Get PDF Meet Your Sexual Mind: The Interaction Betwen Instinct and Intellect and its Impact on Human Behavior

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Meet Your Sexual Mind: The Interaction Betwen Instinct and Intellect and its Impact on Human Behavior file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Meet Your Sexual Mind: The Interaction Betwen Instinct and Intellect and its Impact on Human Behavior book. Happy reading Meet Your Sexual Mind: The Interaction Betwen Instinct and Intellect and its Impact on Human Behavior Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Meet Your Sexual Mind: The Interaction Betwen Instinct and Intellect and its Impact on Human Behavior at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Meet Your Sexual Mind: The Interaction Betwen Instinct and Intellect and its Impact on Human Behavior Pocket Guide.

If you are conservative and religious but are cruising physorg, you are probably smarter than the average person. This is not an attack on any one individual. Feb 27, Wow, a whole six points difference. What's the margin of error on IQ tests again? More than six points? Well, I'll be damned. They are specific examples of governments that are indeed a specific type of government. Coming up with an example of a government of a certain type which did bad things does not make the type as a whole bad.

Its not like the U. Immoral people can get into positions of power and do immoral things. Even a pure democracy could vote to slaughter some children for fun. So here it is again "They are all what you make of them. But it doesn't really matter what government was in place before it failed. I don't imagine I will want to be in the US when it collapses under its evergrowing debt and trade deficit. Thanks JayK, that vid was great. After reading most of the comments I've come to the conclusion that humans in general have a low IQ with a few outliers that make up an exception to the rule.

Interesting how you say this individual has no statistical references, proof, or foundation, yet you show no statistical references, proof, or foundation to show he is wrong and to make your case stronger. I was raised in a Christian, conservative home, yet throughout middle school and high school I participated in accelerated programs and gained college credits before entering any University.

If only I'd known. PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology. Uh, you're not gonna go into a staff meeting and shoot up a bunch of people are ya, 'cause I'd wanna call somebody then. Uh yeah, thats exactly what I planned on doing. You called it. Where did such a stupid comment come from?

And since I am also very freaking smart but also flawed like you , and thus can anticipate your answer, my only comment would be that many people have far more brains than they can handle, that is know how to use effectively, despite their innate terror of the future and their own inevitable decline and conclusion. Grow up. Just because I believe in God means I need to grow up?

I don't insult you for your beliefs or lack thereof. Whether or not God exists is not a question for me to answer-each individual must answer that. To me he does, do you he doesn't. The point of my comment was not to "spread my faith," but rather to show that even "Christian conservatives" can have high IQs and be just as intelligent as liberal atheists. Religion and political beliefs have nothing to do with it. Lets get back to the science-could genetics play an important role? I don't know. Crazy thought, huh? Data suggests Amy Bishop, PhD, who murdered three professors and killed her brother, was a socialist.

What intelligence! My apologies for the ignorance. All I can say is, good thing I'm not a socialist, whew! I think the matter involves more of thinking of what Economists call "externalities," the HIDDEN cost of something "lurking variables" by a Statistician's verbiage. Also, IQ cannot measure all types of intelligences it is based on culture, religion, sex, creed, etc.

IQ tries to quantify the unquantifiable; there will be lurking variables. First let me say that its almost impossible for one group of people to be exactly equal to another group of people in anything. One is going to be larger than the other. In this article, we aren't given much information on what the samples were or how they were taken, if there was I didn't see it. Given that, an IQ test doesn't do a very good job of measuring all forms of intelligence, the can be easily seen in most of our greatest minds in history. Very few were without significant quirks.

Each person has a fairly limited amount of neurons in their brain and limited time to reinforce their connections. Just because they don't devote their intelligence to something that would show up on an IQ test does not make them less intelligent. I score just below average on IQ tests, but score tremendously high on "visual IQ". So a person watching me do a 3d puzzle may think I have a high IQ simply because I have a high ability to visualize 3d space. My views on God: On an infinite timeline I can only see two probably outcomes for humanity.

We become extinct by a large astroid, our sun going super nova, or the collapse of the universe, it doesn't matter at which point if there is no god all our beliefs and decisions and morals will have had little if any influence on the universe and will eventually be completely forgotten. We somehow manage to escape all catastrophes and continue to evolve over billions of billions of years to into beings that have near absolute knowledge and control of ourselves and our surroundings and thereby becoming god-like.

Were this to happen it would indicate a fairly high probability of another being doing the same thing. Summery: Morals are pointless or the existence of a "god" is probable. Regardless I hope for the latter. Embriette, The point of my comment was not to "spread my faith," but rather to show that even "Christian conservatives" can have high IQs and be just as intelligent as liberal atheists.

So you're studying for a PhD? I hope somewhere along the line your department forces you to take basic statistics, whereupon you will learn the distinction between individual sample vs. The study under discussion talked about average scores. Nowhere in the article did they claim that all samples within either population religious or atheist had identical values. According to that study, in statistical parlance, you're an outlier. Whooptie doo. Some flaws in your analysis: 1 Regardless of your two scenarios, your individual life is finite and will soon be over.

To you as an individual, and even to your offspring, it doesn't matter what happens on an infinite timeline. To your actual life in the here and now, morals are very much important, because they help keep you alive and well amid a society of other humans. Any infinite-timeline projections from such ignorance would be premature and pointless. Shadfurman: Just pointing out, as well; a highly-developed, ridiculously intelligent, near-omnipotent being could end up being benign, but it could also end up being, basically, Cthulhu.

I don't argue that that would happen, mind, I'm just pointing out that your thought experiment has alternate, and far less pleasant, interpretations. Putting IQ in terms of a computer, what does it measure? Processing speed? Mostly algorithms, and to some extent processing speed. IQ measures pattern recognition, logical thinking, cognitive inertia, and creativity. It can be argued that the things IQ does measure, play important roles in virtually any facet of human activity.

But IQ is not by any means a complete assessment of a person's cognitive repertoire. I am a nonreligious liberal, But I would be the last person to gloat over an ultrareligious congress about the Logistics of Noahs Ark, while interrupting their keynote speaker with an annoying "told you so".

Who would have thought that?? Pink Elephant As a matter of fact, my program is "forcing" me to take a statistics course, and I have taken a statistic course in my undergrad.

Dogs' Intelligence On Par With Two-year-old Human, Canine Researcher Says -- ScienceDaily

First of all, I never said I was anything other than an outlier. I never said I wasn't-but I also never said that Christians, in general, were more intelligent than non-Christians. I was just using myself as an example of the "other side"-simply because many people reading this article seem to take it out of context and use it as an absolute to justify their religious or political beliefs.

Second of all, if you want to talk statistics and the statistical basis of this article, can you tell me if the sample size was large enough and varied enough to be applied to the general population in any dependable way? How many people were sampled? Of what race were they? What parts of the world were they from? What types of societies were they from? Unless you sample peoples of every kind, nation, and background, the statistics mean nothing.

Sounds more like the title of a blog than a scientific study. If true, you are the first I have heard to admit to this. I guess I'm speaking more of people who do research. Why would they continue to do research if they know it all? At the same time, I'm reminded of Dr. Phil Jones and computer models you can feed junk data into and get hockey sticks Works for me. So every entity is religious. Embriette, First of all, I never said I was anything other than an outlier.

Associated Data

Your tone, if not your exact words, suggested you were using yourself as an example to dispute the findings -- as if that were a valid argument. Unless you sample peoples of every kind, nation, and background, the statistics mean nothing You forgot every planet, and every galaxy. Feb 28, I don't understand this article, What about me? I have an IQ of and I recognize the possible existence of God. I wish to add to the article; -the tendency to recognize the extra-phenomenal concept of God depends on cultural influence.

This is a study. It computes averages and variances i.

  • The Distinction Between Innate and Acquired Characteristics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy);
  • A Very Naughty Seduction;
  • Individual differences in the learning potential of human beings | npj Science of Learning?
  • The Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind (Great Books in Philosophy)!
  • Famine (Dr. Palfrey).
  • Enon.
  • Shopping Cart;

You cannot use statistics to firmly predict what should happen in a singular case. One case that does not conform to the averages does not invalidate a study I guess this is what the anti-global warming guys don't understand when they say "but outside my door it was cold this morning - so global warming must be a hoax". Marjon "How do you make a socialist government system moral? It is systemically immoral. If the government is responsible for healthcare, everyone gets it. So remind me again how it is immoral for everyone to have access to the same service, protection, and status?

I just don't see it. And If you bring up another communist dictator that did his job poorly that is not proof that socialism is immoral. Sweden is a democracy but it has socialized health care. Everyone in that country has it. Sounds fair to me. Go ahead complpain about how the healthcare would suck. Still everyone is treated equally therefore morally. Get this, I have private health insurance here in the states. I made an appointment with my doctor for Monday.

I made this appointment Wednesday. In Sweden you are required to be seen by a primary care physician in 3 days. My appointment would be Saturday. Marjon "Socialist governments have the philosophy that the government grants rights to its victims. The only opportunity they have to 'make of them' is to try and survive.

I don't get what you are saying. Certain hypothesis; such as: cultural environment effect perception of god, is stronger if you focus on small group of people. For example; Galileo's free-fall experiment is not statistical, it use one special case to invalidate all Aristorelian statistical perceptions. If someone lives in cultural environment where religious dogma is used to rationalize irrational behaviour, then no wonder people disbelieve god.

The author must also check places where religious moral is in synchronicity with rational behaviour. I believe in global-warming, you're commiting a logical fallacy by associating me with other fallacious logics.

See a Problem?

I was just pointing out that you were making the same mistake as the anti-global-warming-crowd, not that you were one of them. Statistics are not ironhard predictions for every case. Outliers are possible and not all distributions are normal ones. All you could do is perform a census and show that your results deviate from the one presented AND that your census has a greater statistical power or show some bias was present in the original study that isn't in yours. On the other hand, antialias: your claim that IQ does not equate with intelligence undermines this case study, which does indeed equate IQ and intelligence.

Though I do agree that the IQ of a person has surprising little to do with their intelligence. My concern with this study is the margin of error. Depending on their sample size, that could be well within the error. Also, what backgrounds are people coming from? Oh I'm not saying that IQ isn't somehow related to intelligence. It just doesn't mean that high IQ people will always make logical statements or understand what they talk about on any given subject. It all comes down how you do the tests and sometimes even to what cultural background you administer the test.

Pink Elephant You said my tone implied that I was using myself as an example. Isn't that exactly what I went on to say I was doing? Thanks for pointing that out for me again. You seem to keep missing the fact that I wasn't using myself as proof that the article is wrong, just as an example of the 'other side. As for your link to the statistics, remind me again why I was looking at that? All I found was info on adolescent whites and blacks in America.

Certainly not a representation of the whole world. And it would be hard to sample beings from other galaxies, when we don't even know if they exist, and even if they did, we haven't figured out how to communicate with them yet. Wasn't this a study of humans anyway? Maybe we should have God take an IQ test, and see how He comes out?

Maybe, just maybe, the more intelligent people are liberal because more intelligent people go to college, and colleges are overwhelmingly liberal. Even if you're conservative it's difficult to get out of school without being converted. Even in highschool it becomes obvious that the teachers are almost all liberal and the pressure on a student to identify with the teachers is enormous.

Ditto with atheism. I say this as an athiest with liberal values on equality and human rights but who hates the "liberal party" because it's full of loud mouthed individuals that try to shove thier ideals down your throat The bloggers are entirely correct. AGW has become a religion. Marjon "The US Constitution is designed to provide equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity. It is unconstitutional that they are treated differently, yet the vast majority of states do so. This flaw does not make democracy inherently bad. Will the state force people to become doctors?

Sweden is a democracy with socialized medicine. If there were not enough doctors they would HIRE more. Lets just imagine though that Sweden was communist. There are many ways that a communist state could get the amount of doctors that they need some more desirable for people than others.

Many of these systems could be designed fairly though, meaning that everyone goes through the same process. It could possibly be done similar to the US military where aptitude tests are taken and one must qualify for a job. It can be done morally even if you can't imagine it. Marjon This is exactly where I was waiting for you to go. In fact the best system would still encourage it somehow. This is the part that all of the greedy Americans miss.

It is entirely possible that everyone gets paid the same yet the majority still tries to do their job well. You may be right that in a population the size of a major country it would be tough. However there are income sharing communities inside the US and elsewhere that cooperatively grow their own food, build their own houses, and live together.

It works there. You say there is no incentive to work hard. What about making your country or community great and functional. That is a noble goal. Dollar signs are the most important thing in the US. That doesn't mean they have to be. That is just our culture. Marjon It doesn't really matter how the government decides who can get married. If some people can and others can't thats immoral. Saying that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is like saying that all men in the untied states have the right to get a pap smear.

Heterosexual marriage is useless to homosexuals. Pointing to this is more of a slap in the face than an expression of equality. We are getting away from the argument that socialism can be moral. I was just pointing out that there are immoral expressions in democracies too. Again this specific case of immorality doesnt mean that democracy is immoral just like it wouldnt mean socialism was. They apparently hired them somewhere, because Sweden does have doctors, and ranks highly in many health categories. Marjon You are absolutley right "The military recruits doctors just like any hospital or clinic.

The military doesn't give aptitude tests and force a new recruit to medical school for 8 years. Believe it or not some people choose to be doctors for reasons other than money. Some people genuinely like to help others. Being a doctor is a great way to do this. Many doctors in ERs could make more money in a private practice yet stay in hospitals. Because money isn't why they became a doctor. People can be motivated by other things than money. Doctors in a socialist country would be people who wanted to help and also academically qualify. In a well set up system they would get recognition and honor for their effort, while recieving the same pay as everyone else.

Recognition and honor are useless in the US culture where money drives most things. Marjon "I prefer rewards based upon merit.

So socialism isn't your preference. I do remember saying this, "And people I said it earlier but i'll say it again. I'll even grant that it is easier to have a moral democracy than a moral socialist country. Still doesn't mean either is impossible. Anyone else shocked when they loaded this article and saw how long the trolling comments go on for? I'm gonna leave my mark too : "All thinking men are atheists.

Marjon "What kind of recognition and honor? Government medals? Special titles? Three letters after their name like PhD? In your mind if it isn't beneficial to only yourself it is worthless. But again thats your preference. I get it, you don't want to live in a socialist country. Some people do. Mar 01, RJB26 "socialism is the preferred form of gov't for leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves and power hungry leftist douchebags who want to control the leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves. You have added a lot of class legitimacy to our discussion. Marjon Doctors in a socialist country would be people who wanted to help and also academically qualify.

Hate to burst your bubble, but a large percentage of physicians in socialized medicine nations leave for places like the US where they can make a buck instead of working for mechanics wages. Also, socialized medicine can't be all that good given how many come to the US from Europe and especially Canada for treatment. Hospitals in Detroit, including Henry Ford Hospital, have so many of them they've opened entire clinics just to treat them.

Seems if you're over 50 or have a disease that's expensive to treat esp. Don't say it doesn't happen I spent 30 years in health care and saw it all too often once Canada instituted their system. First you say that intelligent people like "novel" ideologies and then you say their ideology is "liberal" -- currently the most pervasive in the United States.

Which is it? Even a dummy like me can see polemic disguised as science!! Intelligent people can make rare-association better than average people, in other word, they're creative this doesn't mean they're more logical. This is because; general intelligence is physically related to number of neurons and interconnections [1], but, generally, higher IQ adolescent loss more neurons than average people [forgot] hence their intelligence could based upon more interconnection. I found this comment box to be too claustrophobic.

Very confusing My point was; the dis-agreeable nature of intelligent people is caused by creative mind [1]. Because imo rare association were often made to explain one's experience rather than using the obvious "god did it" reasoning. Ethinicity wasn't factored so the results are skewed. With that said, I personally suspect strongly the correlations are correct. All they had to do was change one aspect of this study for it to have merit. Remove the politics. If they said smarter people tend to innovate within society and personal activities I think we'd all agree.

I think that physorg was just down on its comment flame war traffic lately and decided to write such a poorly constructed article. DocM "Hate to burst your bubble, but a large percentage of physicians in socialized medicine nations leave for places like the US where they can make a buck instead of working for mechanics wage" You didn't burst my bubble at all. I don't care where anyone wants to practice medicine or what kind of government they want to have. All I'm saying is that Socialism can be moral.

Obviously Sweden would not be the ideal money making place for a doctor, you are right. I kinda like money myself, all I'm talking about is that not everyone is as obsessed with it as US citizens. You guys can keep saying how terrible you think it would be allllllllll day but you are not affecting my argument or my bubble. Then it wouldn't be a study. The results are shown above. How about we repeat the study on someone of voting age and see where the stats stand?

You have a very pretentious nick. Unless that's your real name? In which case you have a very pretentious name. Haha, nice comment. That is my real name. I guess my parents are pretentious people. They are too pushy and they shove their beliefs down other peoples' throats. That is not what true Christianity is all about, and that is not what I am all about. To me its not someone who sees themselves as a member of "an exclusivist group. It is not my place, or any other Christian's place to judge those who don't believe. It says it right in the Bible.

Christians are only to judge other Christians. So a Christian who judges a non-believer isn't following their own God its in the book of James. The problem with Christianity today is that it follows rules and traditions founded by men, not by God. I guess that once again, I'm an outlier. How do they do that? Infecting the laws of society with abstract morality and social preference instilled in the race through 2 thousand years of indoctrination of the ignorant for one. Governments have the power to force you to do what they want. No, the people when attacked by their government have physical recourse.

Christians can only persuade. If their words make you feel bad, don't listen. If only that would make them stop. If people don't like what I write, ignore it. Apparently I hit a nerve or two with some as they can only respond with insults. If you consider our directions into discovering what actually represents a hypothesis, theory, and construct bothers you, feel free to ignore it. Seems to be a bunch of secular socialists writing laws in Uganda to slaughter homosexuals. Also a bunch of socialists writing new laws in a certain southern US state to rewrite science and history in order to support a religion and its uneducated lackeys.

The study specified that they looked at young adults i. Young adult is from age by most standards. IQ tests in adolescence do not equate to the results from contemporary IQ tests. So what you're saying is either there's NO correlation or there's absurdly weak correlation. I cant believe such a dumb study is causing such a fuss at physorg. Ive been thinking about this study and come up with a solution that should make everyone happy. This study facts are right but its conculsions are wrong. Only the smartest liberal progressives who have mental disorders go into Psyscology, the rest either become congressmen, ACORN activists, inmates, or just go on welfare.

Only the dumbest christian or religious people, go into psychology as it is well known that Psychology professors are crazy leftwing progressives who hate christians, the USA, freedom and equality and will flunk anyone who disagree with their beliefs. So in this study they took the brightest progressives who are just marginally smarter than average and compared them to the dumbest christians who are just marginally dumber than average.

If they would have studied the real sciences and engineering depts. Intelligence although it should be, is not often an indicator of wisdom JayK proves the point that crazy leftwing progressives project their hate and ignorance onto others. He hates homosexuals so he assumes conservatives hate homosexuals. He is ignorant so he assumes conservatives are ignorant. If I as a conservative would do the same for JayK, I would consider him a nice honest, loving guy, who cared for his fellow man person.

Yeah, good thing I'm unable to find your comments from previous threads, huh? If they are forced to live there, that would be immoral. I don't really have time to create my own sovereign nation to validate my argument. Although I do seem to have copious amounts of time, as I have been trying to champion the mere possibility of something for days now. By doing a job like being an engineer one that you consider "real work" they are performing a necessary niche in that society. The man that collects the trash apparently not working also gets that stuff away from your house that rots.

Otto, James was written most likely around A. If history serves me, Rome was still purcecuting Christians at that time. I agree with you that teaching the origins of Christianity is lacking in the schools. Either it is ignored or taught by professors who hate christianity. My kids have been taught more about the Muslim religion none of the negative stuff , Buhdism, than Christianity. What little they have been taught about Christianity is laughably wrong. Continued: Just because you associate some jobs with small dollar amounts does not mean that they don't need to be done for society to function correctly and if you wanted to live in a socialist state you would understand this.

You say this is a society that is for leaches but it is for a society much more ambitious than ours because if everyone does not work to perform their job the society can collapse. The people must have a sense of community and working towards a common goal. Much too hard for Americans. If they have to share with someone else, well there is absolutely no reason to try. This hypothesis theorizes that various social environments cause either forgiveness or revenge to prevail. McCollough relates his theory to game theory.

The choice between the two can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on what the partner-organism chooses. Though this psychological example of game theory does not have such directly measurable results, it provides an interesting theory of unique thought. From a more biological standpoint, the brain's limbic system operates as the main control-area for response to certain stimuli, including a variety of instinctual behavior.

The limbic system processes external stimuli related to emotions, social activity, and motivation, which propagates a behavioral response. Some behaviors include maternal care, aggression, defense, and social hierarchy. These behaviors are influenced by sensory input — sight, sound, touch, and smell. Within the circuitry of the limbic system, there are various places where evolution could have taken place, or could take place in the future.

For example, many rodents have receptors in the vomeronasal organ that respond explicitly to predator stimuli that specifically relate to that individual species of rodent. The reception of a predatory stimulus usually creates a response of defense or fear. The vomeronasal organ and the main olfactory epithelium, together called the olfactory system , detect pheromones from the opposite sex. These signals then travel to the medial amygdala, which disperses the signal to a variety of brain parts. The pathways involved with innate circuitry are extremely specialized and specific.

The Distinction Between Innate and Acquired Characteristics

Instinct is a phenomenon that can be investigated from a multitude of angles: genetics, limbic system, nervous pathways, and environment. Researchers can study levels of instincts, from molecular to groups of individuals. Extremely specialized systems have evolved, resulting in individuals which exhibit behaviors without learning them. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For other uses, see Instinct disambiguation.

Main article: Reflex. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. New York: Pantheon Books. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Ltd, London, p. Motivation and Personality. Textbook of Animal Behaviour. PHI Learning. Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind 3rd ed.

Join Kobo & start eReading today

Instinct and choice: A framework for analysis. Garcia Coll Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. Frontiers in Psychology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Current Biology. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Light is electromagnetic radiation; life is just the label we give to certain kinds of objects that can grow and reproduce.

Eventually, neuroscience will show that consciousness is just brain states. After all, our brains evolved to help us solve down-to-earth problems of survival and reproduction; there is no particular reason to assume they should be capable of cracking every big philosophical puzzle we happen to throw at them. O r maybe it is: in the last few years, several scientists and philosophers, Chalmers and Koch among them, have begun to look seriously again at a viewpoint so bizarre that it has been neglected for more than a century, except among followers of eastern spiritual traditions, or in the kookier corners of the new age.

Besides, panpsychism might help unravel an enigma that has attached to the study of consciousness from the start: if humans have it, and apes have it, and dogs and pigs probably have it, and maybe birds, too — well, where does it stop? Growing up as the child of German-born Catholics, Koch had a dachshund named Purzel. The problem is that there seems to be no logical reason to draw the line at dogs, or sparrows or mice or insects, or, for that matter, trees or rocks.

Which is how Koch and Chalmers have both found themselves arguing, in the pages of the New York Review of Books, that an ordinary household thermostat or a photodiode, of the kind you might find in your smoke detector, might in principle be conscious. The argument unfolds as follows: physicists have no problem accepting that certain fundamental aspects of reality — such as space, mass, or electrical charge — just do exist. Explanations have to stop somewhere. The panpsychist hunch is that consciousness could be like that, too — and that if it is, there is no particular reason to assume that it only occurs in certain kinds of matter.

  • Relationship Advice for Prima Donnas: How to Have Healthy Functional Relationships with Family, Friends, and Co-Workers... even if you are a tad on the selfish side..
  • Sex and Sexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)!
  • Sex and Sexuality.

It is the argument that anything at all could be conscious, providing that the information it contains is sufficiently interconnected and organised. But in principle the same might apply to the internet, or a smartphone, or a thermostat. The ethical implications are unsettling: might we owe the same care to conscious machines that we bestow on animals? Koch, for his part, tries to avoid stepping on insects as he walks. Sure enough, when people fall into a deep sleep, or receive an injection of anaesthetic, as they slip into unconsciousness, the device demonstrates that their brain integration declines, too.

Gather enough of this kind of evidence, Koch argues and in theory you could take any device, measure the complexity of the information contained in it, then deduce whether or not it was conscious. But even if one were willing to accept the perplexing claim that a smartphone could be conscious, could you ever know that it was true? Surely only the smartphone itself could ever know that? Koch shrugged. Personally, I have no experience of black holes. But the theory [that predicts black holes] seems always to be true, so I tend to accept it. It would be satisfying for multiple reasons if a theory like this were eventually to vanquish the Hard Problem.

The universe is throbbing with it.

Last June, several of the most prominent combatants in the consciousness debates — including Chalmers, Churchland and Dennett — boarded a tall-masted yacht for a trip among the ice floes of Greenland. This conference-at-sea was funded by a Russian internet entrepreneur, Dmitry Volkov, the founder of the Moscow Centre for Consciousness Studies. About 30 academics and graduate students, plus crew, spent a week gliding through dark waters, past looming snow-topped mountains and glaciers, in a bracing chill conducive to focused thought, giving the problem of consciousness another shot.

In the mornings, they visited islands to go hiking, or examine the ruins of ancient stone huts; in the afternoons, they held conference sessions on the boat. For Chalmers, the setting only sharpened the urgency of the mystery: how could you feel the Arctic wind on your face, take in the visual sweep of vivid greys and whites and greens, and still claim conscious experience was unreal, or that it was simply the result of ordinary physical stuff, behaving ordinarily?

The question was rhetorical. Dennett and Churchland were not converted; indeed, Chalmers has no particular confidence that a consensus will emerge in the next century. It would be poetic — albeit deeply frustrating — were it ultimately to prove that the one thing the human mind is incapable of comprehending is itself. An answer must be out there somewhere.