A Revolution in Evolution

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

I didn't invent the term "militant atheist" robin and it is quite commonly used in popular culture. It is not an attack on the person, it is an attack on their beliefs , and considerably milder than calling people delusional, or suffering from mental illness as happens all too frequently towards religious believers.

There is no fixed meaning for the term "militant atheist" and therefore -- ad nauseam, passim -- it's not a term that adds anything positive to any debate that isn't mostly concerned with what it means.

Look, you can have a debate about the science behind whatever it is you're trying to promote here -- I still don't have a clue -- and this thread is the best for that, though you will be expected to stick to the science and document whatever it is carefully, succinctly and with some evidince. Alternatively, and this is mostly fine too, you can have a slagging match where you accuse biologists you don't like of heresy, militant atheism and whatever other boo-words take your fancy. But don't expect it's going to turn out into anything other than an extension of the specious nonsense thread, into which the contents of the thread may well then be transferred.

However, trying to mix the two isn't going to work and that's why this thread is being avoided by most forum regulars.

robindch

sea_monkey wrote: »

Is this a religious debate?

It's certainly more about politics than science.

El_Duderino 09

nagirrac wrote: »

Right, getting back on topic.

Firstly, how do we define intelligence? If we start with the wiki definition, generally a good starting point: "Intelligence has been defined in many different ways, including logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, emotional knowledge, communication, learning, retaining, planning and problem solving".

I would say cells exhibit several of these traits. There are also many of these traits where we cannot say today with any level of confidence that cells exhibit, mostly because we have no way of knowing presently. We know that cells communicate and are able to solve problems (e.g. error correction). There is now strong indication that they retain information by adapting to their environment and passing on the adaptation to their offspring (epigenetics). Not necessarily in a willful way but in an adaptive way, especially in a highly stressed environment. Like mutation this can have a positive or negative impact in terms of survival, but more important is the link to novel features. Up to recently, random point mutation of DNA has been regarded as the primary provider of variability for natural selection to do its work, resulting in the incredible diversity of life and the novel features that have evolved in so many species. An adaptive mechanism as outlined by sea-monkey above (if I understand it correctly) appears a very valid alternative, especially to explain rapid evolution as we see in multiple research papers in recent years. In other words is epigenetics the elusive "missing link" that explains the variation in phenotypes available to selection.

I struggle to see today why some people find the idea of intelligence in nature offensive. Is it the connection to God or a specific religious view that creationists insist on? Must everyone who sees intelligence in nature be labeled a creationist? Should science not pursue the idea of nature being intelligent lest it give fodder to creationists?

What are attempts to develop artificial intelligence other than attempts to duplicate what nature has done in terms of developing intelligent traits?

Nagirrac would it be fair to sum it up like this?

You were an atheist and thought you/we/science knew as much as we needed to know. Then you looked into it a bit further and found out that we don't really know that much and there are really interesting things that we cant even test yet.

On that basis and the fact that we can't explain consciousness/mindfulness or the complexity of how life actually works, you concluded god exists in the form of Deism/Pantheism.

nagirrac

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nagirrac would it be fair to sum it up like this? You were an atheist and thought you/we/science knew as much as we needed to know. Then you looked into it a bit further and found out that we don't really know that much and there are really interesting things that we cant even test yet.

On that basis and the fact that we can't explain consciousness/mindfulness or the complexity of how life actually works, you concluded god exists in the form of Deism/Pantheism.

Actually you are not too far off the mark (with one major caveat, and one minor one), and I can see how you come to the conclusions you have.

Major caveat: Anyone who thinks science knows as much as we need to know or can know has no understanding of science. The first thing you learn in science is that the field of study is ongoing and the history of science demonstrates that. As I have an advanced degree and have worked in an applied science field for 25+ years, I think I have that one down. I continue to be amazed at the ongoing discoveries in science and hope to continue in that fashion until I take my last breath.

Minor caveat: In my opinion, the basis for all valid religious belief (and I will include Deism/Pantheism in this although it is not a formal religion) is religious practice. Religious practice leads to belief in God for many people, although I fully accept blind faith is more common in organized religion. I have about as much respect for the religious beliefs of many organized religions as most posters on A&A have (none), although I respect those who hold those beliefs, and on honest examination of the question have to conclude I do not know what they actually believe, unless I know them personally and have explored their beliefs.

Belief in God by default means belief that there is a spiritual realm either separate from our observed universe (a parallel universe if you like), or that our universe is a subset of. This realm can only be explored mentally, through religious practice, and by definition is not something that can be examined directly by science, at least today. That is the only logical explanation I can provide for my belief in God. What that God is, or what its attributes are, is unknown to me. I would say that the spiritual realm, based on my experience, is not malevolent.

Having said that, the thread has now descended into religion, so let the fun begin:)

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

Belief in God by default means belief that there is a spiritual realm either separate from our observed universe (a parallel universe if you like), or that our universe is a subset of. This realm can only be explored mentally, through religious practice, and by definition is not something that can be examined directly by science, at least today

Let's break this down:
God exists. Ergo a spiritual realm exists. That wasn't the exact statement you made but I hope you'll appreciate that it becomes the conclusion if the beliefs happen to be true. How does that even logically follow?
A spiritual realm exists, ergo God exists. I doubt you would make this claim, so why make the opposite? That a belief in God entails a belief in spiritual realm. God might be something different again. For example, God's existence may or may not be subject to the properties of the spiritual realm.

That's not my biggest qualm though:
You've closed off all modes of inquiry to this knowledge to be mental, or as you punctuated it, religious practice. Again, we've got a problem.
The spiritual realm may be explorable by others means yet you've for some reason (other than an unsubstantiated belief) you've claimed that it's religious practice.

