Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Conscious Reasoning

Conscious Reasoning

I would say that the basic facts that we have, with which to start the search for the cusp of instinctive and consciously reasoned behavior might be:

1) Somewhere in the chain of life, from its mysterious beginning to the present, there exists a point when the behavior of creatures is influenced by something we call consciousness rather than something we call instinct.

2) Using computer lingo, we can classify instinct as behavior caused by hardwired algorithms.

3) Reason is a means to control behavior based upon real time assessment of real time circumstances.

4) Reason requires that data from the senses be ordered into some fashion that will facilitate real time inferences, this is called conceptualization; followed by inferences made from these concepts.

5) We have, from computer modeling technology, empirical evidence that the neural system that control perception and mobility have the capacity to conceptualize and to infer. In other words, the essential elements of sensorimotor control are also similar to the essential elements of reasoning.

6) If biology has created the structure that has the elements for reasoning, it is logical to conclude that such a system would not be duplicated for reason but that this very same system would be modified in whatever manner is necessary for it to function also as an instrument that can reason.

Instinct controlled the behavior of creatures until consciousness kicked in and now humans are controlled to a large extent by reason rather than instinct. Throughout time the evolutionary process, which includes instinctive behavior, maintained some form of equilibrium in the world. With the introduction of rational creatures this evolutionary process has been drastically disrupted.

As reasoning creatures that have disrupted the evolutionary process, we must replace this evolutionary process with a rational process that can duplicate or improve on the natural evolutionary process. If we cannot perform this prodigious task adequately the whole shebang will be flushed down the toilet.

Secretary of State Powell said in regards to the Iraq war that “if we break it, we own it”. I think we can say the same thing about our human activity and natural evolution. We break natural evolution and thereby we own the problems caused by that action.

I agree to a large extent. You write, "As reasoning creatures that have disrupted the evolutionary process, we must replace this evolutionary process with a rational process that can duplicate or improve on the natural evolutionary process."

I'm not sure I'd agree we have necessarily disrupted the evolutionary process though. We're certainly part of it. Do you know anything about the Gaia theory? The idea is that species evolve for the benefit of life as as a whole, or basically something like that. Under that theory humans must have evolved for a purpose. However the problem arises, what is that purpose? I read the book "Gaia" and virtually the next day I visited my brother whose job at the time involved crushing limestone so it could be spread over the land increasing its productivity. Is the reditribution of resources that have been locked up by geological processes the purpose of our evolution?

With this we reach as close as I come to supporting the Intelligent Design theory of evolution.

When I speak of evolution I am speaking of the process of natural selecton.

Natural selection of creatures on this planet has been, to a significant degree, taken control of by human technology. We drive species in and out of extention through human action which is in many cases far removed from natural action. Our action is motivated not by natural selection but by artificial selection based upon abstract values such as nation, capitalism, religion, profit, etc.

Coberst. Evolution is not natural selection. Natural selection is merely one mechanism through which evolution occurrs. Artificial selection is another mechanism. Evolution is simply change, but necessarily involves adaptatiion to environment. After all if any species cannot adapt to a changing environment it becomes extinct. All species also change the environment as they evolve but humans have been doing so to a much greater extent. By fire, for example, for a very long time. Rapidly changing environment causes extinction.

My understanding of the Gaia hypothesis is that occasionally things get out of kilter. When that happens the offending species becomes extinct.

coberst suggested;--Natural selection of creatures on this planet has been, to a significant degree, taken control of by human technology........so NO natural selection until humans appeared?..... that is not sensible. I think that you are not in fact talking about natural selection, but something else, I have no idea what.

terry-I like the Gaia theory. I remember reading a lovely crazy description of the planet ridding itself of aberrant species by shaking like a wet dog dislodges fleas. Gives a new perspective on earthquakes!! It is nice to imagine the Earth could recover from the stuff we are doing to it though. Let's hope so.