Hey E,
Quick question ... do you have a link to info on 'Consciousness Explained' ... just a one will do ( if you have one --- no worries, if you don't :-) ) ... which specifically describes the structure of the text.

Also ... why does the brain have to get the job done?
Why can't it just chill ... with a beer ... until it keels over?
Squidge.

Sorry E-boy ... not being flippant ... just that the drive that you provide, is of the ...
requirement to complete the job ->driving-> the brain to do it.
But... why bother?
Because it'll die otherwise ... maybe?
But what if you put the brain in a room, with sufficient food for life.

The ultimate attraction for the single Homer Neanderman ... a door in the wall where he receives his food, and an armchair.

Would that be paradise for Homo sapiens?

PS ... Tried to explain the idea of Pinker's divergence from Chomsky :-) ... just did it in my own twisted abstruse way :-) ... sorry :-) !!!

:-)

SB.

SB, Reading material is always welcome. :-)

It is odd how changes in mitochondria can effect the rest of the body in such unusual ways. If you think about it though it can make sense. Inefficient or malfunctioning mitochondria can damage their cells. Perhaps if they were malfunctioning badly enough they could cause all sorts of things.

Lyn Margulis has made such a convincing case of mitochondria as symbionts that it is now accepted. Apparently some other cell organelles could be symbionts as well. In anycase, mitochondria were once free living bacteria.

You wanna hear something REALLY scary???? Based on new discoveries (IN ENGLAND) of certain viruses (specifically the Mimi virus) that are HUMONGOUS (bigger than some bacteria), they are beginning to re-write the "book of life". Viruses are now being looked at as more than just curious side effects of life as a whole and now it is thought they could quite possibly be the ORIGINS of life. The Mimi virus's DNA is almost a full functioning nucleus on it's own. Just add membrane and organelles. Point being that it looks as though most viruses did what most parasites do. They simplified, in fact they are pretty much the ultimate in simplification. But they only really started doing that when fully functioning cells with nucleus's came along. They are now thinking that the basic cell nucleus may have come from a virus similar to the mimi virus that invaded a cell and took up residence.

The story of symbiosis isn't unusual. For every one human cell in your body there are ten bacteria. Many of those bacteria are crucial for proper development and function.

If you want to hear something REALLY eye popping, go check out how much of the genetic material in your average person or animal is of viral origins... WOW! I won't tell, go look. :-)

E,

Thanks and great ... and what I've been searching for, and the meaning underlying:
That's a sincere thanks ...

No jokes, wordplay or any of that ... but I can't promise the moratarium'll hold.

:-)

SB.

OK ... so it's ending ... now!!!
Do you know E-man, Master of the Universe?
Wotcha' mean E-boy is your 'nom de plume'?
:-)

Why bother? Remember we're an animal SB. The drive has nothing to do with us personally, frankly. It's the genes. The genes are the only true replicators in a sexual reproductive system. Genes build us to be the best gene copying machines possible. We don't have to think in evolutionary terms, or be personally driven, for behavioral tendencies the work in the genes favor to exist. You are confusing proximate and ultimate causes. Sex itself is a good example. It's fun, we enjoy it. Why is it fun? Well that's just one of many ways our genes insure they get copied. So the ultimate reasons it is fun is that A) it makes reproduction more likely B) in humans it's bonding behavior too which is why our fertility rates are so low among mammals (Only 24%) (Incidentally this bonding also tends to ensure more successful gene copying). Do people have sex with the explicit intent to copy their genes? Sometimes, but usually we do it because it's immensely pleasant and a wonderful way to express our mutual love and trust. We also do things like use birth control (boy if genes could think they'd be ****ed!). So as you can see proximate causes are different and often times expressed in ways that are at odds with ultimate causes.

At root though, humans are just another animal, and as an animal basically a very sophisticated copying machine for our selfish genes. As nasty as that sounds, it does not preclude us being noble, selfless, or in general a wonderful species. We aren't selfish our genes are. In short, I mean it doesn't make us slaves to our genes, but there is most definitely a heavy biological bias in our behavior whether directly or indirectly. As a consequence we will always have needs and wants and be driven to achieve them. No matter how abstract or unusual those wants and needs are they are all very likely rooted in even more basic wants and needs that we want and need because there is a strong tendency selected for over MILLIONS of years for us to have them.

This is an enormous simplification and sounds awfully deterministic. I suppose it is, frankly, but not in the narrow sense of the word most use.