Finally, on the topic of science. Science is many things. Some people think it's a simple empirical formula but I'm glad here that we agree it's more than that. It's a method of inquiry into finding knowledge. Or as one philosopher bluntly put it "It's philosophy that works". (Assuming of course, pragmatism contributes positively to epistemology!) However those inquiries work by rejecting valid ideas until there's enough evidence (or reasonable supposition) to support their existence. So I hope you understand why I believe (heh!) the best approach is to reject claims until there's more than a critical mass of support for the claims. Even if at that point the claim understood means all previously accepted claims were profoundly false. If truth is one's ultimate goal then I believe that to be the best approach to take. And saying that science can't test God or religion ignores the very essence of what science is and that's testing the sh*t out of everything including the notion that science can't test something! To put in terms of science: God might exist but even when we do prove it scientifically we'll never be certain. Just like we and I presume God itself can't ever be certain of our existence.

nagirrac

sea_monkey wrote: »

Can I pray really hard and get some sweet epigenetic traits?

Yes, in my opinion. Although I would not use the word prayer, as it had strong religious overtones, and I was hoping we could have a thread that did not descend into a religious bashing exercise like many do in A&A.

My field of work is developing applications for fMRI, specifically studying brains (humans and animals). I think we would both agree that the human brain, like all biological structures, is build by the genome during embryonic development, even if we don't understand fully how this is done. What is not as widely known is that the brain is also remodeled throughout life, based on nurture or more correctly exposure to environment. Genes, diet, environmental toxins, and behavior all have a role in ongoing remodeling of the brain. Behavior included thought patterns, and thought patterns lead to positive or negative outcomes. This is referred to in psychiatry as "positive and negative neuroplasticity". It is now firmly established in clinical psychiatry that mental behavior, in particular repeated thought patterns, remodels the brain.

I also have a serious interest in mental illness, and specifically depression. It runs in my own family and I have seen the devastation it can cause. It is my opinion that the onset and development of depression is due to "negative neuroplasticity", however this develops, and can be reversed, at least partially. All disease and in particular brain related diseases have a "nature" and "nurture" element, but the relationship between nature and nurture is the interesting thing. What is the contribution of the genes that are inherited and what is the contribution from changes that occur from the formation of the zygote onwards (very often the 9 month gestation period is forgotten, and it may be the most significant)?. How much of this is imprinted on the genome, through methylation for example, and inherited. "None" we believed up to five years ago, now the consensus is "some". How much is built up generation after generation and becomes a trait?

There is no question depression is hereditary, but by what mechanism?, and by what mechanisms does it escalate from one being prone to depression, to mild depression, to clinical depression, to suicide (7% of the world's population suffer from at least mild depression, and 10% of that 7% will eventually commit suicide, an absolutely shocking statistic). Is the underlying mechanism genetic or epigenetic, and can it be reversed? If epigenetic, are the effects of traumas for example during one lifetime, which result in an epigenetic imprint (the mouse research study posted above), passed on?

From my study of the literature, and from personal experience (family members and acquaintances) I am convinced that depression and various anxiety conditions can be reversed using behavioral treatment like meditation and in particular yoga. I have seen it myself up close and personal. I have also heard from those that say it is a placebo effect or even woo, and still believe it is a placebo effect after reviewing fMRI scans that show changes to the brain before and after. I disagree with them. Focused behavior, such as yoga and meditation, have been seen in clinical settings to reverse anxiety disorders, including depression, and this is at least correlated with changes to the brain, detectable by fMRI.

Is this an epigenetic mechanism? If so, is it inheritable? I would say yes (as a hypothesis), but lots of science to be done to test and verify.

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

In my opinion, the basis for all valid religious belief (and I will include Deism/Pantheism in this although it is not a formal religion) is religious practice.

Are we talking transcendental meditation here?
What about shamanic use of magic mushrooms.... an equally valid method of inquiry?

nagirrac

For those who may get the impression I am being rude to nozzferrahtoo for not responding to him, nozz is on my ignore list, something I informed him over a week ago on the Christianity forum. I have only one personal rule when it comes to posting on online forums, regardless of their charter. I am never deliberately dishonest and never deliberately lie, and the only thing I expect is that posters respond in kind. Like anyone I may make a mistake (not capitalizing Central Dogma for example) or even contradict myself at times, but this is due to normal human frailties when it comes to communication.

I have an advanced degree from an accredited University and have worked in applied science for 25+ years. When someone accuses me of being dishonest or lying about that they go on ignore, as life is too short to continue debate with this tactic. I have only used the ignore button on 3 occasions on boards, all for the same reason. Thankfully boards is by and large a very civil and well moderated site which is why I post here.

For full disclosure, I did report the post, but got no response. The latter does not concern me as I know the mods are busy.

gaynorvader

nagirrac wrote: »

{...}
From my study of the literature, and from personal experience (family members and acquaintances) I am convinced that depression and various anxiety conditions can be reversed using behavioral treatment like meditation and in particular yoga. I have seen it myself up close and personal. I have also heard from those that say it is a placebo effect or even woo, and still believe it is a placebo effect after reviewing fMRI scans that show changes to the brain before and after. I disagree with them. Focused behavior, such as yoga and meditation, have been seen in clinical settings to reverse anxiety disorders, including depression, and this is at least correlated with changes to the brain, detectable by fMRI.

Is this an epigenetic mechanism? If so, is it inheritable? I would say yes (as a hypothesis), but lots of science to be done to test and verify.

It sounds like they are placebo effects. However, with mental illnesses, placebo effects are probably going to be as effective as anything.

nagirrac wrote: »

For those who may get the impression I am being rude to nozzferrahtoo for not responding to him, nozz is on my ignore list, something I informed him over a week ago on the Christianity forum. I have only one personal rule when it comes to posting on online forums, regardless of their charter. I am never deliberately dishonest and never deliberately lie, and the only thing I expect is that posters respond in kind. Like anyone I may make a mistake (not capitalizing Central Dogma for example) or even contradict myself at times, but this is due to normal human frailties when it comes to communication.
{...}

Was it this thread he accused you of lying? Because I can't find it if so. I don't think someone calling into question something you say should be reason to report them/ignore them as this is the internet and anyone can claim anything here. However, you are obviously free to do what you wish in that regard, as this is the internet and the various governments around the world haven't been able to leech all the freedom away from it yet.

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

Are we talking transcendental meditation here?
What about shamanic use of magic mushrooms.... an equally valid method of inquiry?

TM?, yes, although there are many disciplines of meditation.

