Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Sriram on June 23, 2021, 11:06:00 AM
-
Hi Everyone,
Here is an interesting article about why consciousness could not have evolved naturally. An argument against materialism....!
https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-cannot-have-evolved-auid-1302
************
Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved.....The sooner we acknowledge it, the sooner we’ll solve the hard problem of consciousness
........ our sentience—to the extent that it is produced by the brain—must perform a beneficial function, otherwise we would be unconscious zombies.
One problem with this is that, under the premises of materialism, phenomenal consciousness cannot—by definition—have a function. According to materialism, all entities are defined and exhaustively characterised in purely quantitative terms.
However, our phenomenal consciousness is eminently qualitative, not quantitative.
Therefore, under materialist premises, phenomenal consciousness cannot have been favoured by natural selection. Indeed, it shouldn’t exist at all; we should all be unconscious zombies, going about our business in exactly the same way we actually do, but without an accompanying inner life. If evolution is true—which we have every reason to believe is the case—our very sentience contradicts materialism.
The impossibility of attributing functional, causative efficacy to qualia constitutes a fundamental internal contradiction in the mainstream materialist worldview. There are two main reasons why this contradiction has been accepted thus far: first, there seems to be a surprising lack of understanding, even amongst materialists, of what materialism actually entails and implies. Second, deceptive word games—such as that discussed above—seem to perpetuate the illusion that we have plausible hypotheses for the ostensive survival function of consciousness.
Phenomenal consciousness cannot have evolved. It can only have been there from the beginning as an intrinsic, irreducible fact of nature. The faster we come to terms with this fact, the faster our understanding of consciousness will progress.
************
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Here is an interesting article about why consciousness could not have evolved naturally. An argument against materialism....!
Meh. Not much of an actual argument, more a string of unjustified assertions/assumptions about unknowns. Also directly contradicts other ideas you've latched onto before (integrated information theory, for example).
Oh, and the author seems to be an associate of Deepak Chopra, which should send anybody's bullshit detector into overload.
-
Meh. Not much of an actual argument, more a string of unjustified assertions/assumptions about unknowns. Also directly contradicts other ideas you've latched onto before (integrated information theory, for example).
Oh, and the author seems to be an associate of Deepak Chopra, which should send anybody's bullshit detector into overload.
I'm so glad you have responded! I skimmed through the post and was thinking of responding with , 'just more drivel, then'.
-
........ our sentience—to the extent that it is produced by the brain—must perform a beneficial function, otherwise we would be unconscious zombies.
Got as far as this, in the second sentence of what you'd cited, before I found the flaw. This isn't how evolution works - sentience may or may not directly perform a beneficial function, but equally it may be a byproduct of some other faculty that does produce a beneficial function (expanded language capacity, more capability at predictive reasoning etc.).
As such we end up with consciousness which isn't intrinsically beneficial, but which is selected for by virtue of the selection pressure on the associated trait.
O.
-
Got as far as this, in the second sentence of what you'd cited, before I found the flaw. This isn't how evolution works - sentience may or may not directly perform a beneficial function, but equally it may be a byproduct of some other faculty that does produce a beneficial function (expanded language capacity, more capability at predictive reasoning etc.).
As such we end up with consciousness which isn't intrinsically beneficial, but which is selected for by virtue of the selection pressure on the associated trait.
O.
I am sure that language, reasoning etc did not give rise to consciousness. It is surely the other way around! Consciousness has resulted in language, reasoning etc....and even to self awareness.
The point is that attributing everything to some nebulous 'evolution' is neither here nor there. Natural Selection is a metaphor. The real reason evolution happens is due to phenotypic plasticity. Organisms sense their environmental requirements and respond accordingly with suitable changes to the phenotype even with no changes in the genotype. This type of plasticity is present even in the simplest organisms....which is why evolution has happened and complexity has arisen.
Plasticity requires information flow and a suitable response through diverse means. This is not possible without some form of coordinating consciousness. Therefore consciousness has to be fundamental.
-
I am sure that language, reasoning etc did not give rise to consciousness. It is surely the other way around!
Your surety is hardly a convincing argument.
The point is that attributing everything to some nebulous 'evolution' is neither here nor there.
It is not nebulous. It's a well established and tested scientific theory.
Natural Selection is a metaphor.
No matter how many times you repeat this stupidity, it is simply false. As long as you continue to hold on to this daft misunderstanding, you will never be able to comment sensibly on anything to do with evolution. Natural selection is a very real process that can be directly observed and modelled on a computer. To call it a metaphor displays astounding ignorance of the subject.
The real reason evolution happens is due to phenotypic plasticity. Organisms sense their environmental requirements and respond accordingly with suitable changes to the phenotype even with no changes in the genotype. This type of plasticity is present even in the simplest organisms....which is why evolution has happened and complexity has arisen.
Unmitigated drivel. The genome does change in process of evolution, so something that doesn't change the genotype cannot possibly explain it. Phenotypic plasticity is itself a product of evolution.
You really, really need to forget what you think you know learn the basics of evolution.
Plasticity requires information flow and a suitable response through diverse means. This is not possible without some form of coordinating consciousness.
Baseless assertion. ::)
-
I am sure that language, reasoning etc did not give rise to consciousness. It is surely the other way around! Consciousness has resulted in language, reasoning etc....and even to self awareness.
On what basis are you so 'sure'? I'm not suggesting that the full gamut of modern linguistic communication emerged before consciousness, we see some basic linguistic capacity in animals where we'd question the level of consciousness they display, so the idea that the initial stages of communication might emerge alongside consciousness is not in any way ridiculous - my point wasn't that it was a definitive truth, but that the argument put forwards that consciousness could not have evolved required it to be definitively true, and that's not the case.