Culture can seemingly defy biology in many respects. Celibate priests for example. On the whole though culture HAS to be constrained to some degree by biology or it collapses or changes to be more adaptive. In this respect Genes and memes might have some work together room. Add to this that culture is, at root, a biological phenomena. Humans, an animal, are the ones who invented it, after all. Well, perhaps we didn't invent it (other animals have examples of simple culture) but we sure did take the ball and run with it.

None of this interferes with free will as most people think of it. At worst it becomes a case of "close enough". However, it does mean we have to divorce certain concepts from other ones. For example insofar as the legal definition of "Free will" an action has to be "Uncaused". In other words it is to be something that only occured because you made it so upon deciding to do it. If you try to establish an action was "Uncaused" in court and have a nuerologist as your expert witness, you're in trouble. Because insofar as cognitive science goes there ARE NO uncaused actions. Does this mean that there is no free will and criminals shouldn't be punished? HECK NO! It just means that it's far more complicated of a situation than the writers of those laws could have imagined in their day. Their definitions need not change though. We are still accountable for our actions as agents and legally all that needs to change is a recognition of the fact that the court will have to determine to a reasonable doubt whether an action was uncaused in the legal sense and not use medicine to determine something that does not in the medical sense exist.

I guess you could think of our concept of Uncaused action as a sort of emergent concept. You and I can clearly see that we have free will (although a lot less than we think we have, biology truly does constrain us in ways that might shock some of you). We all know the difference between right and wrong. That, is enough to get the job done. :-)

SB, you aren't a mean person. I'm not sure you could be one. So the jokes and what not don't bother me.

I'm trying to find some good links on that Dennet book.

I can tell you this. Dennet's book outlines his theory of how consciousness arises from neuronal function.

He believes at any given time our senses are bombarded with all the information from the environment we can sense and that at any given time dozens or hundreds of competing interpretations are formulated each in it's own way by different parts of the brain and associations create multiple interpretations of exactly what the situation is. Only one of these many interpretations will pass muster as explaining all incoming info the best and that's the one we end up becoming conscious of (all the rest of this stuff occurs unconsciously). Now we are conscious of it in the Objective sense. They are doing quite well in explaining consciousness in this sense from neurological phenomena, but EXPERIENCE of things like the color blue and such things is the HARD question is consciousness. Dennet tries to address this stuff in this book. As a consequence of us only being conscious of one of all those scenarios and that the constant competition through constant environmental changes and fresh inputs produces a string of these "winning interpretations" that appear to us as a continuous narrative, even though they aren't. He calls it his multiple drafts theory of consciousness.

http://www.santafe.edu/~johnson/reviews.dennett.html

Here's a link. They aren't kidding about it being difficult to read. Took me two weeks to get throught that book because I needed to look up so much to understand it.

Whoops!

Because Homer is the nucleus, and Marg is the multiple copy number (often hundreds and hundreds) of small mitochondrial genomes, busily swimming around, making sure that Homer is in pizza :-).

The important point, I guess, is that it's not just number ... it's rate of harnessing of ATP synthase to generate pizza (ATP) for Homer.

How about if prions alter our ideas on evolution, and we see prions as a failed attempt to generate a replicating protein.

The protein matters ... particularly the EMF/PMF of the electron transport chain and proton pump of the ATP synthase complex.

The gene is the genie in the lamp, but the protein is the dude that rubs the
lamp ... and releases the genie.
The genie makes the dude immortal ... but it's about the dude doing the rubbing.

As you know ... SB going anthropomorphological ... is just to aid communication :-)

As I mentioned E ... I'm synthesizing here ... I can't reference these interconnectivities. So ... still an IMotfO ... though, it must be admitted, that it's more of a glide downwards now :-)

I agree with your mitochondrial theory ... but why nerves and muscle, only.

There are many different other cell types ... and though it's a little difficult to list the generic, our last (but one) bio Nobel ... Brenner, told me that he'd call it at 350 cell types.

And yes, our last one grabbed it for the structure of ATP synthase.

I'm bloomin' surrounded with Nobbies :-)

Why not endothelial cells or immune cell disorders related to the mitochondria?

Just rhetorical :-)

So ... let's say we make a real cool machine, and the blueprint for the factory that's going to mass produce the real cool machine ... is DNA.