Although I am not an expert by any means, it is I believe a myth that shamanic practice is mainly or at least solely via the use of entheogens, although it clearly exists. Entheogens seem to have a role to play though in the development on many religions, according to some researchers. As I understand it shamanic practice across a variety of ancient cultures is entering an altered state of consciousness via prolonged exposure to auditory stimuli like drumming (most ancient paintings of shamen suggest this). I don't understand it well enough to comment further, but there are serious studies that have examined it in detail, including people like Michael Harmer who has completely immersed himself in it. I read one of his books years ago, don't think he takes entheogens, but I could be wrong.

Some modern shamen (or perhaps wannabee shamen:)) seem to be into DMT and other exotic concoctions derived from plants in the amazon, interesting but rather scary. I think I will stick to meditation.

nagirrac

gaynorvader wrote: »

Was it this thread he accused you of lying? Because I can't find it if so. I don't think someone calling into question something you say should be reason to report them/ignore them as this is the internet and anyone can claim anything here. However, you are obviously free to do what you wish in that regard, as this is the internet and the various governments around the world haven't been able to leech all the freedom away from it yet.

No, read my post again, I said the Christianity forum.

Anyone can claim anything here? Don't think so, boards has rules thankfully, like being civil.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

Let's break this down:
God exists. Ergo a spiritual realm exists. That wasn't the exact statement you made but I hope you'll appreciate that it becomes the conclusion if the beliefs happen to be true. How does that even logically follow?
A spiritual realm exists, ergo God exists. I doubt you would make this claim, so why make the opposite? That a belief in God entails a belief in spiritual realm. God might be something different again. For example, God's existence may or may not be subject to the properties of the spiritual realm.

Excellent points Jernal, and I will respond later. Unfortunately the real world beckons and I must away for now.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

For full disclosure, I did report the post, but got no response. The latter does not concern me as I know the mods are busy.

I've no record of you reporting any post in this forum back to the end of September, and quite possibly, a long time before that (my search suggests you've never reported any post at all).

FYI - an accusation of dishonesty is treated, within reason, as seriously as the poster wishes, up to and including enforcement of a full justification or a retraction by the person making the claim.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

I've no record of you reporting any post in this forum back to the end of September, and quite possibly, a long time before that (my search suggests you've never reported any post at all).

FYI - an accusation of dishonesty is treated, within reason, as seriously as the poster wishes, up to and including enforcement of a full justification or a retraction by the person making the claim.

Christianity sub-forum robin, you can check with Jernal.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

I've no record of you reporting any post in this forum back to the end of September, and quite possibly, a long time before that (my search suggests you've never reported any post at all).

FYI - an accusation of dishonesty is treated, within reason, as seriously as the poster wishes, up to and including enforcement of a full justification or a retraction by the person making the claim.

It was in the Christianity forum Atheism megathread. Saw the report. Felt Nagirrac had resolved the situation himself, albeit not ideally. So left it at that.

El_Duderino 09

nagirrac wrote: »

Actually you are not too far off the mark (with one major caveat, and one minor one), and I can see how you come to the conclusions you have.

Major caveat: Anyone who thinks science knows as much as we need to know or can know has no understanding of science. The first thing you learn in science is that the field of study is ongoing and the history of science demonstrates that. As I have an advanced degree and have worked in an applied science field for 25+ years, I think I have that one down. I continue to be amazed at the ongoing discoveries in science and hope to continue in that fashion until I take my last breath.

Minor caveat: In my opinion, the basis for all valid religious belief (and I will include Deism/Pantheism in this although it is not a formal religion) is religious practice. Religious practice leads to belief in God for many people, although I fully accept blind faith is more common in organized religion. I have about as much respect for the religious beliefs of many organized religions as most posters on A&A have (none), although I respect those who hold those beliefs, and on honest examination of the question have to conclude I do not know what they actually believe, unless I know them personally and have explored their beliefs.

Belief in God by default means belief that there is a spiritual realm either separate from our observed universe (a parallel universe if you like), or that our universe is a subset of. This realm can only be explored mentally, through religious practice, and by definition is not something that can be examined directly by science, at least today. That is the only logical explanation I can provide for my belief in God. What that God is, or what its attributes are, is unknown to me. I would say that the spiritual realm, based on my experience, is not malevolent.

Having said that, the thread has now descended into religion, so let the fun begin:)

Yeah fair enough.

I'm sure you don't think the mindful nature hypothesis needs to be included in every conversation about evolution.

If an expert were giving an annual talk about the current understanding of evolution, it would be quite different each time depending on new information from research moving understanding forward. New ideas passing more tests without being falsified and new discoveries pushing old ideas out into the cold.

In all honesty do you think 'mindful nature hypothesis' needs to be included in that conversation?

If so, should it be included every year as a kind of fallback if we can't explain something right now? Or should it be include only on the years in which some research is carried out on the 'mindful nature hypothesis' and it remains unfalsified?

Or should it be included in a section like 'who knows, the answer might even be... mindful nature, aliens, Deist/Theist/Pantheist, parallel dimensions'

Personally I don't care what the answer is. As a lay person, for me, science doesn't happen one paper at a time. Ideas change gradually over years or decades as the balance of evidence shifts. I don't hitch my wagon to one idea or another and dogmatically support that idea in the way I support Leinster rugby. So if evidence supports your 'mindful nature hypothesis', I trust it will gain traction in time.

Until then though....

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

I have also heard from those that say it is a placebo effect or even woo, and still believe it is a placebo effect after reviewing fMRI scans that show changes to the brain before and after. I disagree with them.

Observing a physical change doesn't mean it isn't a placebo effect. The point of the placebo effect is not that no change happens, its that the change is not caused by some supernatural aspect of something someone does.

