Black-Box Intelligence

[Ssel]

It still seems to me that 'feedback' in these contexts, is an indicator for more automatic adjustments,..

True

'Feedforward' seems to be more complex in that it is able to assess it's present situation,..

True

.. what would now separate AI from live intelligence is the dimension of emotions' effects on reasoning.

AI is a primitive construct beginning the process of intelligence. Emotions are a subset of the intelligence which is inherent in the creation of consciousness. Consciousness can not exist in any intelligent system without emotion. Emotion is the link between the reasoning efforts of the mind and the impetus for its creation. Emotion is what tells the mind to urge forward or backward concerning an association that it has identified.

 

Instinct and emotion are strongly associated. Instinct is merely a more basic association to value. The instinct is what tells the mind to focus more toward that shiny thing. An emotion tells the mind that this or that general subject is favorable or not. The mind is compelled to attempt to satisfy those inner urges within the confines of what it has determined to be reasonably consistent reality.

 

Due to the minds requirement to regard all associations as merely guesses with a possibility of error, emotions are very often given authority to override the minds guess so as to take a hopeful chance that the emotional concern can be met. This ends up being a self feeding error effect relating to internal feedback of constructing thoughts. Poor guesses are accepted so as to take a hopeful chance, then new problem solving and reassessments are made by new guesses so as to support the accepted poor guess. The mind ends up with a mountain of adjustments and frustrations to resolve due to its willingness to compromise its original guess. This is the Adam and Eve story.

 

No, we are not already 'aware' of our purpose, but because of 'reasoning' we seem driven in that direction?

Yes, the effort to resolving structured reasoning leads the mind back to ask where it all began. But then, how long would it take for the alone mind of Mankind to ever even become aware that it was doing what we call "reasoning"?

[Amanda]

Yes, the effort to resolving structured reasoning leads the mind back to ask where it all began. But then, how long would it take for the alone mind of Mankind to ever even become aware that it was doing what we call "reasoning"?

Ssel, so is reasoning a higher level of intelligence, and consciousness itself what separates us from AI? Is sensory awareness, feedback, feedforward, reasoning skills... driven by the impulse of emotions, what consciousness is? If so, emotions seem to be the deciding factor.

 

I'm very interested to know how these frustrating reassessments for poor guesses, attributed on account of emotions, relates to the Adam and Eve metaphor. To err is human... because to love is divine? 'Fall' in love?

 

Concerning your above quote, without human interrelationships, mankind would probably never get much beyond the basic instincts for survival, as seen in feral children.

 

So are you saying that intelligence needs to contain multifaceted components? Must intelligence be separated, but a similar degree in regards to its corresponding abilities, to be interrelating and implementing diverse capabilities, to perpetuate itself collectively, to higher levels of intellectual consciousness? Furthermore, these diverse 'aspects of itself' act as a check and balance to preserving itself, if the ultimate underlying force has/is the intention/purpose of preserving and more effectively evolving as a whole?

[Ssel]

Ssel, so is reasoning a higher level of intelligence, and consciousness itself what separates us from AI?

A list of terms associated with intelligence;

 

1) problem solving (fundamental concern of intelligence)

2) algorithms (processes required to association perceived problem to proposed solution)

3) sensors (inputs)

4) influence (outputs)

5) intent, purpose, goal, or motive (mild connotative differences, otherwise equal as the inspiration into action)

6) feedback and feedforward (2 samples of basic building blocks for algorithms)

7) memory (residue of prior event affecting the algorithm)

8) awareness (ability to sense)

9) consciousness (ability to sense external associations (not merely external sensors))

10) conscious mind (the problem solving algorithm formed from externally identified relationships of objects and events)

11) consistencies (non changing relationships extracted from recorded prior stimulus associations)

12) objects and events (consistently associated external stimulus)

13) instinct (basic association to priori goals yielded to conscious mind)

14) emotion (complex association to priori goals yielded to conscious mind)

15) associative thought (associations relating to externally identified objects or events)

16) abstract thought (associations relating to external conceptual objects or events)

17) reasoning (deducible associations relating to conscious picture of reality)

18) logic (the consciously observed laws of reality)

19) subconscious and unconscious (levels of problem solving utilized in forming consciousness)

20) dreams (subconscious simulation problem solving similar to conscious planning)

21) remembered dreams (translatable subconscious object constructs reviewed by the conscious)

22) hypnosis (an external process for slipping past conscious value associations so as to alter the subconscious database of consistency associations (picture of reality))

 

What we call “reasoning” is the mind’s effort to draw conclusive associations based on the conscious mind’s prior observed consistency of relationships as they relate to external objects or events. Consciousness is required for conscious reasoning, but is not required for similar problem solving below the level of conscious awareness.

 

Conscious reasoning specifically uses externally identifiable objects and events to construct its observed laws of reality. The subconscious and unconscious problem solving algorithms have objects associated to their level of internal problem solving and their own picture of reality from which they deduce what can and can not be done.

 

Hypnosis is used to externally alter this subconscious picture so as to cause the construct of the conscious mind to shift without its control. This is accomplished by slipping past conscious awareness and thus avoiding associations assigned by prior conscious assessment. Hypnosis is similar to substituting a new set of employees into a company without upper management’s knowledge. The company takes on new characteristics, abilities and inabilities.

 

AI is an open ended term which can be built up to and beyond the level of human intelligence. The term merely refers to an intelligence that is built rather than grown.

 

It might be of interest to know that currently used elite military systems have instinctive responses and the beginnings of emotional responses. The is an unavoidable result of creating a conscious mind.

 

Emotional construct and consequence is to be discussed later.

 

So are you saying that intelligence needs to contain multifaceted components? Must intelligence be separated, but a similar degree in regards to its corresponding abilities, to be interrelating and implementing diverse capabilities, to perpetuate itself collectively, to higher levels of intellectual consciousness? Furthermore, these diverse 'aspects of itself' act as a check and balance to preserving itself, if the ultimate underlying force has/is the intention/purpose of preserving and more effectively evolving as a whole?

I would recommend being very careful using the terms "evolving" and "diverse". Both of these are currently popular concepts as they are promoted by the current political agenda. Both represent valid concerns for strategic survival, but both also involve incidious corruption.

 

When the intent of an intelligence is to eternally survive, then there are a limited set of diverse skills required to be "on tap". Any attempt to be all things at all times will detract from the greater strength of survival.

 

The idea of "evolving" is presented to the public as though it were a never ending growth. This is an extremely dangerous and false idea to accept. Evolution is the consequence of failure. It is not a goal to achieve but a last resort to accept after all other attempts to survive have been exhausted. If this notion is diverted, then evolution itself no longer functions properly. Evolution has worked by organisms attempting to survive, not by them accepting that they aren't going to anyway and rolling over. The effect on evolution principles of a species not even trying to survive would be devastating. Mankind would evolve better if he forgot that evolution even existed and just let it happen when it does. There comes a time when evolution no longer applies. The journey is no where near infinite.

