The Function of Thought

[untermensche]

If conditions are conducive to complexity it will arise. Just like conditions for increasing size led to very large dinosaurs. The initial condition of high oxygen levels in the atmosphere led to some dinosaurs getting larger. That much would have occurred randomly. Random genetic mutations leading to increased size that wasn't advantageous prior to the increase in oxygen levels. But when some dinosaurs got larger it created the additional conditions in which carnivorous dinosaurs had to be larger in order to prey on the larger herbivorous dinosaurs. That altered the conditions leading to even larger herbivors. Size became the positive feedback or driving factor. The same happened with brain complexity, except I think there was probably a threshold involved at which point it became an advantage. If, as I suggested earlier, the precursor of the brain evolved as the central node in a system of otherwise independent stimulus-response networks, then some advantage might have resulted from the new possibility of coordinating all of those functions. That would be the beginning of a complex network. But in this case there are no competing systems that would drive further increases in complexity. There's no T-Rex providing positive feedback. Or in pandemic terms, there's no vector. In the real world there might be a whole ranch of possible vectors. We call that an ecosystem. It involves an intricate dynamic equilibrium of competing systems. So what I'm proposing is that at some point (through randomly produced but marginally advantageous mutations) a limit is encountered where the added complexity has resulted in brains that are large enough and dense enough that heat management becomes the limiting factor. The T-Rex if you will. In order for the brain to be any larger it must also evolve the feedback systems that control energy allotment and heat generation. Hence the drive to maximize efficiency through positive and negative feedback systems. This I believe is the basis of thought. Thought (both conscious and unconscious) is the brain continuously working to minimize conflict and contention between its various processes, such as fight-vs-flight and eat dessert-vs-lose weight, as well as that which leads to any paradigm shift as occurring in any intellectual endeavor.

Complexity can arise randomly if it grants a survival advantage in a present environment.

But also less complexity can rise if that grants a survival advantage.

It is all randomness.

Bacteria have remained single celled for millions and millions of years.

 

[fromderinside]

Bacteria are marvelous things in the way they have persisted as single cell organisms but they have changed and varied over time to fit in many niches.

 

[untermensche]

Bacteria are marvelous things in the way they have persisted as single cell organisms but they have changed and varied over time to fit in many niches.

Adaption does not necessarily mean more complex.

Evolution is change.

But it is random change within randomly changing environments.

Sometimes greater complexity and sometimes less. It all depends on what survives.

 

[fromderinside]

Bacteria are marvelous things in the way they have persisted as single cell organisms but they have changed and varied over time to fit in many niches.

Adaption does not necessarily mean more complex.

Evolution is change.

But it is random change within randomly changing environments.

Sometimes greater complexity and sometimes less. It all depends on what survives.

1. I never wrote more complex so that turkey is dead before the game even starts.
2. Evolution need not necessarily be change. Something that is ideally fit will survive when any variation from ideal will be selected against.
3-4. Is what "changed and varied over time to fit in many niches." means,

You are clamoring very much while saying very little. As I read your stuff you are agreeing with me but restating it for some reason.

 

[untermensche]

Evolution is constant change. No two organisms are the exact same thing. Every organism is a unique experiment.

Variation is what drives the process.

And all my claims are true. And what they say depends on the reader.

 

[rousseau]

I wonder if it makes sense to think of thought as an additional sensory organ - one that observes the past and future - something that would evolve in an organism that exists across time.

I did a bit of an experiment yesterday when I was doing a tedious chore: I tried to stay focused on what I was doing using the observing mind, to experience what I was doing so to speak. But no matter how hard I tried I kept slipping back into passive thought. The reality was that it was a waste of energy to focus on what I was doing because it was unimportant, and my muscle memory could do it effortlessly, where orientation of the mind to past and future events offered a return on energy expended.

Where the observing mind might be more beneficial in situations where we are gathering data from the present moment.

 

[steve_bank]

I wonder if it makes sense to think of thought as an additional sensory organ - one that observes the past and future - something that would evolve in an organism that exists across time.

I did a bit of an experiment yesterday when I was doing a tedious chore: I tried to stay focused on what I was doing using the observing mind, to experience what I was doing so to speak. But no matter how hard I tried I kept slipping back into passive thought. The reality was that it was a waste of energy to focus on what I was doing because it was unimportant, and my muscle memory could do it effortlessly, where orientation of the mind to past and future events offered a return on energy expended.

Where the observing mind might be more beneficial in situations where we are gathering data from the present moment.

Bacteria are marvelous things in the way they have persisted as single cell organisms but they have changed and varied over time to fit in many niches.

Adaption does not necessarily mean more complex.

Evolution is change.

But it is random change within randomly changing environments.

Sometimes greater complexity and sometimes less. It all depends on what survives.

1. I never wrote more complex so that turkey is dead before the game even starts.
2. Evolution need not necessarily be change. Something that is ideally fit will survive when any variation from ideal will be selected against.
3-4. Is what "changed and varied over time to fit in many niches." means,

You are clamoring very much while saying very little. As I read your stuff you are agreeing with me but restating it for some reason.

I got to hear Stephen J Gould speak in the 90s.

As he put it, you may be the best adaoted fish in the world, but if your pond dries up you are history.

Evolution by definition is change.

Life fills 'energy niches'. Birds adapt long beaks to get at nectar. Birds with longer beaks get more energy, reproduce more than shorter beaks, and pass on genes. Random mutation of beak size coupled with the environment, natural selection.

Tall giraffes eat high vegetation.

 

[skepticalbip]

Tall giraffes eat high vegetation.

But they look funny trying to drink from the waterhole.

 

[steve_bank]

Tall giraffes eat high vegetation.

But they look funny trying to drink from the waterhole.

How do you look to a giraffe? A short ungainly weak biped.

 

[steve_bank]

I wonder if it makes sense to think of thought as an additional sensory organ - one that observes the past and future - something that would evolve in an organism that exists across time.

I did a bit of an experiment yesterday when I was doing a tedious chore: I tried to stay focused on what I was doing using the observing mind, to experience what I was doing so to speak. But no matter how hard I tried I kept slipping back into passive thought. The reality was that it was a waste of energy to focus on what I was doing because it was unimportant, and my muscle memory could do it effortlessly, where orientation of the mind to past and future events offered a return on energy expended.

Where the observing mind might be more beneficial in situations where we are gathering data from the present moment.

Practice makes perfect.

For decades medical science says awareness and clarity is based largely on diet and exercise, and the brain is an organ that needs exercise.. This is very true for me.

Your diet and physical conditioning affects your long term body and brain chemistry. Maintaing awareness and alertness during the day takes effort, energy, and O2.

If yiu are satiated with food and alcohol every day without exercise you can sink into a low state. You try to get energrized and alert but you sink back down. It takes effort over time to overcome the inertia.

I usualy exercise when I get up. If I do not get a regular diet of a variety of vegetables my alertness goes down. Same if I eat too much carbs or red meat.

 

[rousseau]

I wonder if it makes sense to think of thought as an additional sensory organ - one that observes the past and future - something that would evolve in an organism that exists across time.

I did a bit of an experiment yesterday when I was doing a tedious chore: I tried to stay focused on what I was doing using the observing mind, to experience what I was doing so to speak. But no matter how hard I tried I kept slipping back into passive thought. The reality was that it was a waste of energy to focus on what I was doing because it was unimportant, and my muscle memory could do it effortlessly, where orientation of the mind to past and future events offered a return on energy expended.

Where the observing mind might be more beneficial in situations where we are gathering data from the present moment.

Practice makes perfect.

For decades medical science says awareness and clarity is based largely on diet and exercise, and the brain is an organ that needs exercise.. This is very true for me.

Your diet and physical conditioning affects your long term body and brain chemistry. Maintaing awareness and alertness during the day takes effort, energy, and O2.

If yiu are satiated with food and alcohol every day without exercise you can sink into a low state. You try to get energrized and alert but you sink back down. It takes effort over time to overcome the inertia.

I usualy exercise when I get up. If I do not get a regular diet of a variety of vegetables my alertness goes down. Same if I eat too much carbs or red meat.

Agreed. I believe this is in part why I've managed to be so productive over the past ten or so years. Back in the mid-00's I experienced some mental health issues and was forced to focus on my health - got to a point where I wasn't drinking or doing drugs, eating healthy, got off caffeine. In the intervening years I did very good work and made very good decisions, and now my family is reaping the benefits.

Where most I know who chronically abuse their mind and body seem to be living less fulfilling, and more anxiety-ridden lives.

 

[Swammerdami]

Skimming the last several posts, it is not clear to me what the thread focuses on.

If "thought" refers to an organism responding to its environment in an intelligent way that may seem deliberative, then many creatures are "thoughtful." Not just animals, but plants and even bacteria can react in a way that seems "intelligent."

I am a fan of Julian Jaynes! What distinguishes modern man from most other animals, and even primitive man, is subjective consciousness: the ability of a thinking brain to focus inward on its own thinking. Language may have played a role in the development of subjective consciousness:

 

[rousseau]

Skimming the last several posts, it is not clear to me what the thread focuses on.

If "thought" refers to an organism responding to its environment in an intelligent way that may seem deliberative, then many creatures are "thoughtful." Not just animals, but plants and even bacteria can react in a way that seems "intelligent."

I am a fan of Julian Jaynes! What distinguishes modern man from most other animals, and even primitive man, is subjective consciousness: the ability of a thinking brain to focus inward on its own thinking. Language may have played a role in the development of subjective consciousness:

Language looks like the major differentiator to me too - we can think and communicate in concepts that orient behavior with a pretty high degree of precision. A precision that is likely behind the rise of complex social organization, which has a kind of synergistic effect. Our thought can also work on itself, creating new concepts on it's own accord.

With this thread I'm mainly interested in the properties of thought: what it is, what it does.

A few months ago I had a bit of an epiphany and realized that return on energy is a central heuristic when it comes to evolution, even though I went through a four year biology degree without hearing the term. With thought, I think the analogy with our sensory organs is a pretty good one. Memory keeps a record of our past and future that thought can work on when there is nothing pressing in the immediate environment - a return on energy expenditure when there isn't anything important to do.

