium pump (ATPases) are going to need to be given a once or twice over ...soon... a bit like riding a llama, the 'push-me pull-you', a 'push-me pull-you' approach to pushing Newton's third symphony into life.

The Na+ pump (external cell membrane) and proton pump (mitochondrial cell membrane), are conspicuous for their co-operation in the neurone ... a push-me pull-you ... ATP generated by the mitochondrion and used by its parent neurone in neurotransmission.

I guess the attempt here is of a sketch of an image of the *actual* mechanistic drive for life to live, desire, complexity, ~evolutionary psychology~ ... and in this (arbitrarily chosen) particular example ... ... ... of enhanced neural functioning, driven through the energetically favourable essence ... by the push-me pull-you of ATP->ADP->ATP.

I believe that the clever science dudes will discover at some point in the near future that 'life-force' is reducible to this phos./dephos. cycle ... using this kinda' idea ... the 'life-force' will be higher (quantifiably so) in more complex multicellular life, and that organisms with brains will be driven to use them ...the energetics of evolution... thereby ... the pre-Cambrian worm becomes post-Modern man
... Homo sapiens subsp. neosapiens
... (aka ADDer)
... aka E-boy :-)

ADDer as the expression of the
~energetically-driven~ evolutionary
~energetically-driven~ desire
...to generate an...
~energetically-driven~ *always-on* mind

... ... ... the race-car brain of the ADDer in focus, despite its speedy disappearance into the sunset ... ... ... :-)

SB.

And an ------*always-on*------ mind needs to think ... and what do all thinkers have in common from 'le penseur' (http://www.musee-rodin.fr/images/imagra/S788.jpg) de Rodin to Rembrandt's 'meditation' (included because of its closeness to Lautrec).
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/BRGPOD/15968%7EPhilosopher-in-Meditation-1632-Posters.jpg
What has man pondered since pondificating our evolutionary escape from pond-life?

That'd be 'w-h-y?' ... 'why, what?' ... 'why, what *---exactly---*?'

The drive is to *~think~* - and what better a substrate for thought than the seemingly unanswerable 'w-h-y???' ... we're driven ... we're driven ... let me see ... how about, we're driven ... ---
... my favourite phrase ... 'we are defined by a motivation to explore rRrRrReality' ... --- :-) ... and the reversible equilibrium ADP-><-ATP is at the wheel of this drive, and is the motivation for life, evolution and the mind.

... maybe
... :-)

...evolutionary psychology 'ADDforums-styli'...

SB.

The irony is that we've everything 'sdrawkcab' and this idea extends into many areas.

The driver is driven, and the driven drives.

We aren't driven to find the meaning of life (by thinking).
We're driven to think (and the meaning of life provides a more than satisfying ... perhaps the most satisfying arena for the thought-hungry multi-threaded ADDermind).

'rrroaRRR' ...:-)... the greater multi-headed ADDerfreak wraithing in current society.

Perhaps that's why the ADDer comes alive when 'consciousness' meets 'quantum mechanics' ... rich environments for the cultivation of thought, the contemporaneous 'carbon source and fried potatoes' of early life ... but what of the 'rest' on our table ... nah!!! ... forget them, wrap them up in your chequed table cloth, tie a knot and throw it out ... the rest is plain 'ole cold and lumpy ... the rest is just 'gravy' :-)

SB.

And armed with the knowledge that this is the driver for mind in our most recent evolutionary form of post-post-Modern neo-renaissance man ... everything changes.

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. Imagine how deeply a fundamental (but unrecognized drive) might extend into the fabric of society.
Imagine if we might understand the last 5,000 years from this newfound perspective.

Look around ... it's everwhere from the founding fathers of America to the founding fathers of any sketch of morality; what follows, sadly, is man subverting higher systems of morality into inflexible codification [a process also understandable from the perspective of 'evolutionary psychology' :-)] ... however, that aside, that ...

...the recognition of our drive to free thought, to free-thought, is the single most important idea that I know of ... everything changes when the consequences of this single idea embeds and permeates, enriching our neuronal microcosms with icy cool hope.

I can even hear the cubes of ice clinking against one another when I sway
... ADD sway or the Hadean highway???
... :-) ... 'the road to Hades is paved with melted ice-cubes'

SB.

Hadean (http://www.palaeos.com/Hadean/Hadean.htm)


Ohhhh but we were talking about social evolutionary psychology…hmmm but we still are….