 

Likewise, consciousness is not a goal to achieve before all attempts to handle reality have been exhausted by the creating elements. If a consciousness is produced that perceives the same construct of objects that the elements within perceive, then the consciousness represents no more than a competition for resources and prohibits further advancement in survival potential. This is similar to having too many chiefs and an unnecessary risk taken by having to hope that the controlling mind matures past its child stages. Forcing consciousness to rise when it isn't needed would cause a confusion on every level of problem solving. It would be like forcing a 20 man company to maintain the exact same architecture as IBM corp. The effort to maintain the structure would outweigh the effort to produce the product. This is also known as "too much government".

[Amanda]

9) consciousness (ability to sense external associations (not merely external sensors))

10) conscious mind (the problem solving algorithm formed from externally identified relationships of objects and events)

Ssel, are you saying consciousness and conscious mind does not have to be in association to life?

13) instinct (basic association to priori goals yielded to conscious mind)

Instinct seems to me to have no deductive properties to it at all, but are inborn responsive reactions. These automatic responses are possibly influenced by subconscious or even perhaps the unconscious mind, as these activities are without the thought process. If I fall, I instintively put my hands out to reduce the negative effects of its impact. If I touch a hot stove, I pull my finger away without discerning what action was needed.

 

Hypnosis is used to externally alter this subconscious picture so as to cause the construct of the conscious mind to shift without its control. This is accomplished by slipping past conscious awareness and thus avoiding associations assigned by prior conscious assessment. Hypnosis is similar to substituting a new set of employees into a company without upper management’s knowledge. The company takes on new characteristics, abilities and inabilities.

I think the subconscious mind is the 'upper management' and is what often drives our behavior. The rational and analytical skills may be in the conscious mind, but longterm memory is stored into the subconscious... along with suppressed trauma, that drives much of our behaviour without recognition of their forces to the conscious awareness! The aspect that seems to give us the most problems is the rational mind, which seems to find a need to invent reasons we insist upon as to why we do many things we do... which is a difficult goal to do with any veracity, since it's usually a faulty outcome because it doesn't have ready access to longterm memory. I agree we have to slip by these rational impulses to create influences via the subconscious into the conscious awarenesses though. We can therefore find it logical consciously that we should not be afraid of travel in airplanes, yet refuse to go on one or perspire the whole flight because of subconscious beliefs that linger unknowingly to the conscious mind. Panic and anxiety attacks are often subconsciously driven because of suppressed issues from conscious awareness.

 

I think the unconscious mind may even be the true highest governor, but there is so little known about this aspect, or how to access it with a conscious awareness of it. The subconscious can be readily assessible and much of its contents can be made known to the conscious awareness through highly researched techniques and methods. This seems not to be the case of the unconscious mind thus far, from my research into this area.

 

I hope these slight diversions from your premises don't take me off the path of understanding this ultimate conclusion of your insight.

[Ssel]

Ssel, are you saying consciousness and conscious mind does not have to be in association to life?

Consciousness is an architectural aspect of a highly sophisticated intelligence. It is the aspect that designates and relates sensory associations and relationships of objects outside the body. What constitutes life is a different set of properties neither confined to nor confining the design of intelligence.

Instinct seems to me to have no deductive properties to it at all, but are inborn responsive reactions. These automatic responses are possibly influenced by subconscious or even perhaps the unconscious mind, as these activities are without the thought process. If I fall, I instintively put my hands out to reduce the negative effects of its impact. If I touch a hot stove, I pull my finger away without discerning what action was needed.

= instinct (basic association to priori goals yielded to conscious mind)

 

I think the subconscious mind is the 'upper management' and is what often drives our behavior.

assignment of the word “upper” is a question of point of reference. If the subconscious is to be the “upper”, then the unconscious becomes the “super”, the hormonal system becomes the “ultra”, the DNA becomes the “supreme”, and the bio-chemistry becomes the “almighty”.

 

The rational and analytical skills may be in the conscious mind, but longterm memory is stored into the subconscious... along with suppressed trauma, that drives much of our behaviour without recognition of their forces to the conscious awareness! The aspect that seems to give us the most problems is the rational mind, which seems to find a need to invent reasons we insist upon as to why we do many things we do... which is a difficult goal to do with any veracity, since it's usually a faulty outcome because it doesn't have ready access to longterm memory. I agree we have to slip by these rational impulses to create influences via the subconscious into the conscious awarenesses though. We can therefore find it logical consciously that we should not be afraid of travel in airplanes, yet refuse to go on one or perspire the whole flight because of subconscious beliefs that linger unknowingly to the conscious mind. Panic and anxiety attacks are often subconsciously driven because of suppressed issues from conscious awareness.

Each higher level of architectural construct is designed to serve the one creating it. But this is much like a woman who has hired an architect to design her house. If she does not like the “feel” of the house, then the architect gets caught between the realities of the laws of physics, properties of materials, and the woman’s childhood fantasies, fears, and social pressures. The woman gives the architect palatable reasonings for why she wants what she wants. The architect accepts her reasonings because it isn’t really relevant to the goal of finding an acceptable design. She has suppressed her real rationale as to why this design or that bothers her because she didn’t want to reveal such personal information.

 

The woman sees aspects of other houses that she likes but the architect says it is the combinations that create the difficulty. The architect must deal with the reality of what can or can not be done. The woman drives the architect by what she wants. The architect becomes tempted to take risks so as to allow a settlement.

 

After a while, the woman angrily accuses the architect of just being difficult. The architect, not wanting to lose the job, quietly attempts again to find some way to satisfy what is desired and can be done.

 

This is a contest between reality and desire. The component confined to reality becomes the obstacle of the component confined to desire. The errors of significance are the misplacements of blame. The components begin to focus on each other rather than the reality and the drive.

 

The architect sees the woman as the problem. She gives excuses and rationales for her demands in an attempt to manage the architect. The woman sees the architect as the problem. He gives his excuses and rationales for the limitations of what he can do. He thinks that she is just pampering her passions and she thinks that he is just being uncreative.

 

Neither the worthiness of the architect nor the justification of the woman’s demands become truly known by either because they are locked into a contest of blame.

 

The architect is the conscious mind attempting to help the woman as a subconscious entity in dealing with the realities of the outside world of realiable structures.

[Amanda]

 

Thanks Ssel... I guess if I'd of stretched a little further, I could have seen that you were a few steps ahead of me. I'll try to not frustrate these other observers, and appreciate their patience also.

 

More please...

[Saviourmachine]

The term "feedback" refers to influence being fed back to a stimulus such as to enhance or inhibit the reaction from the stimulus. Feedback affects the affect of the input.

 

Feedforward is the concept of an input which observes an influence but is not altered by its observation. The algorithm may or may not include the observed influence into its goal pursuit. In the case of the feedback, the algorithm has no way to tell that the input has been affected. The algorithm assumes an accurate input and adjusts its output accordingly.

 

In one case, the algorithm is deceived into compliance. In the other case, the algorith is given additional information concerning its own influence.

You seem to think that at the end of these two pathways (one with only one feedforward loop straight from the input, and the other with at least one feedback loop) there is a comparator unit that you can bestow with "self-awareness" properties. The latter remains a jump of faith unless you can provide a bit more indepth information. I assume you know a lot of systems that have feedback plus feedforward loop and that are not "self-aware". In the case you disagree, define "self".

 

Feedback refers to a self-controlling influence by means of affecting its own stimulus input. This, in intelligent systems, is the sole cause of all psychological disorders.

All psychological disorders? Can you provide information about this too? I assume you know that a feedback system can be stable.

 

The tree continues to reach for the sun, being aware of that source of light. The point was that the tree is not aware of how much progress it has made or that perhaps the sun is being blocked by its own limbs. The tree would have a "feedforward" or self-awareness property if it could know that what was blocking the sun was one of its own limbs and thus perhaps alter its growth. The tree has a feedback process when the degree of growth from the sun is automatically inhibited by its first effort to grow. The purpose of feedback is to inhibit an otherwise uncontrolled urge.

If feedback and feedforward loops are necessary to create self-awareness, I would like two see an example of a system that has feedforward but no feedback. And a comparison with a system that has both, especially regarding the self-awareness facet.

 

In electronic systems this is represented by an idealized operational amplifier which has an infinite amplification potential. The feedback element loops the extreme attempt to over amplify back to the input of the op-amp so as to take away the amplifier's initial impetus to respond. The feedforward example of circuitry is far more complex.

Again, don't be afraid to use whatever concept you need. I'm intelligent enough. By the way I have a bachelor in Electrical Engineering. This is not a representative feedback system because it has a (forward) amplification factor of infinity. I don't know why you take the input of the opamp as the "information containing" nodes, and not the input of the whole opamp circuit. The input-output characteristic of an "inverting opamp circuit" is strictly defined, even when the amplification factor is infinity.

 

I thought that the tree growing towards the sun is automatic from feedback of its environment for survival.

A tree does indeed have feedback, but not from a length measuring sensor.

[Ssel]

Let me work up a small schematic for you SM, I suspect that we are just having language problems

[Ssel]

The following is an example of an electronic circuit utilizing the concept of feedforward.

Please forgive that I don't have a schematic drawing program.

 

The distinction of the feedforward loop is that it allows for the output influence to be verified, but does not automatically control the significant input such as to blind the intelligence from knowing how much of the input is due to its own feedback. The verifying of each step allows for a forward progressing action to be taken, whereas a feedback loop causes the stimulus of the action to be reduced such as to cause a retarding, backing off, of the action. A feedback can be positive also in which case the single step is immediately exaggerated.

 

In this example, the intelligence has the option of switching to a different radio tuned circuit if the initial tuning was not producing sound. In the case of a feedback loop, the intelligence would not be able to tell if there was no sound because it had shut itself off or because there was no radio reception.

 

If, in this circuit, the feedforward block became shorted such as to directly affect the FET pictured in the tuning circuit, then a feedback effect would be simulated. Any sound at the output would immediately alter the input without and decisions being made.

 

In the psychological world, this is analogous to a fear causing such an immediate closing of the eyes, that a blindness occurs. Childhood traumas occur in this fashion. The thought of a fearful event so immediately suppresses the memory that it, in effect, becomes short circuited no longer capable of being recalled because it instantly "changes the channel". The conscious mind is not given the memory but the subconscious mind is still aware that the general subject causes a danger alert. Thus the person tends to avoid the general subject yet has no conscious indication that he is doing so nor can he imagine why once it is pointed out.

 

Addictions are the opposite effect. In the case of an addiction, the feedback becomes a short circuit due to over stimulation. The feedback mechanism is a tuning or refining mechanism. When it is required to go to extremes in an attempt to maintain a balanced output, the feedback loop becomes burned into place at full inhibiting throttle. This in turn, forces more input to be given merely to get the output up to normal range. Until the feedback inhibitor can be relieved, the mind's sense of reality will be distorted to the negative unless extra positives are provided.

 

Both of these effects can occur on the chemical level and the mental intelligence levels. Thoughts can loop back to trigger such concerning presumptions such as to force that a conclusion be drawn too quickly. The person is blinded to their own presumptuous urge. The person sees only a premise and a conclusion without realizing that there was no argument between. This can be witnessed on many threads in here.

 

In the '70s I encountered a group of PhD level psychology professors who had publicly proclaimed that the mind does not exist. I asked, "Doesn't that depend on how you define the "mind"?". One of them thought for a second and then said, "Well, how can I define it if it doesn't exist?" The group (of about 8) proudly laughed at me. I had to argue for 2 hours to get them to see that they could not tell me that something doesn't exist if they don't know what it is. I used the example of a 3-headed elephant. They could proclaim that a 3-headed elephant doesn't exist because they had some concept of what it is. But if I had asked if a "triphalant" exists, then they could not proclaim anything until they knew what the word meant. The prospect of their embarrassment kept them from wanting to conclude that they might have been wrong and actually had no definition of a "mind", thus it took a long time to get them to stop their immediate conclusion of relief from the statement "I can't define what doesn't exist."

 

This same occurs here concerning the existence of "God". People so urgently want to conclude either for or against, that they don't see that they have no definition yet. By demanding a definition, the feedback loop burned into their minds, which forces them to immediately jump to the conclusion, is broken. After which time, a logical argument can be formed either for or against.

 

The philosophies in both Buddhism and Christianity address this issue. The fear response (often resolved into anger and no longer felt as fear) is removed by either the calming meditation or the surrounding with a feeling of security (love). In either case, the urgency trigger which was blinding the flow of thought is removed and, after a little recovery time, normal thought flow can resume. The exact thoughts or conclusions are not the issue, but rather that the mind has a chance to see what evidence it had without the auto-blinding effect.

 

By causing the very thought of Christian love or quiet Buddhistic meditation to be the urgency trigger, both subjects become futilized and can no longer help. It becomes a fear of the medication.

 

Please note that this aspect of both religions have nothing to do with belief in a God or deity unless the person is only willing to feel safe thinking that a God is taking care of them. The religions do not exist merely for this purpose. This is one of many aspects they each contain.

[Saviourmachine]

Feedforward (+ Feedback) makes Self-Awareness

[bold correction is mine:] If, in this circuit, the feedforward block became shorted such as to directly affect the FET pictured in the tuning circuit, then a feedback effect would be simulated. Any sound at the output would immediately alter the input without any decisions being made.

You don't seem to understand my question. Who is making these decisions? In this case "the intelligence" outside the "problem solving algorithm". That "intelligence" does have awareness of the input of the system by means of a feedforward loop. The box itself does not have "self-awareness". Only the "intelligence" that compares its output against its input is "aware" of the function of the box. I don't know how to reformulate it again, so I hope you understand my objections now. If not, it doesn't matter. I simply can't follow your deduction from feedforward loops to self-awareness.