OK ... so many thanks for the link(s) ... I need a second to link MiMi to the basic neurone (though maybe I don't think I do), and work out Dennet's too :-)

Did I mention ...?... that I believe that we can connect up mitochondria to mycobacterium ... freaky little bacterial dudes which live in the ***nuclei*** of cells ... I know they moved out of the nucleus in eukaryotic cells ... but bear with me .... freakin' freaks of nature seem to always hold answers ... and as an ex-cell biologist, mycoplasma testing is a regular routine task ... which stinks (but not of infected tissue culture fluid).

Unlike normal infections of cells ... it really ain't possible to tell if one's cells have picked up a mycoplasma infection.

OK ... so you've gotta' be there ... think pongy eggs :-) !!!

Now think a virus which passes for a nucleus.

Now think what a virus is ... a kinda not quite a life form ... because it needs some cell to steal a buncha' components off, before it starts up.

So ... think a mycobacterium which needs a nice safe nucleus to live in, but which can generate energy.

The synergy word.

Sorry, did I say ...?... mitochondria (through these eyes) came from mycobacteria.

So place a heck load of myco into viro ... and one has a self-sustaining life form ...

Maybe we can even go backwards into transposon ... or forwards (in evolutionary time) (from the above) ... into what I call hypermitotic (above somewhere in the quagmire of my addled) ---> cancer!

SB.

Cool!

There may be other disorders related to mitochondria malfunction. One theory I read on language origins (it's thought that early modern humans actually took tens of thousands of years before spoken language as we know it cropped up. This idea is under more and more fire because initial dates said spoken language came about during what was then called the "Cultural" explosion in paleolithic europe. The idea being language would explain the sudden leap in sophistication from behaving pretty similarly to neanderthals to paintings beads, and huge leaps in tool sophistication. Unfortunately for them it turns out that advanced tool culture seems to be sporadically distrubuted over a fairly large area of time. There were advanced tool assemblages in africa as long as 90-110 thousand years ago. Later observations seem to confirm that humans only use the capacity to do these things when environmental factors demand it. Which leads to the current idea that whatever non-fossilizable change that occured that made language as we know it possible may have been an exaption waiting for a purpose to make it an adaption. In short, it might well have been as sporadic early on as those pockets of tech. In this theory they said the change necessary to bring the capability about could be as simple as a few base pair substitutions and compared the indirect effect of said mutations to Mutations in mitochondria affecting the human body in odd ways.

As for the mitochondria as bacteria idea? Not mine. Lyn Margulis like I said. Right now she postulates a theory she calls hypersea (the idea being spawned by the huge numbers of symbiotic relations she's found every where she looks) which is sort of a more scientific gaeia hypothesis. Most of her compatriots acknowledge the value of the body of her work but are leery of "Hypersea". They do believe she's provided compelling evidence of mitochondria being symbiotic bacteria.

Prions... Well they are still learning the mechanisms involved with how prions work. Unlike the virus, no one would call a prion even "quasi-living". I think they are more akin to a feed back problem.

Genetics went through what might be called a revolution at the beginning of this century though. Prior to this if it didn't encode a protien it wasn't very important. What they've since learned though is that "Junk" DNA often actually has a purpose. They've known for some time about "Gene editing", but until recently it was considered a fairly rare phenomena. It turns out to be used often by animals and perhaps plants. More so by mammals than other animals, and more so by primates than other mammals and outrageously common in humans among primates. The introns, that have been marginalized until fairly recently in function (which are common in animals to the same degree mentioned above as gene editing, meaning humans have more introns than other animals), turn out to be instrumental in gene editing which allows a single gene to produce multiple protiens instead of just one. On top of this, much of the material we viewed as simple junk before plays a role in telling other genes when to turn on, how, etc... These two factors help explain why when we are so similar genetically to chimps that we are SOOOO different in so many distinctive ways.

Moderator note
 

This is the end of the split

I began answering one of the post and like totally forgot more people would participate if they could see the thread......Nope no ADD moderators around here! :rolleyes:

I understand both they variations illuminate each other. He does biology really well tooooo It was kind of like standing there on the side lines and watching some one whip out a garden hose in the midst of a water balloon fight… :eek: …bet they didn’t see that coming!