If the brain is constantly remodelled during life by genes, diet, environmental toxins, and behaviour, then we would expect that changes to any of these would cause a change in the brain without having to evoke any supernatural explanation. The placebo effect is simply the change in the brain you would expect to get by any significant change in behaviour, mis-attributed to some supernatural aspect of that behaviour.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

For those who may get the impression I am being rude to nozzferrahtoo for not responding to him

Can you respond to his points anyway, they largely cover what I was going to say in my response to that post:

logic

Cells do not exhibit logic. They merely conform to the "logic" that our universe constrains upon them. Cells exhibit "logic" just about as much as the rocks in my garden do therefore.

abstract thought

Cells do not have a mind. They do not think. They do not plan. They do not engage in the production of art. Where exactly do we see Abstract thought in the cells?

understanding

What do they "understand" exactly? They are just mindless machines like the one that puts wrapping on your mars bar. Cells exhibit no "understanding" of their own that I am aware of.

self-awareness

Do you think cells are self aware then? Really?

emotional knowledge

You will have to adumbrate what you even think this means, let alone how you think cells display it.

communication

They do not, in the sense humans mean it, communicate. Not directly, and only in the loosest sense of the word indirectly. They respond to their environment but this is not "communication" per se.

It is like "flocking" in birds that dance a pretty pattern in the sky. They do complex turns and dips and dives, all as a group, and it looks.... fantastic. People often wonder how they "communicate" their intentions and achieve this.

But they do no such thing. They merely respond individually to nothing more than what their direct neighbour is doing. And that simply condition/setting is enough to send out a complex pattern throughout the whole flock. There is no "communication" here per se, except as I said in the very loosest terms of the word. Certainly no where even close to enough to justify the application of "intelligence" you are so desperately trying to smuggle into the thread.

learning, retaining, planning, problem solving

Again they appear to do no such thing as above. But again I am all ears.

I can genuinely see how Evolution gives the illusion of design, a plan, a goal or even an intelligence. But an illusion it very much seems to be.

I struggle to see today why some people find the idea of intelligence in nature offensive

I find it unsubstantiated. Any impression you have of offense would appear to exist in your own head. But quite often on threads like this people all too willfully miscontrue simply disagreement with offense or attack.

I disagree with your position because it is unsubstantiated. Any attempt to misconstrue that by inventing emotional biases or agendas is just an obfuscation attempt.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Observing a physical change doesn't mean it isn't a placebo effect. The point of the placebo effect is not that no change happens, its that the change is not caused by some supernatural aspect of something someone does.

If the brain is constantly remodelled during life by genes, diet, environmental toxins, and behaviour, then we would expect that changes to any of these would cause a change in the brain without having to evoke any supernatural explanation. The placebo effect is simply the change in the brain you would expect to get by any significant change in behaviour, mis-attributed to some supernatural aspect of that behaviour.

Why are you bringing supernatural into the discussion? If you read my post, what I am proposing is a completely natural explanation. Epigenetic change resulting from behavior that not just impacts the individual during their lifetime but is imprinted on their DNA and passed on to the next generation.

The only connection to the placebo effect is that both have been recently studied (the first clinical testing of the placebo effect was in 2007) and both are now partially understood. Prior to this anyone making a claim that the placebo effect was real, and in particular that epigenetic inheritance was a thing, were called woo merchants. Never mind the fact that all doctors were prescribing placebos for an estimated 30% of their patients in history, so by definition all doctors were woo merchants.

I do not believe in anything supernatural. There is only nature, and we partially understand some of it, and have little clue about much of it. When we discover new features of nature we call that a thing and it magically becomes part of nature, never mind the fact it was part of nature all along, and we were just ignorant of it. Was EM radiation part of nature before we discovered it? Gravity? Epigenetic inheritance is now part of nature for the past few years even though the Modern Synthesis expressly forbade it up to now. Even though Eva Jablonka published a paper in 1989 called "The inheritance of acquired epigenetic variations", and was soundly trashed by the chorus of "woo" from angry old men who had soundly trashed Barbara McClintock 40 years earlier.

I think the placebo effect and self directed neuroplasticity are related but not the same thing. The placebo effect is temporary, as it's mainly the release of endorphins which make us feel better in the short term. It is a band aid like all antidepressants. Skipping a few days of antidepressants or skipping a few days of placebo has essentially the same effect, unfortunately. Neuroplasticity involves permanent changes, studied over long periods and verified, and involves different parts of the brain.

What both the placebo effect and self directed neuroplasticity do confirm however is that the notion of consciousness as an illusion or an epiphenomenon is twaddle. There are philosophers like Dan Dennett and Stephen Pinker who have made careers out of this idea, they now need to just stop ignoring scientific evidence and admit they were wrong. If thoughts are generated by the brain and the same thoughts can be focused back on the brain to effect physical consequences like release of endorphins or permanent rewiring of parts of the brain, how can consciousness be something we have no control over or an illusion. What a stupid idea that was.

I would not claim that the placebo effect or neuroplasticity indicate that consciousness exists outside the brain. I might claim it for other reasons, but not those reasons.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you respond to his points anyway, they largely cover what I was going to say in my response to that post:

Why don't you respond to my post in your own words, rather than copying and pasting someone else's post?

Just for clarity, and in case you are making the same misunderstanding that the poster in question made (suggested by the fact you have the same questions).

I stated before we explore intelligence we have to first define its attributes. I then listed the attributes listed in wiki. I then said I considered many of these to be irrelevant as it is unknowable at present (an open question) as to whether cells exhibit them or not. I then focused on the three attributes I felt cells did exhibit (communication, problem solving, and retention of information).

Let's just focus on one for now, communication, and let's discuss neurons. How do you view the functions of a neuron? Do you think that neurons communicate with other neurons? Do they pass information on to other neurons? Is this an attribute of what we refer to as intelligence?

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

And saying that science can't test God or religion ignores the very essence of what science is and that's testing the sh*t out of everything including the notion that science can't test something! To put in terms of science: God might exist but even when we do prove it scientifically we'll never be certain. Just like we and I presume God itself can't ever be certain of our existence.

There are many things that science cannot test Jernal, and many questions where science offers no guidance. Let me offer one example:

We see a lot of references on these threads to slavery. How can you be a Christian when you have to believe in slavery, as in the slavery of 3000 years ago (Did Jesus say anything specific about slavery in the gospels where he is apparently quoted?, I don't know my bible well enough to answer). Christians should be ashamed of supporting slavery, how can they sleep at night?