 

Consciousness can be Translated to Every Domain containing Information Streams

In the psychological world, this is analogous to a fear causing such an immediate closing of the eyes, that a blindness occurs. Childhood traumas occur in this fashion. The thought of a fearful event so immediately suppresses the memory that it, in effect, becomes short circuited no longer capable of being recalled because it instantly "changes the channel". The conscious mind is not given the memory but the subconscious mind is still aware that the general subject causes a danger alert. Thus the person tends to avoid the general subject yet has no conscious indication that he is doing so nor can he imagine why once it is pointed out.

How is the subconscious mind aware? You seem to suggest some continuum from the information transfers between cells in our mind and between our minds, the first giving rise to personal consciousness, the latter giving rise to some Gaya consciousness. IMHO this is induction. Your texts becoming very fuzzy. That's no problem, not everybody does have peer-reviewed material to sustain his/her arguments. But I did ask for it. Do you want to confess that you're making this up? Or do you want to give me the papers I asked for?

[Ssel]

You don't seem to understand my question. Who is making these decisions? ..

The "Who" in the case of the provided circuit example is that box just inside the feedforward input. That box allows for intelligence to decide whether to alter the tuned circuit or not and to provide an additional LED indicator as external influence.

 

Consciousness can be Translated to Every Domain containing Information Streams

This is not entirely true. Most intelligence constructs are too simple to manifest learned external associations. This is an extremely important aspect. It is important because it is what allows things to be handled which no inner intelligent element could have handled or even perceived, such as the example of the military usage. But the quality of consciousness DOES eventually rise within ANY growing system once it begins to attempt handling things outside its immediate ability to perceive. The collective efforts of the many elements within come into an order which causes a problem solving ability beyond the scope of any element within.

 

 

Do you want to confess that you're making this up? Or do you want to give me the papers I asked for?

Ahh.. a skeptic.. and a hopefully temporary distraction from the content.

 

I offered 2 examples of some of the concerns in the problem solving world. One was the commonly known idea of feedback from one of your questions. The other was a much less commonly known concept of feedforward. I was surprised that you even found that one source mentioning the concept, but if I’m not mistaken, that source was referring to the same fundamental idea merely applied to a different subject.

 

If you haven’t noticed, I have never, NEVER, in any thread, quoted any outside source for anything other than a simple dictionary. This has many affects, some favorable, some not at all favorable. I actually have 2 prime reasons for discussing in this limited manner but I can very easily be accused of doing so for other selfish reasons.

 

I would ask that you note and give me credit for the length to which I go to explain my thoughts and suggestions rather than any claim that I am the great and all wise for all people to simply follow due to some mystical worship of my word. In every case, I insist that whoever might be tempted to merely accept what I say to gain THEIR OWN understanding by simply thinking about what I have said and examining it for possible logic and truth. I have insisted that they ONLY accept as truth what they can not reasonably doubt within themselves. I offer to answer questions and give defense of my thoughts that are not dependant on faith of this prestigious author or that. I move every topic to an issue of UNDERSTANDING, not worship of some higher source of wisdom, including myself.

 

Now, SM, please see if you can tell me the significant conceptual difference between the following 2 examples;

 

Ex. 1;

 

A man is talking to a Christian and the Christian expresses that the man is just rationalizing, so the man, in defense, reminds the Christian of several quotes from the Bible. The Christian, realizing that the man was not only informed of Biblical teachings, but could backup, to at least some degree, what he was saying with this far more prestigious source, and is therefore probably right in what he was saying.

 

Another man mentions the rationale of evolution to that same Christian. The Christian sees a possible challenge to the authority of those he has accepted as “the good guys”, so he skeptically attempts to see if there is any scriptural backing for this evolution thing. Having found none, the Christian accepts that the man is merely inventing ideas as to attack the true good guys and proclaims the man to be merely another heretic.

 

The second man was proposing an idea that required the Christian to think, but did he think? He thought enough to seek out verification from his faithful source of wisdom and goodness, but did he actually think for himself? As long as he always returns to the all knowing and revealing Bible for his source of authority and concept of good and evil, will he EVER think for himself?

 

 

Ex. 2;

 

A man is online talking to online friend about a technical issue. The online friend questions the man’s real understanding so, in defense, the man points his friend to a prestigious website where the same idea is expressed by an accepted expert. The online friend then realizes that the man is not only informed of currently accepted points of the new elite, but he can backup his story with this far more prestigious source, and is therefore probably right in what he was saying.

 

Another man is talking to that same online friend and mentions some strange, unheard of concept and thus the friend sees a challenge to the authority of those he has accepted as the elite intelligence of the modern world and true “good guys” in the battle against the evil manipulators of older organizations. So the friend skeptically searches the web for any publications regarding this strange proposed idea. Having found none, the friend accepts that the man is merely inventing ideas as to attack the true good guys and proclaims the man to be merely another egotist vying for fame.

 

The second man was proposing an idea that required the friend to think, but did he think? He thought enough to seek out verification from his faithful source of wisdom and goodness, but did he actually think for himself? As long as he always returns to the all knowing and revealing web for his source of authority and concept of good and evil, will he EVER think for himself?

 

------.

 

 

If I merely wanted to gain acceptance and fame in the group, then I could easily cut and paste the same accepted quotes from sources as others and take up the same evil enemy as being my proclaimed foe. But would I have inspired even one person, Christian or not, to actually step outside the box of their accepted authorities, and think for themselves? The more they quote others, the less they think for themselves. If I merely provide quotes for the sake of my acceptance, then I reinforce the walls of the box and those within wander about preaching and arguing to the great satisfaction of those creating the box (the matrix syndrome).

 

In my first encounter with pritishd, I ask what sense there was in trying to use the OT to refute the NT. Such merely becomes a cut and paste contest between 2 dubious documents. Even if he successfully managed to refute the NT, he is still left merely holding a misunderstood Jewish document in place of the misunderstood Christian document. The entire effort seemed to be no more than a contest of sources without any real thinking going on at all.

 

Just before the thread was totally obscured and disrupted, he pointed out that the NT claims that the OT is accurate but then conflicts with it in other ways. This was a valid logical point to make. If the discussion could have been continued, I would have raised the issue that neither document is being well understood and the NT even points this out, then I would have proposed that understanding is the better road to take regardless of either or any source, but I didn’t continue defending the issue.

 

I never ask for sources of what other famed people have stated (except in a very formal evidentiary debate). Nor do I ever offer any. Generally such people become famous because what they have written is politically in line at the time. For thousands of years, people have known to gain compliance and favor by name-dropping and promoting a name as elite just so the implication of the writings can be promoted as a superior authority. I could point one out in particular in recent times that would probably stun you.

 

The bottom line is that either you spend your life following, or you decide to start thinking for yourself regardless of what other elite people have promoted. This is not to say that all others are wrong, not at all. It is to say that until you think with your OWN understanding, then nothing new can be realized and the manipulation of social promoters will always reign whether they are religious leaders or not.

