Animal > Mammal > ego? i/me

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 10
Topic's author
#1
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Animal > Come Jellies --700 million years ago > sponget > etc

Mammal > The world’s oldest mammal has been identified using fossil dental records – predating the previously confirmed earliest mammal by about 20 million years – in a new discovery hailed as “very significant” by researchers.

Brasilodon quadrangularis was a small shrew-like creature, around 20 centimeters (8 inches) long, that walked the earth 225 million years ago at the same time as some of the oldest dinosaurs and sheds light on the evolution of modern mammals, according to a team of Brazilian and British scientists."..

Least complex brain > .." Planarians are the simplest animals to exhibit a body plan common to all vertebrates and many invertebrates, characterized by bilateral rather than radial symmetry, dorsal and ventral surfaces, and a rostrocaudal axis with a head and a tail, including specialized sense organs and an aggregate of nerve cells in the head. Neurons in planarian more closely resemble those of vertebrates than those of advanced invertebrates, exhibiting typical vertebrate features of multipolar shape, dendritic spines with synaptic boutons, a single axon, expression of vertebrate-like neural proteins, and relatively low spontaneously generated electrical activity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Woman > Man > most access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego { i/me } > intelligent and dumb over lifetime
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AI > AGi { artificial general intelligence } >

Google quantum qbit chip and larger machines that .." To get a quantum computer to perform useful [--read correct--] calculations, “you need quantum information, and you need to protect it from the environment — and from ourselves, as we do manipulations on it”, he says "...

The larger the better accuracy to date

Meet the new Robbie the robot of " Forbidden Planet" fame and tv series " lost in space "...' wanring will robbinson '. Some 70 years later
#2
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,785
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Brasilodon quadrangularis was a small shrew-like creature, around 20 centimeters (8 inches) long, that walked the earth 225 million years ago at the same time as some of the oldest dinosaurs and sheds light on the evolution of modern mammals, according to a team of Brazilian and British scientists.".
It sheds light as well as raising some interesting questions. Originally there was one continent called Pangaea, which split apart into the separate continents during the Cretaceous period.  When that happened, Brasilodon became completely isolated in Australia from the rest of its population.  Millions of years later this mammal had evolved into wolves, squirrels, cats, mice, anteaters, ground hogs, and moles both in Australia and elsewhere.  A common ancestor adapting to similar conditions in order to occupy comparable habitats just can’t explain the profound similarities, not with only a mechanism of chance mutation at work.  It’s unsettling that the Marsupials that evolved in Australia while they were completely isolated from the placental animals evolving elsewhere, and it is unsettling that they are so similar, in fact, they are simply too similar, its almost creepy.  

The fact is, you just don’t randomly get wolves and wings spontaneously developing independently in separate places and separate branches of the tree of life, not by accidental random mutations you don’t. 

Our current theory of evolution is incomplete, a theory whose premise is that “survivors survive” does not offer an adequate explanation of the parallel evolution that is observed. Life shows itself to be based on self-organizing principles that adhere to underlying patterns of form, rather than simple random mutations. 

It is not just the same gene complex creating wolves independently in both Australia and elsewhere after millions of years but also different genes producing homologous organs as they follow underlying laws of form. Arms, legs, wings, and flippers have evolved in completely dissimilar creatures for entirely different purposes, yet they have developed with profoundly similar designs.  Science has obviously ignored some basic principles underlying the whole process that imparts some kind of “directedness” to the evolution of life. 

Ideas, comments, explanations?


#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
Hmmmmmm.

Things would either evolve similarly or not.

I personally think it more logical that things would evolve similarly.

Given that the building blocks of all organic structures are the same, and that form, adaptation and therefore success, are likely to follow a similar path.

Though similarity certainly doesn't mean exact replicas.


Or it was a GOD what did it.

But then I would expect  everything everywhere to be made to a standard pattern, and far less variety.


2.16 million animal species alone.

Approx 8.7 million species in total.
#4
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,785
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Least complex brain > .." Planarians are the simplest animals to exhibit...
This raises another question, do brains generate consciousness, the answer seems obviously to be yes, but that presupposition doesn’t seem to hold up to closer inspection of the observations.

