5 of 5
5
Too much thinking
Posted: 04 November 2007 05:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20

Listen, to the silent spaces, in between the phrases, you can hear the song.

From Listen, Pete and Maura Kennedy.

What’s fascinating to me about “the molecules of emotion” is how the concept illustrates the ways that individual cells exhibit characteristics of independence and dependence and cellular communication. I won’t go through my rap on slime molds, dictylstelium, again but those interested might search for in in the SHF archives.

More on that here. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/awnew.htm

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2007 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  480
Joined  2006-12-16

Whew - Jonathan Edwards (see the link above) is going to take more than a few minutes of my attention! One problem he’s up against, as he said, is when biology meets physics. I encountered the word ‘phonon’ in his article…so then I had to go try to get SOME idea of what that is…and then I get to the point where the only honest thing I can do is throw up my hands, and say “TOO MUCH THINKING” (with too little comprehension.)
It’s one thing to observe and describe the behavior of slime mold (which is fascinating, strange and beautiful…even reading about, which is all I’ve done) but then linking consciousness to crystal vibrations in the cell membrance…gosh, it starts to sound pretty new age, doesn’t it?

So is this what’s happening with Candace Pert? She tried to make too many connections too soon and tumbled down a rabbit hole? I’ve ordered her new book because I find her story so entertaining. Some of the Amazon reviewers found her book disappointing in that it was so me, me, me, but I like that sort of story telling.

Now, where’s that Jonathan Edwards quote about the God Delusion? I have to give that in full….

[ Edited: 05 November 2007 10:53 AM by Pat_Adducci]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2007 11:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  480
Joined  2006-12-16

For a fuller statement, follow the link eucaryote gave. This is just a teaser:

“Richard Dawkins should be congratulated on his new book (The God Delusion)...
“As I am sure Dawkins would admit, if there is a weakness in the challenge to religion made by science it is that science is still encumbered with almost as much believing as religion…
“Almost all scientists, apparently including Dawkins, believe in something that could be called ‘a sentient human being’, despite the fact that William James pointed out 100 years ago that such a suggestion is incompatible with science, or even with rational thought…
“Very briefly, human beings are colonies of cells and everything we know about these cells is (sic) that they have separate inputs of information about the world. They cannot have combined sentience for information that is only available to one or other of them. They could only be sentient separately…
“I would suggest that to get a full perspective on the God Delusion it may be handy to see the full absurdity of the Human Being Delusion; they may be closely linked.”

[ Edited: 05 November 2007 11:26 AM by Pat_Adducci]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2007 01:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
Pat_Adducci - 05 November 2007 04:23 PM

For a fuller statement, follow the link eucaryote gave. This is just a teaser:

“Richard Dawkins should be congratulated on his new book (The God Delusion)...
“As I am sure Dawkins would admit, if there is a weakness in the challenge to religion made by science it is that science is still encumbered with almost as much believing as religion…
“Almost all scientists, apparently including Dawkins, believe in something that could be called ‘a sentient human being’, despite the fact that William James pointed out 100 years ago that such a suggestion is incompatible with science, or even with rational thought…
“Very briefly, human beings are colonies of cells and everything we know about these cells is (sic) that they have separate inputs of information about the world. They cannot have combined sentience for information that is only available to one or other of them. They could only be sentient separately…
“I would suggest that to get a full perspective on the God Delusion it may be handy to see the full absurdity of the Human Being Delusion; they may be closely linked.”

Exactly the quote I would have chosen. Thanks for reading about the slime molds, Pat. And for seeing the implications. That’s all pretty old science at this point, but it shows how individual cells can communicate separately and together. Other simple experiments with sponges can show similar things. One can disassociate and separate the cells of a small individual sponge into separate cells with the help of something like nylon hose. Place the cells in a petri dish and watch as the cells re-associate and rebuild the sponge, the ORIGINAL sponge. It’s simple and old science but it’s mind blowing when you think about it in the context of awareness.

After all, so much of the above quote is simply true. We are colonies of specialized cells, including the nervous system, that all grew from a single non-specialized cell. And all of these cells, evolved from a single group of primordial cells. We all evolved together. The overwhelming similarity that runs through all of biology is astounding, given the number or life forms which are expressed. Hemoglobin and chlorophyll are based on near identical structural chemical “coordination complexes”, the only difference between the two is that one is based on Iron and the other on magnesium. All the biological world has enzymes that will fit the right hand optical isomer of the sugar but not the left handed one, (or the other way around), because that’s the sugar that the green plants make. Again, we all evolved together.

Yeah, I think that is what happened to Pert. She may have fallen down a rabbit hole, but the implications of what she and others were learning really were addressing the “mind/body” issues in scientific ways.