I experience this all the time in software: my mind is constantly solving work problems, even on the weekend.

 

[Swammerdami]

It's important to distinguish between subconscious (or unconscious) thought and conscious thought. Although "conscious" thought might be the special thought which distinguishes modern man and which Jaynes calls "subjective consciousness," much of the most important and creative thought is subconscious. A week ago I drove 25 miles while talking on the phone and barely noticed I was driving (though I was alert enough to step on the brake when appropriate, etc.) I don't think a talented pianist is "subjectively conscious" of the tune he's playing: he wouldn't be able to play fluently if he were!

Creative inventions often burst from a brain unconsciously. In 1865 August Kekulé awoke from a dream suddenly understanding the structure of the benzene molecule. I personally have had some creative inventions (I have 30+ U.S. patents) and the best of them occurred to me suddenly without conscious effort.

I think subjective consciousness can be an impediment to creativity. My kids and I have been playing the card game Set and they've been trouncing me. I think it's because I'm unable to somehow blank my mind and let the patterns appear to me subconsciously.

 

[Thomas II]

Skimming the last several posts, it is not clear to me what the thread focuses on.

If "thought" refers to an organism responding to its environment in an intelligent way that may seem deliberative, then many creatures are "thoughtful." Not just animals, but plants and even bacteria can react in a way that seems "intelligent."

I am a fan of Julian Jaynes! What distinguishes modern man from most other animals, and even primitive man, is subjective consciousness: the ability of a thinking brain to focus inward on its own thinking. Language may have played a role in the development of subjective consciousness:

Language looks like the major differentiator to me too - we can think and communicate in concepts that orient behavior with a pretty high degree of precision. A precision that is likely behind the rise of complex social organization, which has a kind of synergistic effect. Our thought can also work on itself, creating new concepts on it's own accord.

With this thread I'm mainly interested in the properties of thought: what it is, what it does.

A few months ago I had a bit of an epiphany and realized that return on energy is a central heuristic when it comes to evolution, even though I went through a four year biology degree without hearing the term. With thought, I think the analogy with our sensory organs is a pretty good one. Memory keeps a record of our past and future that thought can work on when there is nothing pressing in the immediate environment - a return on energy expenditure when there isn't anything important to do.

I experience this all the time in software: my mind is constantly solving work problems, even on the weekend.

 

[rousseau]

It's important to distinguish between subconscious (or unconscious) thought and conscious thought. Although "conscious" thought might be the special thought which distinguishes modern man and which Jaynes calls "subjective consciousness," much of the most important and creative thought is subconscious. A week ago I drove 25 miles while talking on the phone and barely noticed I was driving (though I was alert enough to step on the brake when appropriate, etc.) I don't think a talented pianist is "subjectively conscious" of the tune he's playing: he wouldn't be able to play fluently if he were!

Creative inventions often burst from a brain unconsciously. In 1865 August Kekulé awoke from a dream suddenly understanding the structure of the benzene molecule. I personally have had some creative inventions (I have 30+ U.S. patents) and the best of them occurred to me suddenly without conscious effort.

I think subjective consciousness can be an impediment to creativity. My kids and I have been playing the card game Set and they've been trouncing me. I think it's because I'm unable to somehow blank my mind and let the patterns appear to me subconsciously.

It's interesting to look at the dichotomy because with regards to conscious thought the underlying assumption seems to be that there is an 'I' that thinks. But maybe conscious thought is really activity in the brain that we are consciously aware of, rather than something that we are consciously operating ourselves. It gives us a kind of illusion that we are operating the machine, when in reality it's just an operation that happens.

And I agree - the sub-conscious is central. I liken the sub-conscious to automated memory and activity, where the more concerted form of thought is a kind of integrator: to create, find, and integrate new knowledge.

 

[Swammerdami]

Here is a very recent review of a 44-year old book. That review mentions the 1977 book The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism which poses an intriguing(?) hypothesis.

An excerpt from the afore-linked review:

Popper and Eccles propose that consciousness arises when brains interact with each other. Without interaction brains stay brains. When brains interact they create both mind and culture.

Popper and Eccles say that there are three "worlds" encompassing the human experience:

World 1 consists of brains, matter and the material universe.
World 2 consists of individual human minds.
World 3 consists of the elements of culture, including language, social culture and science.

Popper's novel hypothesis is that while World 3 clearly derives from World 2, at some point it took on a life of its own as an emergent entity that was independent of individuals minds and brains. ... World 2 and World 3 somehow feed on each other, so that minds, fueled by cultural determinants and novelty, also start acquiring lives of their own, lives that are no longer dependent on the substrate of World 1 brains. In some sense this is the classic definition of emergent complexity, a phrase that was not quite in vogue in 1978. Not just that but Eccles proposes that minds can in turn act on brains just like culture can act on minds. This is of course an astounding hypothesis since it suggests that minds are separate from brains and that they can influence culture in a self-reinforcing loop that is derived from the brain and yet independent of it.

 

[steve_bank]

The function of thought is to create things to keep us entertained.