You know what keeps me awake at night Jernal? Not worrying about Christians. What keeps me awake is what can I/we do about today's slavery. There are an estimated 30 million slaves worldwide today, mainly used in low level labor (mining, metals, basic electronic components) and the sex industry. By comparison, in the entire history of slave ownership in the New World, a despicable practice over 350 years, there were a total is 13 million slaves. You know the primary difference between now and then, slaves are now completely disposable, virtually worthless and cost nothing.

Virtually every large corporation today has slave labor in their supply chain, it is part and parcel of "outsourcing" and globalization. There are many many countries who not just turn a blind eye to slavery within their borders, but benefit enormously in terms of trade from slavery. Every consumer product we buy in the Westerm world has slave labor content, cell phones, electronics, cars, etc.

What can science tell me as an individual or science tell us as a society about this moral problem and how to address it? How can I "test the hell out of it"? The only way I can answer it is to seek the wisdom that is inside me and ask "what is the right thing to do"? How do I access this inner wisdom? By reflecting on the contrast between our spiritual nature and our material nature ("The better angels of our nature" my Irish ass, if it wasn't for the nuclear deterrent we would all be long gone).

We can of course do something ourselves and demand the same from our governments. Stop trading with all countries that practice or fail to respond to slavery within their borders. As one individual I can do something, not buy a product from a country that I know practices slavery, so for example if it says "Made in XXXXX" or "Made in XXXXXX", it now goes back on the shelf. That may limit me severely in terms of product choices, but you know what, I don't care.


sorry, I know this did not answer your question re belief in God:)

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Why are you bringing supernatural into the discussion?

Because it usually is a supernatural explanation that is better explained by the placebo effect. The placebo effect is not in you observing an effect in MRI, its in someone attaching that effect to some supernatural aspect of some change they made, rather than the simple act of making a serious change.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Why don't you respond to my post in your own words, rather than copying and pasting someone else's post?

It would be redundant for me to make the same points as another poster has.

nagirrac wrote: »

Let's just focus on one for now, communication, and let's discuss neurons. How do you view the functions of a neuron? Do you think that neurons communicate with other neurons? Do they pass information on to other neurons? Is this an attribute of what we refer to as intelligence?

No. Neurons interact through physical processes, they do not communicate, no more than the sun and the earth communicate despite their gravitational interactions.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

What can science tell me...

Asking "what can science tell me ..." is like asking "what can addition tell me about x and y". You need to define "x" and "y" for that to be a meaningful question. And then, you need to be more specific in your question.

In your example on slavery, you need to define morality and then you need to define your constraints. Eg, you define moral as "no slavery" then you need to define if you want the economy to survive in any way, otherwise the scientific answer is simply have no slaves by arresting anyone who can be shown to profit from slavery, even if in a different country. If you add the constraint that the economy should survive, then you can scientifically test the different options to replace the slavery with and how best to go about it (both in terms of practicality of making those changes and how to get people to accept those changes if they effect them financially or productively).

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because it usually is a supernatural explanation that is better explained by the placebo effect. The placebo effect is not in you observing an effect in MRI, its in someone attaching that effect to some supernatural aspect of some change they made, rather than the simple act of making a serious change.

The placebo effect has been known for centuries, in particular by medical professionals who have been prescribing placebos for centuries. What has been unknown is the mechanism behind the placebo effect. Only in the past decade have several clinical studies have been done and we now understand it somewhat. In the simplest example, the thought that you are going to get better stimulates the brain into releasing endorphins that make you feel better (FMI studies have been done to demonstrate this, showing the specific pain responsive regions of the brain responding to the placebo).

This is why people who go to the doctor with a general complaint of feeling unwell and are told there is nothing wrong with them "feel" better. Before now, this was put down to "the expectation of feeling better", which is another way of saying we don't know, or the placebo effect exists in nature but we have no mechanism to explain it. Now we do, partially.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No. Neurons interact through physical processes, they do not communicate, no more than the sun and the earth communicate despite their gravitational interactions.

Remember according to the materialist reductionist view of nature, which most modern neuroscientists ascribe to, "you? are nothing but a pack of neurons;)

Neurons do not communicate i.e. transfer information? Your brain contains roughly 100 billion neurons and each neuron transfers information to roughly 1,000 other neurons via axons and across synapses. We know a great deal about how the underlying physical processes work. The exact opposite of gravity by the way, where we know a great deal about the effects of gravity, but the underlying mechanism remains an unknown (unless someone has discovered the gravitron and I missed it).

http://www.brainfacts.org/brain-basics/neuroanatomy/articles/2012/the-neuron/

gaynorvader

nagirrac wrote: »

Remember according to the materialist reductionist view of nature, which most modern neuroscientists ascribe to, "you? are nothing but a pack of neurons;)

Neurons do not communicate i.e. transfer information? Your brain contains roughly 100 billion neurons and each neuron transfers information to roughly 1,000 other neurons via axons and across synapses. We know a great deal about how the underlying physical processes work. The exact opposite of gravity by the way, where we know a great deal about the effects of gravity, but the underlying mechanism remains an unknown (unless someone has discovered the gravitron and I missed it).

http://www.brainfacts.org/brain-basics/neuroanatomy/articles/2012/the-neuron/

I believe they transfer data, not information. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information

nagirrac

gaynorvader wrote: »

I believe they transfer data, not information. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information[/QUOTE]

Then we are nothing but a bunch of data?:)

Data is an input and information is an output. I believe neurons do both, they accept data (an input), process it, and output information (an output). If a neuron could do no basic information processing then the brain could do no information processing. The key aspect of a neuron is how it integrates the data it receives from other neurons. Remember each neuron connects to on average 1,000 others so there is a shedload of data and information involved.

http://www.hhmi.org/research/how-do-neurons-compute-output-their-inputs

gaynorvader

nagirrac wrote: »

gaynorvader wrote: »

I believe they transfer data, not information. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information[/QUOTE]

Then we are nothing but a bunch of data?:)

Data is an input and information is an output. I believe neurons do both, they accept data (an input), process it, and output information (an output). If a neuron could do no basic information processing then the brain could do no information processing. The key aspect of a neuron is how it integrates the data it receives from other neurons. Remember each neuron connects to on average 1,000 others so there is a shedload of data and information involved.

http://www.hhmi.org/research/how-do-neurons-compute-output-their-inputs

Yes, we are nothing but sophisticated data processors. Our brains spend all day interpreting data.