First, “awareness” or “sentience” implies consciousness, if something displays a degree of “awareness”, then it is a sentient being, and we can attribute a degree of consciousness to it. “Senses” are forms of consciousness, seeing is visual awareness, if you see, smell or hear something, you are conscious of it. We can’t prove that anyone else is actually conscious, we can only assume it by observing the behavior associated with sentience. 

What we observe is not the evolution of brain and then consciousness, it is the coevolution of brain and consciousness, they developed together with extremely attenuated forms of consciousness existing before the first brain came into existence. The question then becomes, does consciousness generate brain, rather than the other way around.  Brains appear to have evolved to utilize and enhance a pre-existing consciousness.

What we observe is that all animals, those with brains and those without a brain, are adaptable and responsive to their environments, changing their behavior based on an “awareness” of external things in their environment. There is also a boatload of scientific evidence that "brains" are not requisite for the existence of consciousness. A wide range of creatures without brains demonstrate rudimentary forms of consciousness and examining those capabilities in an evolutionary context logically necessitates a broadening of the way we think about consciousness, and makes it very hard to draw arbitrary lines, especially at "brain".

The simplest form of life are procaryotes, (the most complex are humans, female humans obviously), procaryotes are single celled creatures that do not even have a nucleus, the most common are bacteria. What we observe is that bacteria are extraordinarily perceptive to their surroundings and can respond to changes in ways that indicate some degree of sentience, they have been observed to communicate with each other and collectively collaborate to engage in sophisticated behavioral responses to their environment. Primitive invertebrates like the annelid worm appear to show maze learning, classical conditioning, and habituation. The fact is, a wide range of creatures without brains show purposeful behavior indicating that they are sensate beings that not only "feel" things in their environment, but also "intelligently" respond to sensory inputs. It’s pretty clear that consciousness did not have to wait for the evolution of a brain to come into existence, as nervous systems became more complex, the contents of consciousness became more complex, the evidence suggests that consciousness existed first, and became more concentrated, brains and nervous systems evolved in the presence of consciousness, to process the data of consciousness and distribute it to other parts of the organism. As brains evolved, new features were added to consciousness, the associated flow of information drove the development of a more sophisticated central processing system, and as brains evolved, with that, a more integrated picture of the world appeared.

The idea that brains are required to produce consciousness is conceptually inconsistent with the observed facts, we need to change that presupposition if we want to make progress in understanding life, and in the end, to know who, and what we are.

Ideas, comments, explanations?


#5
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,850
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
The idea that brains are required to produce consciousness is conceptually inconsistent with the observed facts, we need to change that presupposition if we want to make progress in understanding life, and in the end, to know who, and what we are.
This lays the groundwork for thinking without our brains to find alternate ways to solve our problems. We may need to consult animals without brains to open up new inquiry paths .
#6
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,785
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
The idea that brains are required to produce consciousness is conceptually inconsistent with the observed facts, we need to change that presupposition if we want to make progress in understanding life, and in the end, to know who, and what we are.
This lays the groundwork for thinking without our brains to find alternate ways to solve our problems. We may need to consult animals without brains to open up new inquiry paths .
Good point, you should go talk to some bacteria and get back to us with ideas.

There are several posters here without brains, talk to them too.
Topic's author
#7
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
  A common ancestor adapting to similar conditions in order to occupy comparable habitats just can’t explain the profound similarities, not with only a mechanism of chance mutation at work.  It’s unsettling that the Marsupials that evolved in Australia while they were completely isolated from the placental animals evolving elsewhere, and it is unsettling that they are so similar, in fact, they are simply too similar, its almost creepy. 

Hey its creepy how much you look like much you look just like Chris Farley. Kewl!
Perhaps epigenetics / Lamarckism  as Bruce Lipton ' Power of Belief '...is big on explaining
The fact is, you just don’t randomly get wolves and wings spontaneously developing independently in separate places and separate branches of the tree of life, not by accidental random mutations you don’t. Our current theory of evolution is incomplete, a theory whose premise is that “survivors survive” does not offer an adequate explanation of the parallel evolution that is observed. Life shows itself to be based on self-organizing principles that adhere to underlying patterns of form, rather than simple random mutations.