Quote***
At the same time, another important series of events began to unfold that led to the formation of sedimentary rocks through the processes of erosion, drift, and accumulation..........

The Greenland sediments include banded iron beds. They contain possibly organic carbon and quite possibly indicate that photosynthetic life had already emerged at that time. The oldest known fossils (from Australia) date from a few hundred million years later.
End Quote***

So we are evolving among the molten stones……
Why is new odd and odd assumed wrong or different inferior???

Smile please (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7nj2c8h902rk7?dsid=2222&dekey=Photosynthesis&sbid=lc08a&linktext=photosynthetic)

Quote***
The Photosynthetic Process
The initial process in photosynthesis is the decomposition of water (H2O) into oxygen, which is released, and hydrogen; direct light is required for this process. The hydrogen and the carbon and oxygen of carbon dioxide (CO2) are then converted into a series of increasingly complex compounds that result finally in a stable organic compound, glucose (C6H12O6), and water. This phase of photosynthesis utilizes stored energy and therefore can proceed in the dark. The simplified equation used to represent this overall process is 6CO2+12H2O+energy=C6H12O6+6O2+6H2O. In general, the results of this process are the reverse of those in respiration, in which carbohydrates are oxidized to release energy, with the production of carbon dioxide and water.

The intermediary reactions before glucose is formed involve several enzymes, which react with the coenzyme ATP (see adenosine triphosphate) to produce various molecules. Studies using radioactive carbon have indicated that among the intermediate products are three-carbon molecules from which acids and amino acids, as well as glucose, are derived. This suggests that fats and proteins are also products of photosynthesis. The main product, glucose, is the fundamental building block of carbohydrates (e.g., sugars, starches, and cellulose). The water-soluble sugars (e.g., sucrose and maltose) are used for immediate energy. The insoluble starches are stored as tiny granules in various parts of the plant—chiefly the leaves, roots (including tubers), and fruits—and can be broken down again when energy is needed. Cellulose is used to build the rigid cell walls that are the principal supporting structure of plants.

Importance of Photosynthesis
Animals and plants both synthesize fats and proteins from carbohydrates; thus glucose is a basic energy source for all living organisms. The oxygen released (with water vapor, in transpiration) as a photosynthetic byproduct, principally of phytoplankton, provides most of the atmospheric oxygen vital to respiration in plants and animals, and animals in turn produce carbon dioxide necessary to plants. Photosynthesis can therefore be considered the ultimate source of life for nearly all plants and animals by providing the source of energy that drives all their metabolic processes.
End Quote***

But this doesn’t explain where why came from……nor does it explain why the thinking man is wearing the emperor’s new clothes….think I got the stepping stones close enough with this one? Do you think I will ever run out of questions….me mum votes no!

I must however digress, beguess or dedress depending on the nature of the thought process…mental mode of mind so to speak….. I feel as if I am more than my metabolism, photosynthesis, ATP…although all process can and some times do take place in the dark……shant go there as this is a family friendly forum…..……how do we metabolize a mind that wants to know why??? From where goes the gestalt arise from molt ashes, rock and photosynthesis, simply sugar, sdraw kcab……I think I got lost in dark mitochondrion………. be came too distracted by screwing in the light bulb…..how many did it take….. sorry my mind went on with out me once again…. Happens some times.


Oh my these happenings are happening again ......... :confused: tis not perposful.....comes natural like.....it was meant to be.

...But this doesn’t explain where why came from……nor does it explain why the thinking man is wearing the emperor’s new clothes…
So something like, ADP basking in the sun ... photon absorbed ... ATP ... drives a wiggle, loses the P to ADP, photon absorbed ... ATP ... cycle cycling.
...in photosynthetic bacteria.

...our 'drive' is ...the 'drive' is ~to cycle faster~...

Now to the brain (any life form ... any cell, I believe can be studied under this paradigm) --- but sticking to brain, neurone, mind and ADD ... elegantly defining the picture that I'd like to paint ... the beauty of neurotransmission ATP->ADP and oxidative phosphorylation (electron transport chain, protomotive force) in the mitochondrion ...loading up on energy required to of the fire neurone... ...

... here ... ATP ... drives depolarization ... loses the P to ADP, drives the proton pump of the mitochondrion to generate ... ATP ... cycle cycling.

The process of depolarization involves sodium ion efflux (driven by ATP), from the cell ... and the process of generation of ATP within the mitochondrion involves H+ (proton) influx into the Matrix).

