Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

369 views
FRINGE SCIENCE > Is the brain the origin of our consciousness? OR is the brain merely a receiver?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 179 (179 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4

message 1: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments Are most modern scientists correct when they assume consciousness originates in the brain? Or is the brain more of a receiver and consciousness is therefore "non-local"?

I've come across a lot of stories like this article that seem to contradict the idea popular scientific assumptions about consciousness:

A man who lives without 90% of his brain is challenging our concept of 'consciousness' -- http://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who...

"A French man who lives a relatively normal, healthy life - despite missing 90 percent of his brain - is causing scientists to rethink what it is from a biological perspective that makes us conscious."

"Despite decades of research, our understanding of consciousness - being aware of one's existence - is still pretty thin. We know that it's somehow based in the brain, but then how can someone lose the majority of their neurons and still be aware of themselves and their surroundings?"


message 2: by Jim (new)

Jim (jimliedeka) | 565 comments I'm on the receiver side. People in altered states of consciousness, with or without the aid of psychedelics, report similar things. Near death experiences, alien abduction, DMT/Ayahuasca, Mescaline, Psilocybin, fasting, drumming, dancing, meditating, even the right kind of fucking, all these seem to tune people in to another level of consciousness. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend Graham Hancock's Supernatural as a good survey. DMT: The Spirit Molecule and The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross are two others that are pretty enlightening. I've been meaning to check out some of Gordon Wasson's books like the Road to Eleusis and the one about Soma.


message 3: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments Speak of the Devil, I was just about to post this which I think somehow relates:

Harvard Research Team Reveals The SHOCKING ‘Superhuman’ Abilities Of The Tibetan Monks -- http://simplecapacity.com/2016/03/har...

And yeah, I'm 100% on your wavelength regarding all the similarities of experiences worldwide. Also like the works of Hancock a lot - he's a real trailblazer on this subject. I would guess a lot of serious academics follow his output, but wouldn't public admit to that for fear of ridicule...


message 4: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments Also Jim, I had a lot of Out-of-body-experiences (OOBEs) as a teen, all involuntary, which mirror what I've read about Near Death Experiences (NDEs). I think NDEs are like a more powerful version of OOBEs, but there are similarities.

And anyway, if I sensed correctly during those OOBEs, I felt that consciousness is non-local (not local to the body or brain) and therefore the brain is indeed a receiver. Could be wrong about that, but that's what my gut tells me.

A lot of the things you list like Ayahuasca, acid LSD etc, sex, meditation etc (I would add in brain stimulation technologies to that list as well), are all simply ways of breaking down the hold our five senses have over us to induce altered states of consciousness. Scientifically it can even be measured in how we go into less common brainwaves during these experiences.


message 5: by Lance, Group Founder (new)


message 6: by Udai (new)

Udai Yadla (UdaiYadla) | 2 comments Your questions are really intriguing.


message 7: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Crane | 6 comments It is an interesting question - then what is it in the brain that differentiates us from the rest of the species on this planet? Or, can they also tap into this essence of sorts but in a way that we have no understanding as of yet?


message 8: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Norris | 485 comments What if the answer to the question is neither? That due to the brain's makeup, it becomes the easiest way for us to tap into our consciousness...but in reality, not the best way, merely the easiest way........that there are multiple other ways to tap into our consciousness, we just haven't figured out how yet, or don't have the patience to work at them.............kind of like an analogy to how when frustrated, we often turn to anger before any other emotion as it seems to be the emotion scratching the surface, rather than taking a deep breath and tapping into a more productive emotion?

What separates our brain from other species has been much studied by scientists...not just our brain, but the difference between species in general...you should check out some of these studies, J.J, i think you'd find them fascinating :)


message 9: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments Good thoughts, Lisa and J.J. -I wish I knew any answers on this topic, but all I have is more questions!


message 10: by Irene (new)

Irene (RenieMarie) | 66 comments James wrote: "Are most modern scientists correct when they assume consciousness originates in the brain? Or is the brain more of a receiver and consciousness is therefore "non-local"?

I've come across a lot of ..."


He works as a civil servant like myself.


message 11: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments Irene wrote: "He works as a civil servant like myself...."