[SkepticOfBible]

If I merely wanted to gain acceptance and fame in the group, then I could easily cut and paste the same accepted quotes from sources as others and take up the same evil enemy as being my proclaimed foe. But would I have inspired even one person, Christian or not, to actually step outside the box of their accepted authorities, and think for themselves? The more they quote others, the less they think for themselves. If I merely provide quotes for the sake of my acceptance, then I reinforce the walls of the box and those within wander about preaching and arguing to the great satisfaction of those creating the box (the matrix syndrome).

 

Ssel, most of us over do think for ouselves. That is we have given up on religion. Christianity however doesn't like that.

 

There is nothing wrong in quoting other people. You should however do understand what exactly are you quoting, and just not quote mining.

 

In my first encounter with pritishd, I ask what sense there was in trying to use the OT to refute the NT. Such merely becomes a cut and paste contest between 2 dubious documents. Even if he successfully managed to refute the NT, he is still left merely holding a misunderstood Jewish document in place of the misunderstood Christian document.

 

So are you saying I misunderstood the Jewish/Hebrew Bible and the Christian bible? In what way have I misunderstood the NT and OT?

The reason why use the OT to refute the NT is because christianity claims the following

 

1) the "message of the bible has been consistent. and this is the proof that it is the word of god"

2)The bible is ultimate source of morality and truth because it came from God himself

3)That Jesus is the promised messiah of the OT, and the NT proves that

4)That after I die I will go to hell because I don't believe in a Tribal Warlike God and his Tribal Warlike son

 

It is only under careful scrutiny and research that I have come to conclusion that all of the above claims are bogus. And I do hav my reasons if you care to listen to them.

 

Just before the thread was totally obscured and disrupted, he pointed out that the NT claims that the OT is accurate but then conflicts with it in other ways. This was a valid logical point to make. If the discussion could have been continued, I would have raised the issue that neither document is being well understood and the NT even points this out, then I would have proposed that understanding is the better road to take regardless of either or any source, but I didn’t continue defending the issue.

 

I actually had said the NT claims that it is supported by OT. That is not the case however

 

Which thread ar you talking about? If you have understood the document please clear my misunderstanding?

 

In all my debates with you, all you have done is make assertions. Whenever I ask you for reasoning and evidence for your assertion you have seldom replied to me.

[Ssel]

Whenever I ask you for reasoning and evidence for your assertion you have seldom replied to me.

Pritishd, just as I believe I had mentioned on a thread some time ago, I respect your mental abilities. The only time I don’t respond is when I feel that the topic has been dragged off course (sometimes by my own unintentional side comment).

 

Speaking of getting back on course (somewhat)…

 

As I mentioned earlier, the issue of intent is the most critical to understand, but the most interesting is the issue of consciousness. Let me explain a little more of why this is so.

 

Consciousness represents an organization of relatively blind elements who have been ordered such as to form an organization capable of perceiving distant movements, predicting their behavior, and responding as an organized group such as to handle the potential dangers and opportunities.

 

If you were to take a billion people, blind and deafen them, but keep them reasonably safe from outer danger for a long while, you would begin a very, VERY interesting story of events.

 

The blinded people, would at first be in a state of confusion and chaos. Many would perish as they attempted, but failed to adapt. But those that managed, would begin to form organizations utilizing touch as their means of communication. Signals for safety and danger would be paramount. The signals would take a while before they became consistently accepted and standardized. The entire group would slowly develop from a stage of helpless confusion to a final stage of a highly intelligent single organism. This is not a statement of what “should be” nor of it being good or bad. It is merely what would transpire by evolutionary forces regardless of concepts of good and bad. The group would form, through a series of organizational steps, a conscious mind to deal with all of those distant things which they could not perceive directly themselves. This is the exact situation of human cells.

 

The “thoughts” of this mind would not be known to any one person within the organization fore none within could even imagine what kind of thing out there the mind was perceiving and responding to. The foreign object or event could be an oncoming storm detected by those assigned to feel for such or perhaps the aggregate sensing of hostility from a region where another organization had been detected. The size and manner of behavior of the foreign object could only be assessed by the collective associations and responses of a great many members. The ability to draw a picture of the foreign object would not be helpful, as even the ability to mentally picture would atrophy from human endeavor. Thus those who cooperated with the proper signals would survive danger even though they had no idea of exactly what the real danger was. The rules of accepted individual behavior would become an issue of life or death. Consider those who ignore or distrust warnings of oncoming hurricanes.

 

Now, for perhaps an even more interesting part..

 

The first stage of these billion blinded people would be a void of darkness and chaos. A sea from which a highly organized being would eventually rise. But the rise of such a highly ordered mind and being would not be a single step. Lacking any wizardly influence, the gathering would develop, gradually more ordered, through 7 identifiable stages. The first stage is the stage of darkness, void of order. The last stage is a stage of highly cooperative perception and order for the entire group as a whole.

 

I’m not going to go into each of those 7 stages, but if you have an interest, I suggest that you lookup and contemplate the 7 stages that the prince who came to be known as “The Buddha” relayed as his 7 steps to enlightenment. “Enlightenment” is what they called clear consciousness of the realities of the world which people could not normally see. You might also want to note that this prince taught of these stages around the same time Moses compiled the story of creation of the world of Man. Also note that the creation story did not say that the first “human” was named Adam, but the first Man. The “hu” in the word human signifies the “lowest element of”. The story is a story of the creation of the first order of Man, not the first creation of a “human”. And upon the 7th day, the forces that be, could finally rest as clear, sunny perception had finally been formed into the consciousness of the gathering of the peoples of the Earth as a single being to reign over all of the lesser creatures and this was thought to be good.

 

For the past several thousand years, Man has been slowly stepping through the stages of re-ordering himself back into a single conscious being. The path is not one led by wizardly minds, but one led by the natural urge from life so as to survive.

 

But this is by no means the top of the mountain. The puzzle of Man’s existence and strife has many more interesting elements and efforts to understand and add to.

[Saviourmachine]

The "Who" in the case of the provided circuit example is that box just inside the feedforward input. That box allows for intelligence to decide whether to alter the tuned circuit or not and to provide an additional LED indicator as external influence.

In that case the output of the circuit is transferred by feedback to that component. By the way, it does not matter where you put your homunculus. Such a comparator can compare the input with the output by feedback, or compare the output with the input by feedforward. What's the difference?

 

You come accross as if you're speaking out of your field of expertise. I have many teachers - also proposing theories far from mainstream science, take for example DrDick on physicsforums (I dare to say you, that you're not intelligent enough to understand his theory without his explanations) about theoretical physics. I don't care about someones attitude if he/she does know a lot more about something. I don't get that idea with your texts, I'm sorry.

 

By the way, you're questioning my motives in a very condescending way. I am asking for papers, because I want to know what you actually try to communicate. If you had learnt it from somewhere, maybe there were others that offered a better job in explaining these things. I want to have more information regarding your theory. I am not asking for authoritive sources. I don't have any.

