I would not agree. The primary task of the mind is to mediate between stimulus and response, so that the responses will be more effective at helping the organism (and it's kind) survive to procreate.

So mind is goal oriented? Would you say mind is an anomoly in this regard? Or is nature pervasively devoted to purposes?

I'm only suggesting that the mind is consistent with natural selection: there is a survival value. The consequence of natural selection (survival) is not driven by a goal, rather it is a mathematical consequence of the natural process.

Why do you think mind would need to be a product of natural selection as opposed to genetic drift?

Because it confers a survival value. Genetic drift is due to randomness.

In a rudimentary sense, yeah I think perception is less "direct" than it is "inferential", and more specifically, less is more. The brain, through some complex neurological mechanism that I don't understand, "fills in the dots". What seems like a continuous plenum of sense is literally not quite there. We don't see each and every leaf on the tree. We don't see each and every rain droplet. It would be pointless to. The brain/the mind (leaving the relationship between the two open here) is a filter. Most of what's out there doesn't even register, our brain/mind makes a prediction, a model of what might be there based on prior experiences. In a psychoanalytic bent, the ego is meant to be a buffer, a way of postponing reactivity in order to sift through all the information and consider alternate possibilities.

The best theory at the moment seems to be the predictive processing idea.

The idea is that our brains approximate Bayesian machines by some quick and dirty methods (because true Bayesian prediction would be computationally too expensive); the result is that the fundamental driving force in all cognitive processing (and proceeding from that, all human action) is maximizing certainty and minimizing surprise.

Not terribly new or ... surprising. At least in basic concept (the idea that our brains are in some sense Bayesian machines has been around for a while, and people like Popper and Dennett have talked about similar or analogous ideas in the past). But it seems to be the new hotness in neurology and neurophilosophy, backed up by lots of research and maths, and some very big brains.

So yes, in that sense, the function of perception is to "defeat chaos."

And a second question: could it be that to look or otherwise sense is to try to create order? — frank

I think that is what existence is. Making order.

Because it confers a survival value. Genetic drift is due to randomness. — Relativist

A feature that appears due to genetic drift can (in some way) enhance survival. Mind evolving by natural selection would require a population which includes both minded and non-minded individuals (both arising randomly) .

That scenario couldnt be any more than speculation since we don't know the origins of what we label "mind".

Human evolution is mostly genetic drift due to small population size.

Most of what's out there doesn't even register, our brain/mind makes a prediction, a model of what might be there based on prior experiences. — darthbarracuda

Based on prior experiences? Why not a priori?

Is there a book you would recommend?

If you mixed vegetable oil and water together, and then randomize them with an agitator, we can get the chaos of an emulsion. If we stop the agitator, the chaos of the emulsion will reverse all the way back to order; two layers.

Life is a partnership between organics and water, with the oil-water affect active at all levels of life, to various degrees, causing order to appear, including in the mind and brain.

Energy input such as light into the eyes, is like the agitator. It will cause some chaos in the water-organic medium, but once this energy is dissipated; agitator stops, the water and oil separate into new order.

Is there a book you would recommend? — frank

No this isn't really in books yet, mostly in scientific papers. The link I gave is an excellent resource on the topic in itself, with many further links.

no, because the idea that mind has a task is bunk.

Teleology, misplaced, again.

because the idea that mind has a task is bunk. — Banno

Brains are optional? They don't evolve for a reason?

Sounds legit.

A feature that appears due to genetic drift can (in some way) enhance survival."
And when it does, it has a better chance of proliferating.

"Mind evolving by natural selection would require a population which includes both minded and non-minded individuals (both arising randomly) "
That makes no sense. Humans aren't alone in having minds, we just have the most sophisticated ones. So the proto-human population didn't suddenly have some individuals with minds, among all the others who didn't. Rather, some individuals happened to have genes that gave them more intelligent minds than the rest of the population. This would seem to confer a survival advantage.