Data is also throughput. It takes many neurons to create information, single neurons do not communicate information, only data.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

Remember each neuron connects to on average 1,000 others so there is a shedload of data and information involved.

So what?

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Remember according to the materialist reductionist view of nature, which most modern neuroscientists ascribe to, "you? are nothing but a pack of neurons;)

Neurons do not communicate i.e. transfer information? Your brain contains roughly 100 billion neurons and each neuron transfers information to roughly 1,000 other neurons via axons and across synapses. We know a great deal about how the underlying physical processes work. The exact opposite of gravity by the way, where we know a great deal about the effects of gravity, but the underlying mechanism remains an unknown (unless someone has discovered the gravitron and I missed it).

http://www.brainfacts.org/brain-basics/neuroanatomy/articles/2012/the-neuron/

Again, no, neurons interact, they do not communicate. The properties of a configuration of a multitude of neurons do not imply the properties of single neuron. A single molecule of water is not wet.

nagirrac

gaynorvader wrote: »

Data is also throughput. It takes many neurons to create information, single neurons do not communicate information, only data.

I think Mark and yourself are downplaying what a neuron actually does, with the caveat that we are still learning how it does what it does. Single neurons do a great variety of things, depending on the neuron. Neurons are quite similar in underlying structure but also vary greatly depending on what functional part of the brain they are in, the paper I posted above discusses the structure and function of neurons in the hippocampus.

Neurons do highly sophisticated computations of huge amounts of data, the results of which are sent as information (the output of data processing) to other neurons in the same functional area of the brain or to other functional areas of the brain for further processing. There is no other common usage word to describe what they do other than "communication", "interact" simply does not cut it. Neurons input data, they process vast amounts of data and compute outputs, they store information, they output information.. they communicate.

I agree a simple switch for example does not communicate, it has just a simple on off states. But a neuron has a vast array of "switches" and gating devices, so is analogous to a computer rather than a switch. Can a computer communicate? If the answer is yes, then a neuron communicates.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

I think Mark and yourself are downplaying what a neuron actually does, with the caveat that we are still learning how it does what it does.

Then you are proposing an argument from ignorance: we don't know for sure exactly how a neuron does what it does therefore it communicates.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is no other common usage word to describe what they do other than "communication", "interact" simply does not cut it.

Yes it does. You said it yourself, we do not understand were gravity comes from, yet we do not call the gravitational interactions between two or more bodies "communication" simply because the interactions can be expressed as a large amount of data. The interactions between neurons are incredibly complex and require a lot of data for us to express them, but that does not make them anything more than interactions.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The interactions between neurons are incredibly complex and require a lot of data for us to express them, but that does not make them anything more than interactions.

The interactions within neurons are also incredibly complex, and we know a huge amount regarding what they accomplish in terms of processing data to generate information. What is not well established is all the details of the electromechanical and electrochemical mechanisms of how they accomplish this. If we knew all the details, we could build a brain, but it doesn't stop us understanding what a neuron does.

Just one small example, a single synapse of one neuron (and there are on average 1,000 synapses per neuron, and we are talking about at the end of axons, not what goes on within the neuron itself) has been described as follows by Stephen Smith at Stanford: "One synapse, by itself, is like a microprocessor, with both memory storage and information processing capability. In fact, one synapse can contain of the order of 1,000 switches."

We are not talking about two rocks orbiting in space under the effects of gravity. We are talking about a structure (a single human brain) that has the same amount of information processing as all the computers, routers, and servers on earth.

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

I am convinced that depression and various anxiety conditions can be reversed using behavioral treatment like meditation and in particular yoga.

You're probably right, yoga and meditation would certainly help with these conditions, although maybe not cure them entirely. Also I think high blood pressure can sometimes be lowered using these techniques.
But then, lying down in a darkened room can also help. As can watching a comedy on TV, having a beer, listening to music or taking regular physical exercise.
What I'm saying is, it's not some magical or religious experience, its just having some relaxation in your lifestyle.

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

You're probably right, yoga and meditation would certainly help with these conditions, although maybe not cure them entirely. Also I think high blood pressure can sometimes be lowered using these techniques.
But then, lying down in a darkened room can also help. As can watching a comedy on TV, having a beer, listening to music or taking regular physical exercise.
What I'm saying is, it's not some magical or religious experience, its just having some relaxation in your lifestyle.

Thank you, a welcome break from neurons:).

I agree wholeheartedly that relaxation, exercise, diet, etc. are all good for a variety of conditions, especially stress related conditions. They do somewhat go hand in hand because stress can lead to overeating, a sedentary lifestyle, drinking too much alcohol, etc. For people with high blood pressure, many can get it under control, and avoid early onset of diabetes, stroke and heart disease by changing their diet and exercising.

I wouldn't dream of trivializing any medical condition but avoiding cardiovascular disease, and in particular early onset of the disease, is straightforward enough. Get your ass off the chair/couch, do a bit of exercise every day, lay off the junk food (especially the biscuits;)) and eat lots of veggies and fruit. Easier said than done, but with a bit of self discipline can be accomplished moderately easily.

Moderate to severe depression and other mental ailments are really difficult to treat. While there is a hereditary element like most diseases, nurture plays a big role in its onset and development. Child abuse or exposure to family abuse or exposure to trauma is a big factor, there is it seems a tendency to it already laid down in the brain during embryonic development, and these neural traces get deeper and deeper or more ingrained with exposure to trauma, which leads to obsessive thinking, which becomes a spiral. Where meditation and yoga come in (forget about religion for now) is these are disciplines that not just calm your mind, but train your brain to focus on what you want to focus on as opposed to the compulsive thoughts that enter your mind. Over time and with regular practice, the negative "wiring" that was built up literally since the brain started to develop is replaced by positive "wiring".