OK ... so the mitochondrial matrix ... and not that other Matrix ... :-)

Imagine 2 wheels ... the first sodium ions travelling out of the cell and then returning, and the second the proton travelling into the mitochondrion matrix and back out, again.
The first depolarization in neurotransmission, the second ATP synthesis.

Now imagine, the efflux and influx of these 2 ions as 2 connected wheels.
A motobike? :-)

Now imagine that the turning of the one, drives the other
... when one wheel of a motorbike turns, so does the other ... if the bike moves.
So ... imagine the front wheel moving a little, pulling the rear wheel a little, followed by the rear wheel moving a little, pushing the front wheel, in turn, a little.

---> a clockwork mechanism for life ... and where's Ian ... a watchmaker is what we need at this juncture :-) ...

Inject a little acetyl CoA to account for loss of energy ... friction in the metaphor above ... and we have a working model reliant on the principles of energetics alone, for our entire functionality .... though here, in this post --- let's concentrate on the neurone.

The idea generalizes though ...very importantly... ATP is the fuel of life.

The mind therefore becomes (ostensibly) a 'data-driven' engine.

...where why came from… So ... 'why' ... doesn't exist beyond the collective consciousness of human mind ... 'why' is simply the arbitrary definition of a substrate which drives neural function ... 'why' is simply something to drive the data-driven engine of mind which is driven to function at speed ... driven by energetic concerns.

...why the thinking man is wearing the emperor’s new clothes... Imagine a bike which wants to burn up the road at 120 mph ... imagine the difficulty of burning up a road which is closed in places, due to road-works ... now imagine a road which isn't ... which road would the motorbike find most to its liking ...?... :-) ... and reflecting that metaphor back onto mind ... this argument defines 'the thinking man' as incapable of admiring 'the emperor’s new clothes' ... because the thinking man is sitting at the same table as the young boy --- rolling about in perspiration at the sight of the wilted royal sceptre.

:-)

SB.

All of this is kinda' a *really* big deal, I very much feel.

We are the same as all life forms.
The existence of mind was driven by the same concern which drove evolution of multicellularity.
The ADDer is the result of evolutionary change, change driven by the only drive ... the 'energetic principle' ... the only driver of life ... all and any life at any and all stages ... the drive to 'overclock the mind.'

The drive is to become more powerful ... to be as maximally powerful an energetic vessel as we can ... to load up on life-force, to exude the desire for continuation, to drown in the inexorable drive of our life to live ... with as -much- as can be mustered.

The ADDer's mind is overclocked by the emergence of a more efficient logical structure encoding mind, and by shifting up into multiple simultaneous threads of conscious awareness.

The spaced-out ADDer has reason to be ... so much going on 'up there' ... all of it nonlinearly mooshed into an efficient whole which gets us from here to there, without us really fully knowing how ... linearity has left the building.

It's a single idea which changes man's *entire* rrreality scape.

That big ... bigger actually

real big
big as a real big biggered bigalot
maybe even bigger

:-)

SB.

or maybe it's nothing ...

…th(e) model of inheritance of 'functionality'? and *not* gene…
Great point. The only determinant of effect (and therefore selection, by definition) is functionality. Genes just are, with no inherent meaning. But functionality has meaning, which is particularly important to mating in a modern social context.

Functionality comes in two flavors, a little like energy: it can be active (‘kinetic’) or potential, i.e., not presently a factor. Factors originally contributing to potential functionality may not have an effect for generations, but behavior that contributes to ‘stockpiling’ of potentially useful functionality may select despite the long timescale.

If genes didn’t stick around until actively banished, we’d likely be having a completely different discussion. The genetic debris we all carry with us (and pass on) may in some ways be a burden, but it’s also a (perhaps optimally) fertile context for development.

* * * * *

Since meaning has a role in selection in a social context, we can be certain that the basis of the forces of modern selection is defined at least in part logically. Meaning in the social context (indeed, the entire social context) is entirely logical, in a sense ‘virtual’.

The way that logical entities are organized is key to understanding how such forces operate in the same way that the basis of the arrangement of base pairs is central to understanding DNA.

In particular, we see the appearance of two subtly different forms of organization, which gives rise to significant differences in how social interactions proceed. This is certain to affect the outcome of any individual’s efforts to apply the standard mating strategies.

And that represents a direct functional effect on selection…


--T&K

We're driven to think (and the meaning of life provides a more than satisfying ... perhaps the most satisfying arena for the thought-hungry multi-threaded ADDermind)…
Thought-hungry is just the co-selected behavioral driver of the effect that confers the advantage: the better we model our selves in our context, the more likely we are to successfully get our genes into play in the next generation with maximal likelihood of repeating the trick.

So it’s not just good enough to be clever and understand the social context better than the next guy; we need to impart that same cleverness to our children, and hopefully the tendency to seek it independently. It’s even better if we can impart a drive to improve upon the models we give them.

The drive for complexity and completeness (organization in an information context) must select, and naturally some serendipitous behavioral component will co-select. Curiosity is advantageous primarily because of its long-term effect on how highly organized we are, or potentially can be.

And modeling our selves in context ever more accurately is ultimately nothing but modeling the Universe as accurately as possible. Any improvement should select.

It feels right that this is ‘energetically advantageous’ despite the fact that on the surface it seems to contradict the principles of thermodynamics. We haven‘t thought too much about that aspect of this, but there are several popular takes on it.

Certainly organization acts automatically to preserve organization, and concentrating organization at the expense of lower processes (thus maintaining equilibrium) seems to beget even higher concentration.


…But this doesn’t explain where why came from……nor does it explain why the thinking man is wearing the emperor’s new clothes….think I got the stepping stones close enough with this one? Do you think I will ever run out of questions….me mum votes no!
Since we model our universe to interact with it, selection naturally begets ever more inquisitive whys…

:-)
... alone at the restaurant of life.
Seated and after minutes with the menu, asked for his genetic selection.

Animal, vegetable or mineral ... hmmm!!!

'Vegetable and mineral' ... a choice combination.

So - 'sir', 'a virtually perfect', 'a very wise choice indeed', 'a logical choice over genetic selection' ...

...the relieved guy sees his date come in, they eat and live happily ever after.

Evolutionary selection shifts its plane from the physical to the virtual, unsurprisingly accompanying that relatively newly emergent phenomenon which we hold so dear, the emergence of mind, mind as the 'new' DNA ... you heard it here (second :-) ) ...

:-)

SB.

:-)
I agree ... but isn't 'why?' we're driven to ...
"get our genes into play in the next generation" an important question.

It feels (from the cheap seats) that tracking back to that initial impulse will provide the impetus to instantiate all of what followed ...

... definitely (maybe) ... for some reason the hydrolysis of ATP to ADP, and its re-synthesis fills me with an image of Newtons' balls ... and an overactive ADDer mind ... of ...
:-)

silly SB.

why (the thinking) oh!
(inquisitive) why(s) ohhh!
(isn't) why

:-)

SB.

After reading these last several post I am wondering just how inappropriate running around the motel complex wearing my t-shirt and under things would be….I will admit that trying to get my gears grinding at this level made figuring out where to pack those delicate sand dollars we obtained here seem like a much easier task….a context thing I guess.

Trying to sort out my ATP and not confuse it with my STPs minus my dog and private peopless run about does prove a bit challenging…….



So ... 'why' ... doesn't exist beyond the collective consciousness of human mind ... 'why' is simply the arbitrary definition of a substrate which drives neural function ... 'why' is simply something to drive the data-driven engine of mind which is driven to function at speed ... driven by energetic concerns.

You’re saying the wondering of why is the “reason” the brain gives itself for running 120 mph. other wise it would have no reason?

My first response is why???

Does not my canine friend or an orangutan have much the same neuro-firing pattern, after all the sources which by the way were more confusing than your analogy but I got the idea eventually ….. These studies were done in rats some thing about bumping off the two legged kind meant picking the four legged kind….

So dogs, rats, and humans have much the same molecular exchanges….I have seen my dog sit and figure how…like how did this chain get so short??? Then figure out the answer by looking at the tree she had wrapped in around and then proceed to go the opposite direction….she figured out how but in doing the same thing the next day I am gathering my dog never considered the why does the chain get wrapped around the tree…i.e. dog goes in circles…..I probably wonder why more than she does.


I forgot what this was..... (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/19/23/10417)

Quote***
Hypostatizing the story in which he remains his childhood and youth into his very being dampens the effect of the reality monitor and permits the formation of a stable identity, but it also creates an excessive rigidity in the mind as it becomes locked into a narrow set of repeated intentional representations--a frozen persona.
Perhaps what the mind needs to do, as Wordsworth momentarily demonstrates in the cerulean fragment, is to suspend belief in the self and allow the mind to play again, so that the normal reality monitoring can resume. Such a move i