Who works as a civil servant, Irene?


message 12: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments I recommend deceased author Robert A. Monroe, founder of the Monroe Institute in Virginia, and basically the godfather of CIA/military remote viewing methods (much of which spiralled out of research into out of body experiences and Near Death Experiences).


message 13: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments MIT/Princeton physicist shares his research on the paranormal, remote viewing and reveals the new science of magic (Dr. Claude Swanson's Keynote Address at the Monroe Institute) https://www.goodreads.com/videos/1134...


message 14: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments Jim wrote: "I'm on the receiver side. People in altered states of consciousness, with or without the aid of psychedelics, report similar things. Near death experiences, alien abduction, DMT/Ayahuasca, Mescaline, Psilocybin, fasting, drumming, dancing, meditating, even the right kind of fucking, all these seem to tune people in to another level of consciousness. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend Graham Hancock's Supernatural as a good survey. DMT: The Spirit Molecule and The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross are two others that are pretty enlightening. I've been meaning to check out some of Gordon Wasson's books like the Road to Eleusis and the one about Soma. ..."

In relation to what you wrote above, Jim, here's an excerpt from the Coast to Coast show:

So the answer to divinity must be the magic mushroom?
In the latter half, educator, anthropologist and activist, Jerry B. Brown, Ph.D., talked about evidence for visionary plants being involved in early Christianity, as well as the many health and psychological benefits that psychedelic plants can provide when taken in a controlled or therapeutic setting. Brown and his partner Julie M. Brown visited various churches and abbeys in Europe (such as Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland) to view medieval icons and works of art depicting scenes of the Bible. They discovered that in these works-- paintings, illustrated manuscripts, and stained glass, psychedelic mushrooms and their usage were hidden in plain sight (see related images).

Brown has concluded that psychedelic mushrooms played a role in Jesus' awakening to his divinity and immortality and that this information has been suppressed by the Catholic church. He also spoke about the pioneering work of Gordon Wasson studying mushrooms and ethnobotany, and how different cultures used the plants, including the ancient Hindu (the Vedas spoke of the sacred psychoactive substance Soma), as well as Siberian reindeer herders, who are considered the fathers of shamanism. There is a renaissance currently underway within the health-based compassionate medical model, using psychedelics to treat such conditions as addiction, PTSD, and depression, he added.
https://psychedelicgospels.com/


message 15: by Feliks (last edited Dec 23, 2016 09:57PM) (new)

Feliks (Dzerzhinsky) As I've stated before, I myself don't like jumping to conclusions when presented with any type of 'gee whillikers, this news story really turns science on its head' ...or, 'holy hannah, how can this oddball occurrence possibly be?' type article. Like this story about the French citizen.

I'm just someone with a casual interest in the brain and its workings but I think I've chosen some of the top books on the subject to fill my shelves. Mind, consciousness, brain functionality, literacy, language development. Visual and spatial skills.

I'm pretty sure that all the books I've read on the brain indicate that when part of a brain is injured (or even 'missing'), it frantically re-wires itself (in itself, this is amazing). In other words, parts of the brain that were 'responsible' for other tasks, switch their functionality when faced with any kind of survival crunch. The brain 'fills in gaps for itself', does whatever it needs to do to keep the ship running.

My point is that I would not leap to assume that all our conceptual framework for understanding the mind is somehow wrong when presented with a puzzling case; I would go in the other direction and try to fit the puzzling case to what we already know is proven.


message 16: by Jim (new)

Jim (jimliedeka) | 565 comments We know the brain does two interesting things. One, it acts as a filter on our perceptions. An extreme example is tunnel vision experienced in a time of crisis. It's actually something that happens all the time but hard to notice. Second, it fills in the blanks based on incomplete sensory input.

Those two things suggest there is always some sort of gap between the reality we experience and whatever may or may not exist outside our brains.

Another fun fact, you can induce hallucinations be reducing or eliminating sensory input. On the low end is the Ganzfield effect where you make your visual field uniform, like by covering your eyes with halves of ping pong balls. The high end is sensory deprivation in a flotation tank. The theory behind hallucinations there is that the brain needs input so much that it will generate its own if it can't get any from the environment.