I agree, it's not magic. It's what the best cognitive therapists have been doing for decades, without knowing what the actual underlying mechanism was (self directed neuroplasticity). It is one area where the US has led the way, depression among young people in particular is recognized and treated very early on. Its unfortunate that a lot of people in Ireland , especially young people, did not get the help they needed because "therapy" was regarded as a bit of woo-ish in many quarters or the help just wasn't available. From what I know of Ireland from growing up there, and from what I read and hear about in the intervening years, young males in particular have not being treated due to the stigma of mental illness and depression, with dreadful consequences. Hopefully this is changing.

Turtwig

There is still a stigma in Ireland. Particularly with attitudes towards suicidal ideation e.g suiciders are cowards. However, it is slowly eroding. CBT is basically the science of the looking at cognitive stuff that works and filtering out the stuff that doesn't. Yoga is possibly the lightbulb that produces the light spontaneously as a byproduct of it its action. CBT is the laser that works on focusing and refining the light exactly where it's needed. The problem for both though is they require active effort from the depressive. Not exactly the easiest thing! So for this reason anti depressants are often used as the "kick" to get the patient motivated for exhaustive therapy.

Great lecture here on the chemistry side understandings of things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc

Also another thing to note there is some concern that suicidal ideation should be treated as a scourge like illness separate from depression. The reason being is that the very rare analysis of brains of people who attempt suicide are markedly different from just about everyone else's. Alas, not enough data to say anything even bordering a conclusion. But it does ponder the question over whether some suicidal behavior is analogous to sudden death syndrome. Obviously depression left run can lead to SI but curiously advanced depression tends to invoke so much paralysis that the will to even try killing oneself no longer exists. For this reason techniques to lift the paralysis either through medication or mental techniques will lead to intense emotional surges leaving the person more vulnerable to suicide than they would have been without treatment. It is really an insidious disease.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

There are many things that science cannot test Jernal, and many questions where science offers no guidance. Let me offer one example:

We see a lot of references on these threads to slavery. How can you be a Christian when you have to believe in slavery, as in the slavery of 3000 years ago (Did Jesus say anything specific about slavery in the gospels where he is apparently quoted?, I don't know my bible well enough to answer). Christians should be ashamed of supporting slavery, how can they sleep at night?

You know what keeps me awake at night Jernal? Not worrying about Christians. What keeps me awake is what can I/we do about today's slavery. There are an estimated 30 million slaves worldwide today, mainly used in low level labor (mining, metals, basic electronic components) and the sex industry. By comparison, in the entire history of slave ownership in the New World, a despicable practice over 350 years, there were a total is 13 million slaves. You know the primary difference between now and then, slaves are now completely disposable, virtually worthless and cost nothing.

Virtually every large corporation today has slave labor in their supply chain, it is part and parcel of "outsourcing" and globalization. There are many many countries who not just turn a blind eye to slavery within their borders, but benefit enormously in terms of trade from slavery. Every consumer product we buy in the Westerm world has slave labor content, cell phones, electronics, cars, etc.

What can science tell me as an individual or science tell us as a society about this moral problem and how to address it? How can I "test the hell out of it"? The only way I can answer it is to seek the wisdom that is inside me and ask "what is the right thing to do"? How do I access this inner wisdom? By reflecting on the contrast between our spiritual nature and our material nature ("The better angels of our nature" my Irish ass, if it wasn't for the nuclear deterrent we would all be long gone).

We can of course do something ourselves and demand the same from our governments. Stop trading with all countries that practice or fail to respond to slavery within their borders. As one individual I can do something, not buy a product from a country that I know practices slavery, so for example if it says "Made in XXXXX" or "Made in XXXXXX", it now goes back on the shelf. That may limit me severely in terms of product choices, but you know what, I don't care.


sorry, I know this did not answer your question re belief in God:)

The world is full of injustices. I wish I could suggest a solution for them but I can't. I wish many other things too, but alas things are what they are. So I just address the science part as, well, it's the one thing that provides me with modicums of optimism for humanity.

Can science answer ethical questions? No it cannot. But it can inform ethics. It can also analyse applications of them. I would make the argument that the study of ethics is a scientific disciplines. If it's not; it can be.
Let's take the example of slavery cause you chose it.
We could study cultures and human behavior to assess what way various humans view slavery. We could also examine the conditions present that lead to slavery. We can also statistically compute the proportion of slaves in a given population. Going more macro scale, we could analyse the ethical frameworks that abhor or encourage slavery. How such frameworks grow or falter and how a population practices them. Also how such frameworks and behaviors compare to our own sense of values. And, possibly postulate why our own sense of values are different (or similar) .

Science will never be able to say slavery is wrong. However, it will be able to say slavery is wrong to us. It will also be able to predict models for reducing or exacerbating slavery.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

The interactions within neurons are also incredibly complex, and we know a huge amount regarding what they accomplish in terms of processing data to generate information. What is not well established is all the details of the electromechanical and electrochemical mechanisms of how they accomplish this. If we knew all the details, we could build a brain, but it doesn't stop us understanding what a neuron does.

Just one small example, a single synapse of one neuron (and there are on average 1,000 synapses per neuron, and we are talking about at the end of axons, not what goes on within the neuron itself) has been described as follows by Stephen Smith at Stanford: "One synapse, by itself, is like a microprocessor, with both memory storage and information processing capability. In fact, one synapse can contain of the order of 1,000 switches."

We are not talking about two rocks orbiting in space under the effects of gravity. We are talking about a structure (a single human brain) that has the same amount of information processing as all the computers, routers, and servers on earth.

All this boils down to is that the interactions are extremely complex. The simultaneous gravitational attractions between all bodies in the universe are also extremely complex. Complexity doesn't imply communication.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All this boils down to is that the interactions are extremely complex. The simultaneous gravitational attractions between all bodies in the universe are also extremely complex. Complexity doesn't imply communication.

Does a computer communicate?

Let me do an experiment to find out. It feels cold here this morning, colder than usual for this time of year. I wonder what temperature it is? I don't know is the answer, maybe close to 35F. Let me ask my computer: What temperature is it in (where I am)? Blink (actually much less than a blink): "The temperature today in (where I am) is 25F". Wow, I was wrong, that's fcuking cold.

