Re: Future evolution of man


"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dgncd5$1rsh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Anthony Cerrato" <tcerrato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
> news:dgkvp8$109f$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "wblakesx" <wblakesx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:dgic4o$1kh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Note that intentionality is a loaded concept, ie we
might
> > use it as a
> >> descriptor, but it carries with it huge values issues
and
> > and
> >> therefore very strong emotional coloration. Once one
sees
> > how very
> >> stong feelings can be directed toward inappropriate
> > objects it becomes
> >> possible to see that there are parallel
> > intectual/emotional processes
> >> and to separte them. "Intentionality" is a meme, a
story
> > we tell
> >> ourselve to help us feel more special, less threatened
in
> > addition to a
> >> declaration of attributes.
> >>
> >> Anyone for taking the road from contents of
conciousness
> > back down to
> >> it's roots in "datum" as a parallel to quantum? I.e. a
> > seemingly
> >> continuous experience reduced to discrete events. Look
to
> > the evolution
> >> of the senses, partic the eye from eyespot... edge
> > receptors, buffering
> >> and so forth.
> >
> > Well-reasoned and nicely put. Whether true, or not, too
> > simplistic, or too philosophical as opposed to
scientific,
> > the answer to the never-ending arguments over
consciousness
> > and putative free will is still, "it is an illusion the
> > human mind creates." This is certainly the case for
those
> > thinkers having strong-deterministic tendencies.
> >
> > I might make one supportive (to me) comment about
"emotional
> > coloration" and "feelings" in general. If E.O. Wilson
has
> > taught us anything, it is that there are many parallels
> > between ant
> > societies and those of many other species in being bound
> > together by an elaborate system of chemical signals.
> >
> > Furthermore, modern brain research has made it clear
that
> > memory and emotions are critically interdependent, and
both,
> > in turn, mediated by the actions of biochemicals; such
> > processes are, arguably, wholly deterministic in
> > nature--cause and effect reactions and responses,
dictated
> > by interaction with local environmental constitution and
> > events, honed through evolution.
> >
> > It is not such a great leap from this to deducing that
all
> > human functioning is similarly deterministic, and thus,
both
> > self-awareness and putative free will are naught but
mental
> > illusions, created perhaps for the reason that, in some
way,
> > they increase species survival fitness.
>
> Human behavior may, in fact, be deterministic, but it
doesn't follow that
> "self-awareness" is a "mental illusion" or that
"self-awareness" should be
> lumped together with "free will."


You are right, I shouldn't have lumped SA in with FW, even
though to me it's obvious that they are intimately
related... certainly, it does not seem to make sense that
one could have FW without SA, "free" will being used in the
usual sense.

>There is the view that "self-awareness"
> arises when a person's behavior is brought under operant
stimulus control of
> other behavior. This, of course, comes about when people
are exposed to the
> necessary discriminative contingencies, and these arise as
cultural
> practices through cultural-level evolution.


I'm afraid I had trouble converting the specialized jargon
here into simple English I can understand--I can guess at
"operant stimulus control of other behavior" sort of, but I
have no idea what any of all that could possibly have to do
with self-awareness, or even exactly with "cultural
practices." Furthermore, ...see below...

> Non-human animals may be made self-aware in a limited way,
and the proof of
> this is the widely used laboratory preparation known as
> "drug-discrimination."

OK, I had to google a short course in "drug-discrimination"
and, if I have the foggiest idea of that (I may not) don't
see it related to being "self-aware"--it seems to be
experiments with drugs where attempts are made to classify
into types the global effects of specific drug
ligands...i.e., being what drugs yield the same inherent
qualitative effects on animals, how they are "perceived" by
animals. But are you saying perception (internal or external
"sensory") is the same as "awareness"...and again, what has
it to do with "self?" Does it mean recognition of drug
effect is like "body awareness" which is SA. I thought the
only even vaguely acceptable test for SA in animals was
"mirror self-recognition" ability? I'm sure I must not be
getting the point here. Regards,
....tonyC



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hi Doug
    ... about bird flu is not that it can be transfered to a few humans working ... If the drugs are OK on animals then why not on humans? ... Herceptin is a massively increased risk of heart failure. ...
    (uk.transport)
  • Re: Gill Langley, come out from under the bed and debate me before the end comes, you filthy coward
    ... on the subject of dangerous and often lethal drugs, ... laboratory animals. ... HUMANITY'S SUICIDE PACT ... mentally-ill* action being the one proposed in June 1990 and ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Hi Doug
    ... medical drugs passed safe on animals. ... Herceptin is a massively increased risk of heart failure. ...
    (uk.transport)
  • Re: Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?
    ... But it's not fair to count his death as ... >>need to do to test drugs. ... These rights don't exist for animals. ... > utilitarian principle underlying medical research, ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: Hi Doug
    ... research before testing on humans or the drug is simply not developed ... medical drugs passed safe on animals. ... Herceptin is a massively increased risk of heart failure. ...
    (uk.transport)