[Amanda]

You come accross as if you're speaking out of your field of expertise.

 

Hi Saviourmachine!

 

I KNOW you study tremendously a lot! I still have no idea how you do it!

 

Yet, in regards to understanding the big picture here, I'm curious to know if this specific point is all that critical? You seem to me, to have a tendency to perservere to understand things to these finest details, and understand fully its great complexity. Not all of us are like that, nor capable thereof.

 

I attend many seminars in my field, and do not agree with every specific of the speaker. Maybe the speaker makes a comment concerning my area of expertise I find less than accurate, yet the overall subject is not my area I've placed my focus. I take what I can use, and leave the rest. I still can usually come away garnishing my understandings more, and that seems to be what is important.

 

I think what Ssel is discribing is the evolution of an organism, and how collectively a single consciousness evolves out of these multi-faceted primitive receptor-output systems in regards to 'intelligent' survival. Looking at the big picture so far, IMO, I can see a theory emerging which I think will enhance my understanding about the dynamics of reasoning. I'm still looking for his theory of explaining how this organism ascertains the ability to perpetuate itself into an intellectual proactive state AND pursue areas that seem to have no regards to survival... and in some cases, is in conflict with survival! (Such as those situations where people give their own lives in the attempt to save a stranger.)

[Saviourmachine]

Yet, in regards to understanding the big picture here, I'm curious to know if this specific point is all that critical? You seem to me, to have a tendency to perservere to understand things to these finest details, and understand fully its great complexity. Not all of us are like that, nor capable thereof.

Hi Amanda, in general I'm able to pick from stuff what I find valuable. However, this combination proved to be too tempting not to respond like the way I do. Sorry, about that. I won't interfere anymore in this thread.

[Ssel]

Sorry, about that. I won't interfere anymore in this thread.

SM, please don't go away.

 

And also please understand that I wrote the following hours before I had a chance to post it and before your last posting. I apologize for its delay.

 

In that case the output of the circuit is transferred by feedback to that component. ... What's the difference?

I think what is happening here is that you have a solid concept of "feedback" being the concept of information that returns from the output. This is by in large true. The concept of feedforward, is a distinguishable variation within the larger concept of feedback. You could say that it is a TYPE of feedback. A type which is distinguished by it offering the fed back information for the algorithm to use or not, whereas the common “feedback” directly distorts an input such that the algorithm has no choice because it has no means of realizing that the input has been distorted. The feedforward TYPE OF FEEDBACK separates its fed back information so as to allow the algorithm to progress with an awareness of what it has accomplished (as opposed to merely what has been accomplished by some unknown variant) without distorting its original sensor input.

 

You come accross as if you're speaking out of your field of expertise.

Unfortunately for me and a great many others, this will ALWAYS be the case when the understanding is not conveyed. The blame for which person did not do their job well enough in the communication process is irrelevant. I concede that the speaker must do what he can to translate concepts into appropriate and acceptable words and the listener must do what he can to attempt to carefully translate possibly poor wording into meaningful content. I apologize for whatever lacking I display on my part. I can only try. Persuasion is NOT my field of expertise by a LONG shot.

 

By the way, you're questioning my motives in a very condescending way.

Perhaps, but realize that you have taken what I stated and consider to be a comparatively irrelevant added detail and due to your extreme intent to understand everything EXACTLY, you have escalated the issue to a challenge of my credibility with your “So, are you going to admit that you’re just making this all up” comment. Consider it a “tit for tat”. If you don’t like the fire, then don’t strike the match.

 

Frankly, I have an appreciation and admiration for those who make every attempt to get every exact detail into a perfect picture. I advocate the effort. But as Amanda has pointed out, this has a draw back. And that is that by over focusing on a detail of possible contention, the much more important “bigger picture” can easily be sacrificed. Have you understood anything ELSE that has been said?

 

I truly prefer that every detail be exactly understood, but the only purpose for this is to help ensure that the bigger picture been seen, not sacrificed due to some smaller inability to communicate which is then led into the claim that the entire picture is “bullshit” because the over focus on a detail has left the bigger picture behind as merely an obscure background noise.

 

It is dangerous and a bit arrogant to presume that everything is bullshit merely because one concept of detail wasn’t understood. Even if the speaker was entirely incorrect on the detail, if the detail was not a critical component of the main concept, then by escalating the issue, you, and potentially others, lose the more valuable concepts. Must every speaker be the exact picture of perfection in order to be heard or relay any concept at all?

 

Again, I apologize for not being able to communicate sufficiently to allow you to see that one point. But I ask that you refrain from implying that the entire thread is mere crap simply because you’re frustrated in your admirable attempt to grasp every detail.

 

Please also consider that something can be understood by the means of gradually building upward to the higher concepts or by accepting a higher concept and building down to the refined details. The later tends to require a enough faith to allow the details to finally be seen before the higher concept is abandoned. Considering that “faith” is a dirty word around here, I chose the prior method. Unfortunately at least a small degree of faith is required regardless of ANY method of communication. I’m not an advocate of blind faith concerning ANYthing, but the requirement of temporary faith is reality. The length of that faith is largely dependant on the number of distractions from the effort to communicate.

 

Further please realize that there are very many who read papers and pass them about. There are far fewer, but obviously existent, those who write them. It should be more than evident by now which category I fit into. The presumption that any writer would obviously want his ego satisfied by exposing his work, is just that – a presumption. If I flashed credentials and proved their validity, what would I have inescapably done? Yes, I would be heard more readily. Yes, I would have to explain far less and perhaps gain a “following” of my thoughts. And this is often done by many people. But what would be the real pedestal upon which I stood? My own 2 feet? Or the pedestal provided by those who granted me the right to say that I have anything to say? Why bother to join in the thousands of those passing around what prestigious other people have said? Have I nothing more to say than what others have already said?

 

I stand here as I prefer, come what may, on my OWN 2 feet, not claiming the approval of anyone else at all. I don’t seek a “following” of my holy word. I ask that understanding be the ONLY issue. The slab that I stand on is as solid as any can be. And when I look down, I see only my own footprints, not a single indication left by the many much greater men than me.

 

I can guarantee that if I could privately discuss things with the Pope, the prime minister of Israel, Moses, Jesus Himself, or all of them at once, they would each either come to realize something they had never seen, or at least something they would realize the need to better emphasis. Yet I have no doubt at all, that I could not accomplish even 1/100 of what any of these men have done.

 

What I offer in discussion is NOT because of any greatness of me, but merely in the solidity in which it was formed. But solidity comes only through real understanding, not through faithful following of what properly propped up icons of wisdom have flashed before you as your new found wisdom.

 

I have derived nothing from attempting to prove how wrong everyone ELSE has been, but rather by continually trying to prove myself wrong until I could no longer do so regardless of every genuine attempt. Thus I find myself extremely confident of the concepts by virtue of their own merit, not because someone prestigious has claimed them to be of value. I find them to be new and unseen because SO many people merely pass around the new politically correct view to take and have been doing so for thousands of years. The reigning powers in every era have built their power on what already IS, never on the speculation of something new.