"That scenario couldnt be any more than speculation since we don't know the origins of what we label "mind".
We know quite a lot about how we fit into the animal kingdom. Our similarities with other primates gives us a pretty good idea about how we differ from them. Our mental difference with chimps are due to genetic differences, and there's really not all that many genetic differences.


"Human evolution is mostly genetic drift due to small population size. "
Sure.

https://www.amazon.com/Surfing-Uncertainty-Prediction-Action-Embodied/dp/0190217014/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1532235990&sr=8-1&keywords=Surfing+Uncertainty

So mind is goal oriented? Would you say mind is an anomoly in this regard? Or is nature pervasively devoted to purposes? — frank

Hearts pump blood. Do hearts have blood-pumping as their goal? Or is it just their purpose? Is the primary task of the heart to pump blood?

There's a play on words going on here. Some of these terms imply volition; others, not so much. It is a play between cause and purpose. And it's no more than a word game.

Awesome. I'm going to get a used copy.

Do heart have blood-pumping as their goal? — Banno

The heart pumps blood to maintain blood pressure. Some pressure is required to force oxygen and glucose-rich blood into the tissues and uphill into the brain so crazy questions can be asked. :joke:

Rather, some individuals happened to have genes that gave them more intelligent minds than the rest of the population — Relativist

I dont think there's any evidence of this, is there?

It is an explanatory hypothesis that fits the facts better than any other.

It is an explanatory hypothesis that fits the facts better than any other. — Relativist

No. Such a genetic change has been searched for in human remnants. It's not there. There are a number of alternate theories.

someone suggested that the quest to defeat chaos is the primary task of mind. Would you agree that this is true in some sense? — frank

In the sense that a mind is ordered, and counters entropy in some simple and temporary way, I would agree that it is strictly true. But that the purpose of mind is to defeat chaos is not really true either, even though I just admitted it is (in a way). We have no idea of the purpose of mind, body or Universe, do we? Your speculation is ultimately unhelpful, I suggest. :chin:

It is an explanatory hypothesis that fits the facts better than any other.
— Relativist

No. Such a genetic change has been searched for in human remnants. It's not there. There are a number of alternate theories.

Your claim sounds like it was taken from the Institute for Creation Research, but it's irrelevant to what I said. There are facts available to us, such as the relative intelligence of various primates (including ourselves), the respective genetic structures of primates, and the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic drift. We can deduce the genetic structure of common ancestors, and from this we can deduce the mutations that would lead from that ancestor to ourselves. This is an active area of research. Genetic structure is the direct cause of brain structure, and brain structure is a direct cause of mental capability. Therefore we can conclude that the genetic changes supervene on the mental changes; ie no other causes need be postulated to explain what we see.

Therefore we can conclude that the genetic changes supervene on the mental changes; ie no other causes need be postulated to explain what we see. — Relativist

That's not even slightly true. Get informed. https://www.amazon.com/Lone-Survivors-Came-Humans-Earth/dp/1250023300

Fair enough, there's more to the evolution of the human mind than direct descent. What's your point? My only point is that the existence of the human mind, as it is, is the product of nature.

And not just! The most incredible thing is that it takes completely uncharacterized, undivided datum; identifies regularities, characterizes them, imbues them with identity, and catalogues a whole taxonomy of world that is then used to form predictions. Ultimately, all perception is inferential, I don't think there's a such thing as 'direct' perception. Rudimentary feature finding, feature stitching, and object classing happens automatically and unconsciously through dedicated circuitry. I just think it's incredible that that's happening all the time, so efficiently, on top of everything else in the forefront of consciousness

Today, when it is known that male brain is inherited 100% by his grandsons through his daughters, while his son's inherit brain of their maternal grandfather, it is logical to see disagreements in the world growing out of this, because apparently different genders in a family create different blood lines of intellect. Those intriquing ways of inheriting the brain are definetely not human–created, it is evolutionary set up.

Yes, mind exists through limit as a limit in itself. Limit gives structure effectively encapsulating chaos.