Barking up the Evolutionary Tree
Throughout nature almost every part of each living being has probably served, in a slightly modified condition, for diverse purposes, and has acted in the living machinery of many ancient and distinct specific forms.
Darwin 1862, 348
Julia and John are talking about the following article:
A New Theory Explains How Consciousness Evolved
- Misha Voguel from Pexels
- Chris Helgren / Reuters
- liggraphy from Pixabay
In this post the dialogue is realised by an interaction of virtual characters, for more information please check the page “Virtual characters“
OK, I got your draft, read it through, and I have some suggestions
First of all: it is too long and too detailed, I suggest we split it up 😉
So I can elaborate and explain?
Indeed. But I did like the setup of the argument a lot! 😊
Nice! I noticed there were so many early breakthroughs thanks to experiments on the brain 🧠
that this became the dominant paradigm and we kinda forgot about consciousness
Exactly! And then there is the bit at the end about the alternatives
OK, you should work those out in a separate article, and you have to explain about Darwin first
“The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871, 106)
This basically allowed us to translate what happens in animal brains to human brains
and since for the longest time animals were seen as barely more than machines …
It basically enabled the whole paradigm: to understand the mind, we investigate the brain, humans are sufficiently like animals, so …
we can learn about humans by studying animals, and reduce the whole shebang to biological mechanisms. Clever.
And then I introduce some alternative approaches and critiques
William James said that despite all the biological explanations it is still a complete mystery “how a motion became a feeling”.
You do need to explain that a bit more though …
Basically by reducing the mind to the brain we try to explain consciousness by matter in motion …
… basically we’re back to Descartes. Sorry, I’m repeating myself 😄
Well, Descartes thought that this couldn’t be done at all, that we needed something other than matter to explain the mind
… Continue to read the conversation between John and Julia
on Saturday 17th July…
Total posts on the argument
What is AI compared to the hand that wields it?
It suddenly started drawing – in a naturalistic style. Yesterday I was watching it whizzing around, and the result really did look almost like you. That’s when I threw it away…
Anything is art if an AI says it is
Do not you understand? This is a whole new dimension, even according to the canons of the classical “art sacre”. This is a real revolution. Do you understand, ladies and gentlemen? This is the first hot plastic artwork! You! You! My boy … you are an artist!
“Young man, you don’t think I’m encountering constructive symbolism for the first time, do you? “Unplug”: free yourself from physicality, from the vulgar earthbound physicality, from the evils of civilization, from electricity, nerves, and so on. Isn’t that what this is? The association is crystal clear, I’d be tempted to say, perhaps even too obvious” (Kishon 1987)