Did my computer just communicate with me or did I just imagine it? Did it just process what I asked it, and give me an answer, an answer I did not have a blink ago?

There's a research group in Reading (Kevin Warwick's group), who are building robots ran by rat neurons. They take a few neurons from a rat embryo, and then grow them on an array (they grow themselves like all cells, just provide them with nutrients, and off they go connecting themselves in all kinds of elaborate ways. I wonder how they do that without communicating?). The neuron array they grew is 100,000 cells (takes about 5 days) and they use it to communicate with and control a robot using Bluetooth. For their next project they hope to build a 30 million neuron array. Then they want to move on to human neurons and try and build a human brain. I can't wait to see that. I wonder will it be self aware? My bet is no but who knows?

gaynorvader

nagirrac wrote: »

Does a computer communicate?

Let me do an experiment to find out. It feels cold here this morning, colder than usual for this time of year. I wonder what temperature it is? I don't know is the answer, maybe close to 35F. Let me ask my computer: What temperature is it in (where I am)? Blink (actually much less than a blink): "The temperature today in (where I am) is 25F".

Did my computer just communicate with me or did I just imagine it? Did it just process what I asked it, and give me an answer, an answer I did not have a blink ago?

There's a research group in Reading (Kevin Warwick's group), who are building robots ran by rat neurons. They take a few neurons from a rat embryo, and then grow them on an array (they grow themselves like all cells, just provide them with nutrients, and off they go connecting themselves in all kinds of elaborate ways. I wonder how they do that without communicating?). The neuron array they grew is 100,000 cells (takes about 5 days) and they use it to communicate with and control a robot using Bluetooth. For their next project they hope to build a 30 million neuron array. Then they want to move on to human neurons and try and build a human brain. I can't wait to see that. I wonder will it be self aware? My bet is no but who knows?

Your descriptions of neurons have made them sound more like processors than computers.

nagirrac

gaynorvader wrote: »

Your descriptions of neurons have made them sound more like processors than computers.

They have tremendous processing power. Even using the low number of 1,000 synapses per neuron, and 1,000 microprocessors per synapse, that's a million processors per neuron. There are many types of neurons on the brain, some have 10,000 synapses. That's just the synapses that transfer signals from one neuron to another, you also have the neuron body which has to process all the data coming in to it.

More important though is what is going on in the robot experiment? The rat neurons are learning and adapting to a new environment to do something useful, drive a robot. They are in a jar, not in a rat, so a rudimentary brain in a vat! There is some amazing research that has been done with ferret brains, they rewired their optic nerves to the hearing centers of their brains, their brains rewired themselves and they developed 20:60 vision.

Warwick is an interesting character, you should check him out if your not familiar with him. He is determined to become a cyborg.

http://www.kevinwarwick.com/ICyborg.htm

gaynorvader

nagirrac wrote: »

They have tremendous processing power. Even using the low number of 1,000 synapses per neuron, and 1,000 microprocessors per synapse, that's a million processors per neuron. There are many types of neurons on the brain, some have 10,000 synapses. That's just the synapses that transfer signals from one neuron to another, you also have the neuron body which has to process all the data coming in to it.

{...}

A synapse is a connection to another neuron is it not? It's more equivalent to a bus and wouldn't have microprocessors on it.

I will look into Warwick when I get the chance, thanks it sounds interesting.

nagirrac

gaynorvader wrote: »

A synapse is a connection to another neuron is it not? It's more equivalent to a bus and wouldn't have microprocessors on it.

According to this lad, Prof. Stephen Smith at Stanford, a single synapse is the equivalent of a microprocessor.

"One synapse, by itself, is like a microprocessor, with both memory storage and information processing capability. In fact, one synapse can contain of the order of 1,000 switches."

http://smithlab.stanford.edu/Smithlab/Smithlab_Home.html

Professor Stephen Smith,

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Does a computer communicate?

No, but people communicate with computers.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, but people communicate with computers.

So when my computer spoke back to me this morning and told me the local temperature it was not communicating? It recognized my voice and responded. What was it doing?

gaynorvader

nagirrac wrote: »

So when my computer spoke back to me this morning and told me the local temperature it was not communicating? It recognized my voice and responded. What was it doing?

I think it was communicating in the computing sense of the word. But in the sense that it understood the information, it was not communicating. It's similar to a parrot imitating speech, it doesn't really understand what it's saying.
Your computer received data (your voice), checked it against a database of possible commands, matched it with one and ran the process associated with that command.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

So when my computer spoke back to me this morning and told me the local temperature it was not communicating? It recognized my voice and responded. What was it doing?

Processing your request for data and displaying the pertinent information.

nagirrac

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think it was communicating in the computing sense of the word. But in the sense that it understood the information, it was not communicating. It's similar to a parrot imitating speech, it doesn't really understand what it's saying.
Your computer received data (your voice), checked it against a database of possible commands, matched it with one and ran the process associated with that command.

I agree, but understanding information is a separate attribute of intelligence from communication. A few pages up posters were disagreeing that a neuron communicates, but my point is it communicates in the same fashion as a computer i.e. data in, processing, information out. Nothing that we would call cognitive function. The big challenge for AI is duplicating cognitive function.

Keep in mind though that most modern neuroscientists believe that our brains are nothing more than very sophisticated computers, and that what we think of as consciousness (free will, etc) is just an epiphenomenon. It is all just data in, comparison to databases, processing and output, just at an incredibly sophisticated level that creates the illusion we are in control.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree, but understanding information is a separate attribute of intelligence from communication. A few pages up posters were disagreeing that a neuron communicates, but my point is it communicates in the same fashion as a computer i.e. data in, processing, information out. Nothing that we would call cognitive function.

The posters were disagreeing with you in the light of your previous post where you said "communicate" along with "problem solve", and then extrapolate this to imply intelligence, with its associated implications of abstract thought and self awareness. Neurons do not communicate in any way that has any reflection on intelligence. Your use of the word "communication" emotively anthropomorphizes cells, my use of "interacts" is impartial and therefore more appropriate to a scientific discussion..