It may be that the brain taps into other "frequencies" rather than produces hallucinations. You might be able to falsify that notion if you could show pattens of brain activity that suggest the brain itself is creating the experiences. I would still argue that we don't know enough to be absolutely sure but understand what Occam's Razor suggests.


message 17: by James, Group Founder (last edited Dec 24, 2016 06:36AM) (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments The involuntary OOBEs (out-of-body experiences) I used to have regularly as a teen (but not anymore) make me believe the human brain is simply a receiver and the driving force of consciousness is non-local. Reason being is while "out of the body" during these experiences I vividly recall my conscious mind was exactly the same as when in the body. While looking down at my sleeping self I could think as usual, even mundane thoughts like what I was going to be doing at school the next day. Admittedly there was also a heightened awareness or perhaps something like a greater wisdom, but at the same time I seemed to be able to double-track mentally during these experiences and also think everyday thoughts.

Now I have since read reports and watched documentaries on those who have had NDEs (near death experiences) where they have been looking down at their close to death selves or even clinically dead selves in hospital or in an ambulance or wherever, and many report their conscious mind and thinking is identical to everyday life. They nearly all report thinking things like concern for family members and other stuff one could think on normal everyday waking consciousness.

This is all obviously subjective to those who have had such experiences, and difficult to relate to for those who haven't. Plus, it's certainly not proof, but I think Western scientists need to study these things more. I feel sure they will in future and what is called "paranormal" and "supernatural" and "mystical" today will probably be replaced by scientific terms tomorrow...

Out-of-body experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-...

Near-death experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-de...


message 18: by Jim (new)

Jim (jimliedeka) | 565 comments I can't remember where I heard this. It was a podcast interview somewhere.

Supposedly people with dementia appear to be more attuned to the other side and less attuned to this one. It's almost as if it's a way of easing the transition at the end of one's life.

Not sure where that fits but it's another data point.


message 19: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 528 comments We have no idea what causes consciousness. As far as I am concerned, anyone who says it is merely chemical actions between neurones misses the point. You can take a dead brain and feed it all the chemicals you like, but there is no consciousness. The problem with consciousness is it is ordered. I sit here and type sentences, not the random rubbish you might expect from basic thermodynamics, where everything should decay to an energy minimum (which happens when you die.) So, what is the controller? As for "out of body" experiences, while I have never had one, there are reports that make them seem true, in as much there is no alternative explanation for what the people reported in advance of external confirmation.

If you believe my guidance wave interpretation of quantum mechanics, for every quantum of action generated in our physical world, there is an equal quantum generated somewhere else (where the wave is oscillating -I favour an additional dimension, but that is a bit speculative) which means that if whatever controls your thoughts while you are alive is also, or really, controlling the other energy field, then when you die it is possible the alternative can continue. I mention that because for me, the physics do not rule it out, but equally they do not confirm it. Possible does not mean "is".
I guess you have to die to find out.


message 20: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments Ian wrote: "We have no idea what causes consciousness. As far as I am concerned, anyone who says it is merely chemical actions between neurones misses the point. You can take a dead brain and feed it all the c..."

Interesting observations, Ian, especially as you are a scientist.


message 21: by Kelly (new)

Kelly Higgins | 77 comments It depends what you mean by 'conscious'. I have also had Out of Body Experiences, but I did not know that is what it was until I spoke to someone. But also as someone who has epilepsy, my experience or view is very likely going to be completely different other people. Before I have a seizure I experience an aura, mine is feeling spacy/light-headed (other people may experience deja vu, smells, see things, hear thing, have focal seizures prior to a grand mal seizure). During this aura I am conscious. I am aware of my surroundings and it is usually the last I will remember that happened before the seizure. Then I will become a bit dazed and my face is blank and at this point I am unconscious. Then I actually have the seizure. When I come out of seizure, I am semi conscious first, then fully conscious. Seizures are actually electrically related to the brain. In reality they can happen to anyone. As long as that person has the main parts of the brain that coordinate ABC's (Airway, Breathing, Circulation) then there is no reason why they can't be conscious.


message 22: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments “I don't believe that consciousness is generated by the brain. I believe that the brain is more of a reciever of consciousness.”
Graham Hancock


message 23: by Angel (new)

Angel The brain is the origin and the receiver of the consciousness. The consciousness is a spiritual nexus and the brain is part of that neural community working together as one.


message 24: by Alex (last edited Jan 14, 2017 12:53PM) (new)

Alex (asato) Angel wrote: "The brain is the origin and the receiver of the consciousness. The consciousness is a spiritual nexus and the brain is part of that neural community working together as one."

a jungian collective (un)conscious?