I dont believe whales evolved from wolves, as they say, since they ---or the fossilized ones--- have exact same ear canal.  I just dont believe that is how whales came to exist

It is not just the same gene complex creating wolves independently in both Australia and elsewhere after millions of years but also different genes producing homologous organs as they follow underlying laws of form. Arms, legs, wings, and flippers have evolved in completely dissimilar creatures for entirely different purposes, yet they have developed with profoundly similar designs.  Science has obviously ignored some basic principles underlying the whole process that imparts some kind of “directedness” to the evolution of life. 
Ideas, comments, explanations?

Epigenetics { environmental circumstances } and if similar environments at differrent places around the globe, then perhaps no direct connection.

However, dinosaurs were on many continents.  Maybe there was a way shrew or the cousins did make it out of Australia. 

And then I believe in considering panspermia or something similar ex..Ive read about the experiments were scientist tried to reproduce a metor hitting the Earth, so he put the four five of so of main ingredients found in some metorites that had hit Earth --or something like that---, so they fire this capsule/bullet into some sand in the lab, and they expect to find all the ingredients for life to be destroy, and they find the exact oppossite, they find more complex ingredients.

Sorry I cant recall the ingredients or these chains of something that were created from the pressure.  Polymers? I think it is listed somewhere on Brigs Klices ' Cosmic Ancestry ' site, but I would know where in there to look off hand.  He has delved deep into this and other stuff since at least the 90's



Topic's author
#8
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
The question then becomes, does consciousness generate brain, rather than the other way around.  Brains appear to have evolved to utilize and enhance a pre-existing consciousness.
On cosmic scale, I agree with R Penrose. consciousness does not create biologicals, much our finite Universe.

B Fuller liked to say how consciousness---the simplest-- begins with twoness-awareness of each other ergo relative to each other by some line-of-relation ship ex EMRadition { photons no charge } or Gravity pulling two inward, to spin, orbiting around each other or two entities that are charged alike or opposites etc.

All animals are conscious, have consciousness.  To get to level of access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, requires inter-relationships in the brain involving a more complex set of memories and feedbacks and whatever else I cant explain. Humans see patterns of relationships and create more complex patterns of language, counting so and so on.

Yes, we observe in experiments self-organizing chemistries, into more complex patters, yet, we do not see less complex patterns self-oragnizing into biologic life.

And even with our access to more complex Meta-space mind, humans still have not created biologic life.

What we observe is that all animals, those with brains and those without a brain, are adaptable and responsive to their environments, changing their behavior based on an “awareness” of external things in their environment. There is also a boatload of scientific evidence that "brains" are not requisite for the existence of consciousness. A wide range of creatures without brains demonstrate rudimentary forms of consciousness and examining those capabilities in an evolutionary context logically necessitates a broadening of the way we think about consciousness, and makes it very hard to draw arbitrary lines, especially at "brain".

I agree.  Tho another more cosmic-like answer is that the coding for biologic life exists with some cosmic eggs of planets, comets, or whatever, and these some how get spread out into the galaxies, or beyond, and this biologic seed { coded pattern } may be simple, or it may even be as complex as human. I dunno.
The idea that brains are required to produce consciousness is conceptually inconsistent with the observed facts, we need to change that presupposition if we want to make progress in understanding life, and in the end, to know who, and what we are.
It human brain that has most access to more complex set of Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego.
Ideas, comments, explanations?
It is how we define consciousness.  O-----O = two 'Its' with a line-of-relationship is simplest awareness of each other some how or another.

Maybe it is more like this (O)(--)(--)(--)(O) i.e. their never less than two kinds of relation between It A and It B.

This is above is assuming the minimal set, not that a concept of where the minimal set of a more complex biological coding pattern exists in various egg places in Universe, waiting for the correct environmental circumstances to spawn them out to a Earth-like planet.

So we could have various combinations of the above, coming to Earth at various times, and their already ready to fit together like building blocks { LEGOs } etc.

I dunno.  Only humans think this way, that is what I believe.

#9
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,850
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
Good point, you should go talk to some bacteria and get back to us with ideas.

There are several posters here without brains, talk to them too.
They claim they would be smarter if humans stopped attacking them.
Topic's author
#10
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Shila
They claim they would be smarter if humans stopped attacking them.

Shila, please stop posting in any threads ive started. Period. Back off and please do not respond to this message either for starters.