What's on your mind?

[Midi]

Pessimism is a great state of mind for writing lyrics. It sure helped me with mine...

Indeed. Most of my poems were also written during pessimistic moods. Kind of awkward that's one of the more suitable moods for writing, isn't it?

[Iceni]

No, not really. It's harder to write good stuff about happiness, which is why it's so awesome when bands can do it well.

[Midi]

No' date=' not really. It's harder to write good stuff about happiness, which is why it's so awesome when bands can do it well.[/quote'] Yes, it is. I was just thinking about why it's harder and remembered and interesting little quote: All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. ​I guess that's a viable explanation, except for the 'family' part. It's still an interesting notion though...

[mindy6158]

Really hate the last couple of weeks of a semester...why do professors insist on throwing everything at you last minute......

[RelentlessOblivion]

Because they know those they teach will be imminently more successful and so endeavour to sabotage their students because only seeing others fail can help them sleep at night. Speaking of sleeping last night was only the second time I haven't had nightmares since my accident.

[RelentlessOblivion]

Indeed. Most of my poems were also written during pessimistic moods. Kind of awkward that's one of the more suitable moods for writing' date=' isn't it? [/quote'] I certainly think so. Negative emotions seem to translate better into art then positive ones. At least that's my experience. I don't do happy when I'm writing.

[Midi]

Yes! Finally found the ideal string length for my Yomega Raider! Oh, and I've been accepted as the cellist of a band.

[FatherAlabaster]

Congratulations about the band, Midi, that's great news! I hope you enjoy it.

Yes' date=' it is. I was just thinking about why it's harder and remembered and interesting little quote: [i']All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. ​I guess that's a viable explanation, except for the 'family' part. It's still an interesting notion though...

Tolstoy, right? I read an interpretation of that, saying basically that a family's happiness is a result of getting tons of little details right, and if any one of those little things goes wrong, you can have misery on your hands. I certainly write much more freely about negative subjects. Negativity was one of the things that drew me to metal in the first place; exploring and coping with it is what's kept me writing music. Why, I don't know.

[deathstorm]

Yes! Finally found the ideal string length for my Yomega Raider! Oh, and I've been accepted as the cellist of a band.

Congrats. Buddy. Lets us know. When your cd comes out

[FatherAlabaster]

Iceni and Midi, I'm sorry for the long and late response...

Hm' date=' are you saying creatures, such as the Galapagos woodpecker finches, humans and probably much more if not all creatures, have an inherent ability to acquire certain skills through practice and that those skills are natural since the ability to learn them has always been present?[/quote'] Kind of. I'll take issue with the word "always", in particular. We, and other animals, have evolved the ability to learn certain skills at certain times in our lives - as if our brains have modules in them waiting for input in order to develop properly, which is certainly the case with our visual system. These skills weren't "always" present; we have ancestors who didn't speak, who didn't walk, who had no eyes, who had no nerves. They're "natural" skills in that they're the result of natural processes, the accumulated minutia of adaptations over a vast period of time (what would constitute something "unnatural"?). They're "inherent" traits in that some individuals are born with them - perhaps it's a matter of degree (longer beak? better at learning language? etc), and if they're advantageous (in a reproductive sense), then their frequency in the population will increase over generations. For some interesting ideas about the evolution of learning ability, look up the so-called "Baldwin Effect". How very Eastern! First off, I'm not a "dualist". I don't believe in the idea that there's any "mind" distinct from the brain, because there's no evidence for it aside from purely subjective impressions. It's not wrong to adopt the concept of balance as a philosophical ideal, although to say that "all emotions and all actions" come from trying to achieve balance seems to be overly simplistic, as well as ignoring (or devaluing) the many contradictory impulses and irrelevant intrusions that make up any normal human stream of thought, and paying no regard to brain structure. To use a philosophical concept as a way of relating to oneself is a far different proposition from trying to understand the evolutionary development of our consciousness. Regarding language comprehension, various parts of our brains are active during different types of communication, and other primates use analogous brain areas when they communicate with one another via vocalizations or body language. One interesting idea is that our refined system of vocalizations may have come after, and been built upon, an older system for interpreting gestures. A possibility stemming from that is that our language abilities and our manual dexterity may have developed together, as part of the same system. What we call consciousness seems to consist largely of verbal processes, so much that it's led some people to pin the advent of human awareness to the emergence of our verbal abilities (see the "Great Leap Forward" for some competing ideas), and to argue that nonverbal animals "can't" be conscious (not a view I agree with). I'm not saying that the answers to those developmental questions are in place, but the various theories were, at one point, one of my favorite reading subjects. The brain is an imperfectly understood, horrendously complex organ with lots of different areas with different functions. Their interactions seem to give rise to our personalities, but we're not privy to the details of most of those interactions, least of all in our own brains. When we observe the effects of various stimuli, as well as developmental problems, diseases, traumas, and drugs, we can see that in some cases we seem mostly unaffected; in others, abnormalities (or damage) in small areas can result in massive personality shifts, loss of language abilities, retention of visual acuity with the loss of the ability to recognize faces, people with functioning eyes who are convinced they're blind and vice versa, and a whole slew of other things that teach us about what's actually happening in normal brains (and what counts as "external" - drugs? Tumors? Birth defects?). What I get from this is that the "mind" isn't some magical, central "whole", but rather an intricate, fragile house of cards. Monogamy is one of a few competing reproductive strategies that all have some measure of success in our species (and it need not be lifelong monogamy, I'm talking about staying together long enough to raise a kid). Others include promiscuity, harem-building, and sadly, rape. There's a connection between harem-building behavior and the minor but noticeable difference in size between the sexes, suggesting that it's part of our history. Emotions don't "justify" goals; the idea is that they're the mechanism by which goals are created.