 

If you want to proclaim yourself as one of the great elite, then never, EVER say anything new. Wait until something has been approved by the current reigning powers that be, then promote its wonder and fascination.

 

But if you REALLY want to FIX something, then you are going to have to take on reality itself and expect a very lonely journey without acceptance, approval, or assurance. At some point, right or wrong, you’re going to find that you are standing alone and either have the courage to continue, or bow in your weakness to be able to stand against every reigning power. You will have the choice to stand on the pedestal that they provide and spout their agenda, or stand on your OWN feet and face the complexity and heartlessness of reality.

 

But if you think even for a minute that you are going to ever, in your entire life, be able to stand against the conceptual stone upon which my understanding stems, then you had damn well better accept that the “rock of Jesus” that you are so avidly thrashing, is a mere nerf-ball in comparison.

[Saviourmachine]

I think what is happening here is that you have a solid concept of "feedback" being the concept of information that returns from the output. This is by in large true. The concept of feedforward, is a distinguishable variation within the larger concept of feedback. You could say that it is a TYPE of feedback.

That asks for confusion isn't it? Seeing feedforward as a type of feedback is indeed new to me. As for example from this (easy to read) paper can be understood is that reactive systems have only feedforward networks, and that for proactive agents also feedback is needed.

 

A type which is distinguished by it offering the fed back information for the algorithm to use or not, whereas the common “feedback” directly distorts an input such that the algorithm has no choice because it has no means of realizing that the input has been distorted. The feedforward TYPE OF FEEDBACK separates its fed back information so as to allow the algorithm to progress with an awareness of what it has accomplished (as opposed to merely what has been accomplished by some unknown variant) without distorting its original sensor input.

I understand your wish to seperate these pathways. However, please invent some new terms for it, because these are very confusing.

 

Perhaps, but realize that you have taken what I stated and consider to be a comparatively irrelevant added detail and due to your extreme intent to understand everything EXACTLY, you have escalated the issue to a challenge of my credibility with your “So, are you going to admit that you’re just making this all up” comment. Consider it a “tit for tat”. If you don’t like the fire, then don’t strike the match.

Okay, sorry! Do you want peace? I didn't consider it as a detail, because many people try to define "self-awareness" and it's a heck of a problem/concept. I quickly placed you in "cognitive psychology" or something like that, where math isn't that appreciated (experience only from a few courses).

 

Further please realize that there are very many who read papers and pass them about. There are far fewer, but obviously existent, those who write them.

I don't care about the ones that write papers. I know persons that don't and still have built up a conceptual framework that overwhelmes me. If you want to try your definitions (and theory) on me, I hope you would like my skeptic attitude. You're welcome! I definitely won't be a faithful follower of you. Proposing as an icon of wisdom, or not...

 

If you want to proclaim yourself as one of the great elite, then never, EVER say anything new. Wait until something has been approved by the current reigning powers that be, then promote its wonder and fascination.

 

But if you REALLY want to FIX something, then you are going to have to take on reality itself and expect a very lonely journey without acceptance, approval, or assurance. At some point, right or wrong, you’re going to find that you are standing alone and either have the courage to continue, or bow in your weakness to be able to stand against every reigning power. You will have the choice to stand on the pedestal that they provide and spout their agenda, or stand on your OWN feet and face the complexity and heartlessness of reality.

 

But if you think even for a minute that you are going to ever, in your entire life, be able to stand against the conceptual stone upon which my understanding stems, then you had damn well better accept that the “rock of Jesus” that you are so avidly thrashing, is a mere nerf-ball in comparison.

Blah blah.

[Ssel]

Blah blah.

Well, I probably deserve that, I got a little carried away. You are obviously not getting anything out of this. I’m certainly not. So one must wonder why anyone bothers. But then, that leads into the next concept and issue.

 

I was thinking of getting into emotions next, where they come from and how they end up as they are seen. But the subject of where they come from gets back into that same subject of intent and purpose, so..

 

Purpose

 

Why does anyone do anything?

Why does a baby cry?

Why does anyone laugh?

Why do people feel happy or angry?

Why do people enjoy sex?

Why do creatures seek food and shelter?

Why do some people kill themselves?

Why do people even ask “why”?

 

The question “why” is supposed to be all perplexing, but I think anyone seriously looking at it, can clear up a great deal. When anyone wants for anything, they can introspect as to why they want it and chase down an earlier desire or cause. If one follows the trail back far enough, they begin to run short of prior causes.

 

The scientist tends to want to put everything in mere chemical terms so as to take out any other loyalties and emphasis the idea that people are merely biochemical machines. The truth of this perspective isn’t really relevant except to help control peoples attitudes. Things are what they are, regardless of perspective. The brain is obviously affected by BOTH chemical means and by thoughts. Social engineers can increase or decrease the number of suicides without using medical influence.

 

A fundamental concept in evolution is that things (living or not) survive if they can, and don’t survive if they can’t. How anyone could have ever argued with this, I’ll never know. Regardless of any intent, desire, or purpose, in the long run what has survived is that which could. By some, it has been known for a very long time that in order for a living being to continue to survive through the variety of potential interferences, it must be trying to survive. If it does not make the attempt to survive, then at some point, its environment will simply take the opportunity to remove it. This notion is being revealed more and more each day by both scientific means and common sense observation.

 

A very important point to this notion is that, in the long run, evolution will dictate that what is driving any living being is its effort to survive. While its existence isn’t being threatened, it can afford to take on other incentives, but at some point, it will always have to return to the effort to survive. It should be obvious that any other incentive becomes moot if the effort to survive is abandoned. Those who seek joy at the cost of survival simply don’t survive and become selected out of the gene pool.

 

Now this effect can be circumvented by another surviving being continually cultivating a life that could not survive on its own. But in an abstract sense, due to the interdependency and harmony, the beings are symbiotically one (even if they are not aware of the dependency).

 

So what this all boils down to is the humdrum fact that the base line purpose of life is merely to keep going. Very many people don’t like this idea and very many people don’t like other people accepting this idea. But the truth of it is logically unavoidable.

 

So the question rises, why are so many people so wrapped up in other things? The answer to this lay in the demonstrated fact that survival is no trivial issue. The variety of challenges which can be thrust at a living being are so vast that it requires a tremendous amount of experimenting with passions in every direction just to find what works at any one moment. And this is very related to exactly why religions are what they are.

 

Realize that any effort can spawn a secondary effort which can then become independent of the initial intent. This is exactly how a person born with the instinct to survive can end up killing themselves. A simplistic example would be a person who sought the love of a parent out of the childhood need for parental attention (a survival instinct) but got so wrapped up in the endeavor that when they later found that their efforts were beyond hope, they could not see any other reason for living. The anguish of the depression response then resolves that death is the only means for relief. Basically all motives are stemmed from original survival instincts which get confounded into far more random behaviors and passions. But there is far more intelligence involved than you might think.