Ian wrote: "If you believe my guidance wave interpretation of quantum mechanics, for every quantum of action generated in our physical world, there is an equal quantum generated somewhere else (where the wave is oscillating -I favour an additional dimension, but that is a bit speculative) ."

this sounds worth exploring. do you have references?


message 25: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 528 comments Alex, I wrote an ebook on it (and am working on a follow-up) If you are interested I shall send you a copy (free) if you give me an address of where to send it.


message 26: by Alex (new)

Alex (asato) Ian wrote: "Alex, I wrote an ebook on it (and am working on a follow-up) If you are interested I shall send you a copy (free) if you give me an address of where to send it."

oh, this is your Elements of Theory book 3 on an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics, right? i didn't see it on amazon like your first 2 volumes? have you published it somewhere else?


message 27: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments Alex G wrote: "a jungian collective (un)conscious?..."

Is that like the Universal Mind theory, Alex?
Or something different?


message 28: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 528 comments Alex - it is on Amazon. Just to prove it:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GTB8LJ6


message 29: by Alex (last edited Jan 14, 2017 10:40PM) (new)

Alex (asato) Ian wrote: "Alex - it is on Amazon. Just to prove it:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GTB8LJ6"


ah, thanks for the link. i'm reading the sample now. ^_-

i'm interested in this topic because it has to do with the scientific underpinnings for my WIP horror novel.


message 30: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 528 comments Alex, in that case you might be interested in my somewhat speculative blogs on the possibility of life after death, or at least the continuation of the "soul". They are on Wordpress, but again if you are interested I could send pdf copies. I emphasise they don't say there is life after death, but I posted them because it is a summary of some discussions my wife and I had just before she died, and I think in some ways it made things easier for her (even if it were only that I was thinking of her). I posted them in case it helped anyone else while dying.


message 31: by Alex (last edited Jan 15, 2017 11:40AM) (new)

Alex (asato) James wrote: "Alex G wrote: "a jungian collective (un)conscious?..."

Is that like the Universal Mind theory, Alex?
Or something different?"


i'm not familiar with the Universal Mind theory. i was speculating that if we accept Jungian archetypes as real and valid and that Jungian archetypes are one of the manifestations of a collective unconscious, then it could support the concept that one of the functions of the brain is to be a transceiver. however, i don't know enough about these concepts to say whether these archetypes would be passed on in a genetic or a realtime manner.

Ian wrote: "Alex, in that case you might be interested in my somewhat speculative blogs on the possibility of life after death, or at least the continuation of the "soul". They are on Wordpress, but again if y..."

thanks, Ian. I'll PM you. btw, i thought that your book, Guidance Waves An Alternative Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was of sufficient quality to buy, so you don't have send me a PDF.


message 32: by Angel (new)

Angel The comment I made earlier had nothing to do with Carl Jung's theory or whatever. I haven't investigated his thoughts and/or theories on this. I was speaking from personal experience.


message 33: by James, Group Founder (last edited Feb 27, 2017 03:36PM) (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments The Strange Link Between the Human Mind and Quantum Physics http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/201702...

"Nobody understands what consciousness is or how it works. Nobody understands quantum mechanics either. Could that be more than coincidence?"


message 34: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments Here's an update on the French man missing 90% of his brain but functioning just fine...


Man Missing Most Of His Brain Challenges Everything We Thought We Knew About Consciousness http://www.iflscience.com/brain/man-m...

Back in 2007, scientists reported that a French man in his mid-40s had walked into a clinic complaining of a pain in his leg. As a child, he’d had this same problem as a result of the ventricles in his brain filling with cerebrospinal fluid, so the doctors decided to scan his brain to see if this was again causing his limb-related lamentations. To their astonishment, they found that his ventricles had become so swollen with fluid that they’d replaced virtually his entire brain, leaving just a thin cortical layer of neurons.

Yet miraculously, the man was not only fully conscious, but lived a rich and unhindered life, working as a civil servant and living with his wife and two kids, blissfully unaware of the gaping hole in his brain. His ability to function without so many of the key brain regions previously considered vital for consciousness raises some major questions about existing theories regarding how the brain works and the mechanisms underlying our awareness.

For example, neuroscientists have often asserted that a brain region called the thalamus, which relays sensory signals to the cerebral cortex, is indispensable for consciousness. This is because research has indicated that damage to the thalamus often causes people to fall into a coma, while one team of scientists were even able to manually “switch off” an epileptic patient’s consciousness by electrically stimulating this brain region.

Similarly, researchers have shown that it is possible to cause people to lose consciousness by using electrodes to manipulate the activity of a brain region called the claustrum, which receives input from a wide variety of brain areas and communicates extensively with the thalamus.

Clearly, then, the fact that a man was able to maintain consciousness with nothing but a sliver of cortical neurons rains all over the theories put forward by the great many neuroscientists who have sought the origins of consciousness in the structure of the brain. It may, however, add weight to the arguments made by other researchers who claim that brain anatomy is not actually all that vital for consciousness, which instead arises simply via the ways in which neurons communicate with one other.

For instance, a recent study looking into the patterns of neural activity that give rise to thoughts found that neurons rarely send signals to one another by the most direct route when communicating, but instead explore every possible connection and channel, producing a complex and highly improvised impulse. This idea also forms the basis of what Axel Cleeremans has termed the “Radical Plasticity Theory”, which suggests that consciousness arises as a result of the brain continually reflecting on itself in order to “learn” how to become self-aware.

Undoubtedly, though, there are a whole host of questions still to be answered, and the majority of theories regarding the nature of consciousness are yet to be fully developed. On the plus side, at least we know what was making that French guy’s leg hurt.

See full article here: http://www.iflscience.com/brain/man-m...


message 35: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments “My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.”
―Nikola Tesla


message 36: by Jim (new)

Jim (jimliedeka) | 565 comments James wrote: "“My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exist..."

Awesome quote


message 37: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7744 comments What are your thoughts on R. Buckminster Fuller's ideas, Jim?

I wonder if Bucky was equally ahead of his time like Tesla...


message 38: by Mats (last edited Jul 01, 2017 09:24AM) (new)

Mats Hallström Check out this

https://youtu.be/oEKUOaqf1XY?list=PL_...

Wonderful!

I haven´t read the book yeat but I will....
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...


David Daniel Savage | 1 comments Whatever is received - is received from OUTSIDE of consciousness.
If received from WITHIN consciousness it is mere thought.
I think ;)


message 40: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 528 comments I think everyone accepts that the brain generates thought. The questions then are, is the ability to think what is consciousness, and second, is there something guiding this thought process? The issue with the last question is the second law of thermodynamics means that everything should tend towards randomness. The brain consumes a lot of energy from burning glucose, and such directed energy can overrule the entropy factor, so the second law is not overturned, but that raises the question of why is this happening?

The short answer is, we don't know. We don't know whether thinking is a quantum phenomenon. The discharges between synapses that we measure are too big to be quantum phenomena, but we don't know whether they are what causes thinking, or how the brain resets itself after thinking so that it is ready for the next thought. Basically, we seem to be fairly ignorant on this.


message 41: by Tim (last edited Jul 02, 2017 04:50PM) (new)

Tim Rees | 98 comments Ian wrote: "I think everyone accepts that the brain generates thought."

Not so, Ian. In my opinion, thought should be defined as the reasoning of input via the five senses and in addition the cross-referencing of previous data learned from experience, education and theoretical conclusion. To say that the brain generates thought is to suggest that the data processed didn't previously exist. I would argue that all the data existed, but it is viewed and processed from different perspectives dependent upon experience, knowledge and the ability to collate.

We think in language and most if not all life forms appear to do that. Through the sense of sound, language enters our brain in an arrangement of sound and, after processing, we communicate the information gathered via an arrangement of sound. Nothing clever in that. All or most life forms appear to have that ability.