I didn’t really understand SB’s analogies fully until I began moderating and had to read long post in short period of time=I had to work…Thread epigenetics was when I rrrealy began understanding because I would simply scan the hole (don’t go there SB) I didn’t analyze my “mind” did it for me…in the back ground…he means to do that so people like me will understand..…When he does his metaphors don’t over analyze “play” then it becomes easy because that is the “level” he is at when he writes it.........all ya gotta do is “be there”……



Perhaps that is what made it easier for me I was not familiar with any!!! I am not gullible by any means I ask lots and lotssssssss of questions…..Stabile and SB answered them. We don’t see identically but then if the view were the same no sense of having any more than one window!!! :D

Different isn’t some to fear but for brain exercise, mind expansion, it is okay not to be like every one else….variations……don’t have to agree with every word=there is room for more than one view ………. We are seeing the same world but some times we are looking out different windows…or forget there is more than the ground floor…..all have to "be" just alike=mistake most make!

The (:connect:connect:connect) takes a bit of time I don’t know for me one day every thing was the same but different….if ya change the inside perspective =attitude= eventually it spills out……I came here looking to explore the world out side my self and my physical confines. So me with bouncy bouncy bouncy ADD on impulse hyper drive took it all in as fast as I could see it! I wished I was “not different” then one day I was different and it was okay…. Then it was a good thing……take another step and your there! Just have fun fun fun, just allow your brain to have a mind of it’s own / / / kind of like unforced meditation it is a natural process. .like fallin off a log :o no problem at all !!!



Consciousness vs. unconsciousness Hmmmmm brain trying to describe itself to itself. Ever tried to describe your self to you???? -->WAIT<-- Harder than ya think to do it objectively=from the outside in! That is what they are trying to do!

Thus my reason for the rant in what is now post #149 about the hurting I felt as a child when I was made to sit still. Ya know it is still like this for me just not as bad! See chemical reactions is one thing experiencing from the inside out another….

I can study men all my life and do all sorts of studies even have a surgery “add a kcid to me” but ( I know-can’t help it) still fail to really know what it is like to be a man from the inside! You make my points so well!



Wow I don’t mind flying don’t have to sit still as long and they serve mixed drinks sense I aint driving!! Trying to talk Gary into going to England next year he like to go, go go some where everywhere, so I pretty well have him saving the air miles!!! I do have anxieties about going like out of the states but hey what is the use of having hyper ADD if I am going to let anxiety stop me……not like sitting still is a viable option!

Anxiety= energy neither created nor destroyed but does change forms…excitement would be a funnier one…but if not careful can go other way around toooooooo!

Perspective does the same way with internal places like attitude! Some times even sees pictures that come from some one else’s mind story telling can’t ya “see” what they are saying, don’t ya know what it’s like, I hear ya!

I could see out back yard from the sky before I ever went there. Gary’s brother owns a plane I told him his stacked of boards and pallets looked like a maze from the sky ..I could “see” it by changing views in my head from the ground!

Today while doing this thread split thing Gary said I was too focused on this computer because of the way I looked glued like mesmerized to the screen…looks can be deceiving I wanted to get through in this life time soooo…

Fragmented no less but I am trying to learn how to read in paragraphs small ones through these fragments of figments takes a lot on tracks from the ole brain! It is faster……

Ya know why don’t ya why we have fragments? Because thoughts are impulses…not a steady stream to inefficient…. …like impulsive should then be a strange way to think?? Does not every one think in impulses weather they realize it or not? Besides impulses are thoughts that are faster than the speed of sight also how I have more than one thought at a time = two things at once multi-tasking…. Multi dimensional ADDers!

Impulsive does not equate without thought I learned that just recently yet I have been practicing all my life! ;)

Which is all kinda' to kinda' say that ...

Okay maybe just maybe I can get the answer that I have obviously misses in other areas.....what does ADD have to do with the "speculation event" I understand parts.... some more than others.

I was thinking about all this stuff today. I remember my grandpa was a very scientific man yet he still believed in premonitions.....apparently some members of my family via my grandpa were known for knowing stuff.

My grandpa told a story about how he and a friend had knocked the "y" key from the type writer. It was loose. My grandpa and friend were looking for the key they had just knocked off. My grandpa said his aunt came from the garden and told them "Jack" (family dog) had eaten the "y"! She didn't know what had happened from the garden no one had time to tell her before she told them. According to him she explained that some times she could "see things" in her mind thus they "y" key!

A day later the fact my grandpa was walking through the back yard and sure enough "evidence" that the dog had eaten the "y" key was apparent in a pile "sweet violets"!

Sense ADD wasn’t an issue back then in the early 1930’s and 40’s who knows if my great-great aunt had ADD! I am not even sure this is even close to this event described by Stabile!