Yeah, the “human delusion”. Recall that the amoebae that germinate from dichtostyelium spores, feed and replicate individually but ultimately all join together to form a “psuedo-plasmodium”, or slug, which possesses an definite anterior and posterior along with a specialized, light sensitive “eye spot” which it uses to crawl away from the light to find an appropriate place to fruit in the dark. Does the slug “think” it’s “conscious”?

Our cells are “aware” of a huge amount of input that does not show up in our so called “consciousness”. The cells in fact run the whole show, including the “cartesian theatre” where many of us assume our “mind” is located.
Yeah, Jonathan Edwards is way over my head too. Maybe just because a lot of it really is as crazy as it sounds. shock

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2007 02:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

This is to put what something does rather too much in the service of identifying what something is.

This can be made a bit plainer by asking the musical question “Why doesn’t God heal amputees?”

Alternatively, one might ask why someone needs a liver transplant rather than simply growing a new one by dint of sheer effort. Perhaps there are certain truths we have not yet learned. It’s costing us dearly.

On the other hand, this may simply be the result of some disgruntled individuals who think that science just gets a little too much of the coconut meme pie.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2007 08:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
Salt Creek - 05 November 2007 07:17 PM

This is to put what something does rather too much in the service of identifying what something is.

This can be made a bit plainer by asking the musical question “Why doesn’t God heal amputees?”

Alternatively, one might ask why someone needs a liver transplant rather than simply growing a new one by dint of sheer effort. Perhaps there are certain truths we have not yet learned. It’s costing us dearly.

On the other hand, this may simply be the result of some disgruntled individuals who think that science just gets a little too much of the coconut meme pie.

Read The Body Electric by Robert Becker . Extensive real world “grind and bind” research into regrowth of limbs including salamander tails and human bone. See wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Electric

Weird experiments. For example, if you amputate the leg of a salander, at the shoulder, and then cut the hand from the arm and reattach the old wrist to the shoulder stump, what do you think regenerates out of the end of the limb?
a hand!!!???

Biologically speaking, doing is everything, things that do not do, do not live. Doing is being.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2007 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20

From Wikipedia on William James on emotion

[quote author =“wikipedia”]William James’ bear

From Joseph LeDoux’s description of William James’ Emotion [8]

  Why do we run away if we notice that we are in danger? Because we are afraid of what will happen if we don’t. This obvious (and incorrect) answer to a seemingly trivial question has been the central concern of a century-old debate about the nature of our emotions.

  It all began in 1884 when William James published an article titled “What Is an Emotion?”[9] The article appeared in a philosophy journal called Mind, as there were no psychology journals yet. It was important, not because it definitively answered the question it raised, but because of the way in which James phrased his response. He conceived of an emotion in terms of a sequence of events that starts with the occurrence of an arousing stimulus {the sympathetic nervous system or the parasympathetic nervous system}; and ends with a passionate feeling, a conscious emotional experience. A major goal of emotion research is still to elucidate this stimulus-to-feeling sequence—to figure out what processes come between the stimulus and the feeling.

  James set out to answer his question by asking another: do we run from a bear because we are afraid or are we afraid because we run? He proposed that the obvious answer, that we run because we are afraid, was wrong, and instead argued that we are afraid because we run:

      Our natural way of thinking about… emotions is that the mental perception of some fact excites the mental affection called emotion, and that this latter state of mind gives rise to the bodily expression. My thesis on the contrary is that the bodily changes follow directly the PERCEPTION of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion (called ‘feeling’ by Damasio).

  The essence of James’ proposal was simple. It was premised on the fact that emotions are often accompanied by bodily responses (racing heart, tight stomach, sweaty palms, tense muscles, and so on; sympathetic nervous system) and that we can sense what is going on inside our body much the same as we can sense what is going on in the outside world. According to James, emotions feel different from other states of mind because they have these bodily responses that give rise to internal sensations, and different emotions feel different from one another because they are accompanied by different bodily responses and sensations. For example, when we see James’ bear, we run away. During this act of escape, the body goes through a physiological upheaval: blood pressure rises, heart rate increases, pupils dilate, palms sweat, muscles contract in certain ways (evolutionary, innate defense mechanisms). Other kinds of emotional situations will result in different bodily upheavals. In each case, the physiological responses return to the brain in the form of bodily sensations, and the unique pattern of sensory feedback gives each emotion its unique quality. Fear feels different from anger or love because it has a different physiological signature {the parasympathetic nervous system for love}. The mental aspect of emotion, the feeling, is a slave to its physiology, not vice versa: we do not tremble because we are afraid or cry because we feel sad; we are afraid because we tremble and are sad because we cry.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 5
5
 
‹‹ Zen for the Day      Epistemology of Atheism ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed