I understand, especially if in the context of say news journalism, but I’ve been following this series for a while and Kuhn doesn’t pretend to be an impartial journalist. He participates in the conversations as an equal, interested party, but usually for the sake of furthering the dialogue. It’s really more of a conversation than an interview.

Very interesting quote! Thanks for that.

The reason this interview caught my attention is that for some years now I’ve been saying that the key to making sense of religion is to understand it metaphorically instead of literally. So now it seems a sad irony to find out that the woman who says the main difference between us and other animals is our capacity for metaphor is feeling deprived because she can’t unlock the door to religion.

@skado It sounds as though she recognizes the metaphorical nature of religion. As a child she was permitted no exposure to religion and now she can’t relate. As an analogy, a person might learn all about music theory as an adult, but if they were not exposed to a particular type of music when they were young they might never enjoy that genre intuitively because they are blind to its symbolism.

She was married to that Peter Atkins guy—I don’t know what effect that had on her.

@WilliamFleming what we are looking for is a proverbial "step up" for objectivity. something that allowed for a cat-bird's view of things as opposed to being inside the forest. I believe the answer could be found in the increased neuron density afforded by NOTCH2NL duplication variants in chromosome 1. If we postulate that various areas of the brain are centers for sight, smell, memories, and other factors then experiences that link these together would form "constellations" of sorts if we viewed the signal as, let's say, a light. Each time a particular constellation is energized its' relative electrical resistance is minutely diminished through widening of dedritic channels to allow easier particle flow as well as the creation of super-neurons (eventually) that have no network but only fire in one channel. This would eventually "shape" a personality and all the connective memories and such from the massive, interconnected neuron pathways would provide a depth of experience to perhaps account for this step change in consciousness. There would still seem to be a threshold issue however.

@JeffMesser Interesting. I need to think this over.

Just as more powerful computers might enable a step change in certain functions, I can envision that a more sophisticated brain might enhance conscious awareness. There is a gradient in consciousness from an amoeba to a human. I personally don’t see how a brain, no matter how sophisticated, can account for conscious awareness in either—consciousness seems primary. Those step changes in computer functioning were brought about through conscious awareness.

The Conscious Realism of Donald Hoffman might offer insight. I understand he has written a new book, one I want to read.

@skado I absolutely positively love your 3rd comment! Spot on!

@charliemmann
Thanks!