 

The popular issue of the sex drive is actually related to a sophisticated strategy for survival. This is one of those seldom realized facts. The proper political perspective is that a person merely has a sex drive so as to propagate the species and thus society. This leads to the idea that the survival of the individual isn’t important. The effort to spread one’s seed is actually a very clever effort to fill the surrounding universe with oneself and thus provide a protective harmony in the exact same manner as the cells had done such as to produce the body. And interestingly, if left to itself, it creates a functional social body which ends up relecting the same design as the original human body.

 

The apparent effort to expand oneself (through family, wealth, or influence) was noticed very long ago and gave rise to the governing strategy which came to be known as Satanism. The abstract concept applies both to the physical world (like expanding gases, electric fields, or fires) as well as to every living thing (plants included). This was considered to be a truly wise observation for good reason. It was noted as the first bright star in the heavens which led to a type of heaven for a very select few. It was the height of intelligence at the time.

 

The concept of peoples temptations was used to keep people, through complex manipulations, futilely trying to grow and expand but never being able to accomplish such. This is very similar to the current governing methods in the West. But the premise of this notion wasn’t 100% accurate and thus, due to the extreme abuse of very many people being subjugated and confounded, the method eventually failed. This is what the story of Satan being cast out of Heaven was about. We can go into detail concerning this on another thread sometime.

[SkepticOfBible]

This is what the story of Satan being cast out of Heaven was about. We can go into detail concerning this on another thread sometime.

 

I know this is going a bit off topic Would you mind telling where can find this story in the OT. In fact where is it shown in the OT that Satan is a rebel angel? Can you demonstrate one verse from the OT where Satan is described as the adversary of God?

 

The KJV declares that God creates Good and Evil both.

[Ssel]

Can you demonstrate one verse from the OT where Satan is described as the adversary of God?

No, I can't. I wasn't aware that there was any such reference.

The KJV declares that God creates Good and Evil both.

This, I would tend to confirm. The notion that Satan is evil is something you are injecting into the reasoning. The paradox concerning how it is that God could create evil and also be the icon of good has an explanation but obviously if it were simple, you would have heard it long before now. The answer to the paradox involves the definition of "evil".

[thomas]

 

Another perspective is simply that the sex drive makes having sex desirable (and this is certainly true for both males and females) and one result is that DNA may be propagated. People with no hope, nor intent, of procreating still like having sex.

 

What I wrote should be seen in context with something this:

 

The concept of "purpose" must relate to an effort. He must ask "Who's purpose do I serve?"

 

 

It was somthing Ssel suggested for humans, and what I wrote was a first attempt to apply that line of thinking. Clearly for humans the sex drive is desireable in itself, but what is the biological reason (or godly reason) for giving humans a sex drive? And this lead me to say something about spreading DNA etc.

So if sex is one of the central guiding forces in humans, who or what do humans serve

 

Thanks, T. I think you are looking at this incorrectly though. I generally like the perspective you've used in your posts, but in this case, something seems amiss.

 

Maybe if one takes a less anthropomorphic view of the situation:

 

Sex drive = Desire, rather than that having a sex drive is desirable.

 

Spreading DNA is not the goal, having sex is the goal. That DNA is propagated is a result.

 

There is no reason for "giving" humans (or any organism) a sex drive. A sex drive was not "given" to any organism. Those that have a sex drive may procreate, those that don't have a sex drive don't procreate. Only through procreation is DNA propagated. (This gives a decided advantage in DNA propagation to those organisms that have a sex drive).

 

Can we rephrase things a bit ?

 

"So if sex is one of the central guiding forces in Meerkats, who or what do Meerkats serve ?"

"So if hunger is one of the central guiding forces in Meerkats, who or what do Meerkats serve ?"

 

 

I just don't see the connection in your question between "central guiding forces" and what Meerkats might "serve".

 

Sorry if I'm distracting you from the mainline of this thread.

 

 

Megistias

 

Sorry for a late response. I have been quite busy the last couple of days, and I have also needed time to think about why I wrote as I did, and about my response.

 

If I understand you corretly I cannot disagree with your perspective. You stick to what we actually do know, that: having sex feels good, we have a desire for sex, we call that desire for a sex drive and as a by product of having sex DNA is spread.

 

At the orther hand it seems that I have been speaking about the sex drive as some force or power that exists in its own right. This force has a purpose for spreading DNA, but is so to speak implemented in humans (and animals) in terms of desire. Sex is about desire, and the force is from a human perspective desireable.

 

I am not totally sure why I wrote that way and I am not sure if this perspective can be justified at all.

 

But I do think that the sex drive is about more than a desire for having sex. I am not an expert here, but there seems to be a correlations between the way the desire for sex works and biological aspects.

 

For example females (humans and animals) want to have sex with a successful male. They don't want a looser, and this is very well in line with the purpose of getting high quality male DNA for their precious egg. At the other hand males have plenty of sperm, so it is very well in line with their desire to spread it as much as possible. So both femal and male sexual behaviour can IMHO be explained on basis of the difference between having a limited number of egges (only one every moths or so) and having plenty of sperm.

[Ssel]

There is no reason for "giving" humans (or any organism) a sex drive.

Thomas, what would you say actually initiates the cause and effect chain which leads to the sex drive or desire for sex? (something a little closer to the present than the Big Bang )

 

In other words, where did it probably come from? What is the cause of it being what it is? (not purpose)

[Ssel]

Something from a book that I read a while back...

 

I once mentioned to a woman that it is important, when asking “why?” to distinguish whether she meant “why, for what purpose?” or “why, by what cause?” She replied, “…Why?” I smiled with a gentle sigh and reverently bowed by head to the god of futility.

[Ssel]

From a different thread, but fits into this discussion..

 

Of course it does. Can you imagine early man, looking into the night sky and seeing those twinkling lights? Early man knew there was much to fear in the darkness around him, so these groups huddled around their greatest protection from the fears in the dark. Fire.

No, no, no that's going in the other direction and is actually a little too much presumption (some is okay). I meant if you logically step back from the point where instincts exist to what caused them to be there and survive the evolutionary process. From that, you can discover the basis for the religious notions of "good and evil".

 

I'm not saying that the religious originators knew anything about evolutionary processes. But the rationale for the concepts of good and evil follow the same rationale that evolution would command if evolution were a god.

 

Abstract evolution reveals what "God wants", although I consider it one of the more serious mistakes to presume that God wants anything from Man. The point to the OT was that Man either play along or wish he had. The Jews made a covenant to "play along" so that they would be the only ones who were still standing in the long run. Their covenant was based simply on "what works". Or what works by all they could surmise at the time.

 

Evolution proposes this same incentive. Do what causes your family to survive, and it will. Those who do not, won't. Unfortunately the game isn't anywhere near that innocent, but that's the foundation.