But do other life forms have the ability to cross-reference (collate) all the data as effectively as humans, thus think as clearly? ... This is a question I am currently trying to tackle through my own thought process. The answer appears obvious... And then I consider termites, ants and bees that demonstrate collective "thinking" processes that appear very effective...

But back to humans: in my opinion thought is simply a process whereby we collate "external" information into a coherent language we understand.


message 42: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 528 comments Yes, Tim, of course the body accepts input from the senses, but it is the brain that generates conclusions. Thus you sense that is hot. The conclusion from the brain is, "I must not touch it." Further, animals have brains so the fact they may think does not void my conclusion :-)

The "collective thinking" of certain insects appears to be "hard-wired" instructions to ;leave signals (usually scents) and later follow them. There is no evidence that I know of that ants or bees sit down and have a reasoned discussion, but merely one worker returns, gives a signal, and they all follow their program.

Yes, we collate external information and draw conclusions from it. But the real issue of the discussion is, why do we do that? How did the ability to do this come about when random action is probably more natural. It is true the directed thought is more effective, but how did we come to realise that? What directs our ability to reason?


message 43: by Tim (last edited Jul 02, 2017 05:13PM) (new)

Tim Rees | 98 comments Survival, Ian. Humans were pretty vulnerable in the natural environment and evolved a brain to better cross-reference information to counter that vulnerability, thus that gave rise to creativity. And it is creativity that, in my opinion, sets us apart from other life forms. How effective is our thought process? Only our continued survival can answer that.

Strangely, whilst human thought has given rise to the ability to create, too often that results in the destruction of the environment of "all" life forms (including human). I do not want to undermine human achievements, but we live and exist on a very small planet in a vast universe and appear intent on the planet's destruction rather than preservation. In conclusion, I would offer that humans are very short-sighted and our thought process doesn't collate the "long-term" effectively.


message 44: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 528 comments Agreed that thinking was the mechanism for our survival, but that does not explain why or how it arose. Something like 99% of species on earth have become extinct - why did we think instead of becoming extinct? And what is the mechanism of doing it? We needed to, but that doesn't follow that we would.


message 45: by Tim (last edited Jul 03, 2017 01:42AM) (new)

Tim Rees | 98 comments Ian wrote: why did we think instead of becoming extinct?

Thought is natural to all or most visible life forms. All or most life forms have senses via which they receive data. That data is collated. I have concluded to my own satisfaction that that collation results in a language by which the data is understood. Language is the basis of thought - I believe there are other processes occurring such as reception and transmission, but I'll place that aside for now.

So, in my opinion, all or most life forms think. Thought is simply a part of the biological entity as a means to make sense of the environment.

Why do life forms become extinct. I think there's a vast number of reasons and most are a natural process of evolution. There is also natural disaster, biological efficiency and the food chain and disease... Humankind have become very efficient in controlling and re-creating their environment and we always impact the environment of other life forms. But humankind remains vulnerable to natural disaster and disease. We have the ability it rebuild and recover very quickly, but so do termites and ants and bees... My point is that we are not yet so clever that we are safe from the possibility of extinction...


message 46: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 528 comments Yes, but that a number of animals think does not explain the reason why thought can occur. Yes, it is an evolutionary advantage, but again, that does not mean it must occur. I still think the answer to the original question is, we don't know.


message 47: by Tim (last edited Jul 03, 2017 02:11AM) (new)

Tim Rees | 98 comments I think thought is as natural as walking and there is no mystery there. Children begin to walk and talk as part of their natural development. The only reason a biological entity has natural sensors is to make sense of the environment in which they exist. The data that comes through the senses has to be collated and understood. We don't see the fact that we walk as remarkable because as entities it is obviously necessary that we move around in order to survive. Thought is no different. It is simply an essential biological asset, without which a biological entity wouldn't have the ability to evolve.


message 48: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 528 comments I guess we are at cross-purposes here :-)


message 49: by Tim (new)

Tim Rees | 98 comments LOL... Probably, Ian. We need a beer to discuss this... :D


message 50: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 528 comments Yep, a beer, and being a little closer to each other :-)


« previous 1 3 4
back to top