[Iceni]

Emotions don't "justify" goals; the idea is that they're the mechanism by which goals are created.

Do all forms of life experience emotion? I know some 'developed' species ostensibly experience a limited range of emotion, but what about organisms like bacteria? Also, just a broader question; it seems like smaller organisms like insects and bacteria are the most 'successful' life on earth. Why would they 'move on' from that stage to form more complex organisms?

[RelentlessOblivion]

They wouldn't but those organisms would evolve in a manner to better facilitate their success. Evolving toxins or wings or the ability to spin silks of various tensile strengths depending on the insects specific requirements. In the case of bacteria I would argue they are constantly evolving and, whilst they aren't becoming more "complex", they are becoming more complicated. Your query regarding emotion is far more interesting. Perhaps neurological scans of various animals are required to determine the answer.

[Iceni]

They wouldn't but those organisms would evolve in a manner to better facilitate their success. Evolving toxins or wings or the ability to spin silks of various tensile strengths depending on the insects specific requirements. In the case of bacteria I would argue they are constantly evolving and, whilst they aren't becoming more "complex", they are becoming more complicated. Your query regarding emotion is far more interesting. Perhaps neurological scans of various animals are required to determine the answer.

I already know that bacteria evolve, that wasn't my question. My question was why they 'led' to more complex organisms when life at the bacterial level seems pretty resilient and successful already. For example, sharks are more or less the same as they were millions of years ago last I heard. It seems that these organisms are successful by essentially any measure, so why would they evolve into more complex organisms? Is it as simple as the idea that a given mutation was 'partially successful' and that nature has made it rare rather than extinct? It simply strikes me as odd since I thought efficiency was the name of the game in natural selection.

[mindy6158]

Monogamy is one of a few competing reproductive strategies that all have some measure of success in our species (and it need not be lifelong monogamy' date=' I'm talking about staying together long enough to raise a kid). Others include promiscuity, harem-building, and sadly, rape. There's a connection between harem-building behavior and the minor but noticeable difference in size between the sexes, suggesting that it's part of our history..[/quote']I watched a documentary in my Anthropology class a few years ago where scientists studied that Bonobos "make love.".........Just to throw that one out there. haha

[mindy6158]

Also' date=' just a broader question; it seems like smaller organisms like insects and bacteria are the most 'successful' life on earth. Why would they 'move on' from that stage to form more complex organisms?[/quote']Perhaps they have not really evolved much since Earth happened or since they have existed? Much like Alligators and Crocodiles...of whom either have not went through any drastic changes at all. Perhaps organisms that do not go through much "change" or do much moving on were ok in their original form to begin with? Giraffes have a long neck because they wanted to eat from trees and had a difficult time because they once had much shorter necks, hence,,,evolving to have longer necks. But I think if an animal does not "need" to change...then it will not. But of course....it is all speculation, nobody knows anything 100%. NObody.

[Midi]

I already know that bacteria evolve' date=' that wasn't my question. My question was why they 'led' to more complex organisms when life at the bacterial level seems pretty resilient and successful already. For example, sharks are more or less the same as they were millions of years ago last I heard. It seems that these organisms are successful by essentially any measure, so why would they evolve into more complex organisms? Is it as simple as the idea that a given mutation was 'partially successful' and that nature has made it rare rather than extinct? It simply strikes me as odd since I thought efficiency was the name of the game in natural selection.[/quote'] This is a very good question... My scientific knowledge is close to nihil, but a guess that comes to mind is that evolving into more 'sophisticated' organism leads to environmental changes which might suit those simpler lifeforms better.

[Iceni]

That sounds like a very good answer inasmuch as such behavior would resemble the construction of vehicles by humans.

[Midi]

That sounds like a very good answer inasmuch as such behavior would resemble the construction of vehicles by humans.

Doesn't it?

[FatherAlabaster]

Do all forms of life experience emotion? I know some 'developed' species ostensibly experience a limited range of emotion' date=' but what about organisms like bacteria? [/quote'] All forms of life? I highly doubt it. This is speculation - one of a few evolutionary rationales I've heard for the existence of emotions, and one that interested me; I don't intend to present it as a mainstream theory. But, I'd imagine that it would require a nervous system at the very least. Keep in mind that many organisms don't have directed movement, or stop moving over the course of their life, or just move in a direction or at random until they're impeded; on the scale of bacteria, nothing more than processing of nutrients and division may be required. No, I think a part of this idea is that some things (like many animals) have developed to the point that they need goal states in order to survive.

[FatherAlabaster]

That sounds like a very good answer inasmuch as such behavior would resemble the construction of vehicles by humans.

...way to put the cart before the horse.

[Frostaudn]

It's 2 am and I really need to get rid of some energy...

[Midi]

It's 2 am and I really need to get rid of some energy...

Like by indulging yourself with a game of chess?

[Frostaudn]

Like by indulging yourself with a game of chess?

Haha, I'm terrible in chess. I don't have really the patient to think before a move. When I was younger, I enjoyed it though.

[Iceni]

It's 2 am and I really need to get rid of some energy...

(to the tune of Celebration by Kool And the Gang) Maaaa-stur-ba-tion time, come on!

[Frostaudn]

(to the tune of Celebration by Kool And the Gang) Maaaa-stur-ba-tion time, come on!

Never expected such a reply from you