[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[Ham Priday]

Will --


> I haven't studied the brain for several decades now, and my knowledge
> may be out of date. What I continue to think from that time, is that such
> hallucinations are no different from those that we call real. It is a 
> different
> pattern firing. If one basis reality on survival criteria, then perhaps a
> system can be formed as you state. But remember, that such criteria are
> assumptions. By such assumptions, one could conclude that reincarnation
> actually creates even more survival, and therefore must be true (and
> maybe it is). A while back I had what I thought was an epiphany, and
> realized that all these arguments based on evolution were pretty empty
> tautologies. I am a biologist by training, and seeing apart from this was
> interesting. It is equally possible that evolution is a pulling force. 
> Each
> species fills the niches available. Are these niches creating the species
> which inhabits them? If so, what is the underlying function of these 
> niches.

Pulling forces and niche filling suggest a "teleology of intelligent design" 
which I have never denied.  However, I look at it this way.  A design is 
something we recognize as having symmetrical or patterned attributes. 
Intelligence is the capability to perceive or construct designs.  Therefore, 
if the physical universe is indeed a construction of cognitive awareness, 
it's not surprising that it is experienced as an intelligently designed 
system.  This is true whether the source of intelligence is human or divine 
(i.e., essence-value), and it would apply not only to the physical 
appearance of things but to the dynamics and evolution of the system as a 
whole.

> What you describe is founded on good science, cultured cells in vitro
> and so forth. Yes, the brain is formed by those connections which create
> us as we are. Again, are those connections dictated by reductionism or
> by expansionism? I would argue that much of which information is
> dropped, is dictated by society (parenthood, friends), rather than by
> trial and error. Which is why I sometimes say that language is a virus
> (not in a negative sense). Is it possible that out of all the ways we can
> conceptualize, we have chosen the best way?

The neural connections create (perhaps "actualize" is a better word) our 
being-in-the-world, to use an existential phrase.  I don't think reduction 
or expansion is accountable for the order of our existence.  But 
value-sensibility and reason certainly are.  Man is equipped with an 
exquisite sense of value and the analytical ability to rationalize, both of 
which are critical in manipulaitng a pluralistic universe to meet his needs. 
Do we "choose how we conceptualize"?  I'm not sure I can answer that 
question.  Our choice of values is freely exercised, and we act to consumate 
our desires.  In doing so, we develop attitudes about our environment and 
society which "color" our world esthetically, morally, and intellectually, 
so that no two individuals share the same identical experience.  Yet, the 
act of conceptualization is functionally the same for all of us, just as 
thinking, feeling, and acting are identical human functions.

> It was thought that forgetting was an ability. The brain would wash itself
> so as to not be be overwhelmed. There are people with conditions of
> extremely high memory capacity (photographic), who are unable to function.
> Each word in a sentence brings up a series of memories, and it is 
> impossible
> to concentrate on much. Selective memory allows the brain to function to
> feed itself. I believe that many thoughts are occurring at once, and that
> which we are currently thinking about, is brought to the surface to 
> complete
> a task. If such single-mindedness is too extreme, creativity may be lost.
> I have met people who are so literal, it's frightening.

Yes, autism and attention disorders (ADHD) come to mind as examples of 
cognitive overload such as you describe.  I prefer not to dwell on 
dysfunctional individuals in aphilosophical discussion because anomalies 
tend to throw us off base when positing general theories.  (I leave such 
phenomena to the psychologists and New Age spiritualists who delight in 
talking about time-travel, ESP, near-death experiences, reincarnation, and 
space aliens.)

> I think it would be wrong to reduce all thinking to that of survival and
> evolution.  If man could not talk for millions of years, why was that
> capacity preserved and finally expressed?  Was it time?  How did we
> know to preserve it?

Again, evolution and survival of the fittest is as valid an explanation as 
any other for getting us where we are.  (I too took Biology as a major.) 
But the question you are asking is more "why?" than "how?", and that 
requires a teological answer.  It's easy for the Pirsigians to say that 
quality, intelligence and morality are inherent in the universe, and we 
simply "evolve" to these patterns.  I happen to think that this demeans 
man's role in existence, and that these three aspects of our nature are 
derivatives of Value in the same way as the objects we construct 
experientially.

[Ham, previously]:
> We are able to enjoy a fine work of art or music, for example,
> by realizing the value of the piece holistically, rather than
> analytically.  I agree that our response to esthetic value is more
> intensely felt than the value of factual knowledge, moral
> virtues, freedom, and perhaps even the life of a fellow human.
> But, again, where we find value depends on our social
> conditioning, behavioral habits, and environmental circumstances.

[Willblake2]:
> I would say that the intellect is just one facet of the psycho-emotional.
> It is used to communicate such psycho-emotional sensations, and repeat
> them if wanted. It is simplified communicative psycho-emotionality.
>
> Ham, I still have not seen a cogent description. I see circles within 
> circles;
> something is driving these circles to form. I read in these posts,
> descriptions which vary from the mystical, to the highly scientific,
> to the sociological and system-based. Sometimes I read an explanation
> that is somewhat Pirsigian (is that a word yet?), and I am left with
> a big mix of ideas.
>
> Suffice it to say, that I do not have enough information yet to debate it
> on a fundamental level and I stick to sound bites.

Will, you have the curiosity, persistence and intellect to resolve your 
dilemma.  The solution won't come overnight, but never underestimate your 
abilities.  Keep an open mind, and remember that no one is born with an 
instruction manual for understanding reality.  We are all on a learning 
curve, and the ideas you've suggested are as reasonable as any I've read in 
this forum.  You have made me rethink my position, which is more than I can 
say for most of the comments I read here.

Thanks for your insights and willingness to consider new ideas.

Cheers,
Ham