The point is that attributing everything to some nebulous 'evolution' is neither here nor there.
It rather is, given that the argument being put forward relied on showing that the trait in question could not have evolved. Evolution, by the way, is not a 'nebulous' concept, it's an incredibly well evidenced phenomenon that we see throughout the living world.
Natural Selection is a metaphor. The real reason evolution happens is due to phenotypic plasticity.
It's not a metaphor, it's the description of how the genetic phenomenon manifests at the macroscopic scale.
Organisms sense their environmental requirements and respond accordingly with suitable changes to the phenotype even with no changes in the genotype.
No. This is not how evolution works. Genetic variation which leads to selection is not a deliberate response to environmental pressures, it's a periodic, spontaneous event which results in selective pressure differences.
Plasticity requires information flow and a suitable response through diverse means. This is not possible without some form of coordinating consciousness.
Absolute nonsense - data is a reflection of natural phenomena, it is itself and interpretation, but the phenomena exist regardless. If we didn't measure the energy output of the sun the sun would still shine, it does not require our conscious understanding for it to happen.
O.
-
What has our measuring the energy of the sun (or any external object) got to do with anything? I was referring to internal communication within an organism starting with recognition of external conditions and leading to suitable phenotypic changes to enable adaptation.
-
I am sure that language, reasoning etc did not give rise to consciousness. It is surely the other way around! Consciousness has resulted in language, reasoning etc....and even to self awareness.
The point is that attributing everything to some nebulous 'evolution' is neither here nor there. Natural Selection is a metaphor. The real reason evolution happens is due to phenotypic plasticity. Organisms sense their environmental requirements and respond accordingly with suitable changes to the phenotype even with no changes in the genotype. This type of plasticity is present even in the simplest organisms....which is why evolution has happened and complexity has arisen.
Plasticity requires information flow and a suitable response through diverse means. This is not possible without some form of coordinating consciousness. Therefore consciousness has to be fundamental.
Oh dear. It is I suppose remotely possible that some evidence might come to light that the body, conscious of a change in climate or something, actually produces a mutation of some sort which will enable it to survive, but highly unlikely, bearing in mind that the evidence so far shows that mutations happen and become spread throughout a species over probably hundreds of yers and if a future climate change happens which could threaten the species, then, if the said mutation makes the species able to survive the change, then the species survives and the mutation remains in the species. If the species does not survive, that means that the species was not able to survive. It cannot suddenly produce a mutation and spread it throughout the species in order to avoid extinction. :
I suppose you will take as much notice of this and other rational posts as you usually do - just ignore it and repeat the falsehoods. that's sad.
-
The real reason evolution happens is due to phenotypic plasticity. Organisms sense their environmental requirements and respond accordingly with suitable changes to the phenotype even with no changes in the genotype. This type of plasticity is present even in the simplest organisms....which is why evolution has happened and complexity has arisen.
How on earth can you possible say this when we have the most obvious example of natural selection being driven by change in genome staring us in the face right now. Of course evolution by natural selection often takes place over a very long period of time, but not always, for example where the mutation is clearly advantageous in terms of being able to reproduce and also the life cycle is very short. So perhaps ... a virus.
So look at the Delta variant - a mutation that occurred during the replication of an earlier variant of the virus has led to a virus with altered phenotype which makes it more transmissible and therefore better able to be replicated in human hosts. We know exactly where that mutation and change in genome exists. And guess what - over a period of a few weeks this variant has gone from being incredibly rare in the UK to being over 90% of all covid infections. I imagine the same has occurred in India.
Evolution involving genetic mutation and natural selection demonstrates unequivocally and in just a few short months and not even in a lab, but in the real world.
-
How on earth can you possible say this when we have the most obvious example of natural selection being driven by change in genome staring us in the face right now. Of course evolution by natural selection often takes place over a very long period of time, but not always, for example where the mutation is clearly advantageous in terms of being able to reproduce and also the life cycle is very short. So perhaps ... a virus.
So look at the Delta variant - a mutation that occurred during the replication of an earlier variant of the virus has led to a virus with altered phenotype which makes it more transmissible and therefore better able to be replicated in human hosts. We know exactly where that mutation and change in genome exists. And guess what - over a period of a few weeks this variant has gone from being incredibly rare in the UK to being over 90% of all covid infections. I imagine the same has occurred in India.
Evolution involving genetic mutation and natural selection demonstrates unequivocally and in just a few short months and not even in a lab, but in the real world.
What is your view on phenotypic plasticity, specifically polyphenism?
-
What is your view on phenotypic plasticity, specifically polyphenism?
What's wrong with you, Sriram? You already know his informed opinions in some detail, as witnessed by the exchanges in the Science Topic (Phenotypic Plasticity & Polyphenism) which you introduced on June 1 2020.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17486.0
Your ignorance of the subject, and indeed of evolution by natural selection generally, was demonstrated in no uncertain terms then by the Prof. The same ignorance seems to be on show in your latest, rather futile, attempt at dealing with this subject. Have you forgotten or are you simply incapable of learning?
-
What is this? Some kind of a relay 'boxing'....??! :D
One guy goes away and someone else takes over.....then he goes away and someone else takes over...
-
What is this? Some kind of a relay 'boxing'....??! :D
One guy goes away and someone else takes over.....then he goes away and someone else takes over...
No need to get frustrated Sriram. Think positive and try looking back at what he said then. You might just learn something. ;D
-
What is your view on phenotypic plasticity, specifically polyphenism?
It's completely irrelevant to the fact that mutation and natural selection are being demonstrated to the world in the pandemic. The delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 is a set of mutations to the genome of the virus and the fact that it has spread and become dominant is natural selection in action (and it isn't a metaphor).
What is this? Some kind of a relay 'boxing'....??! :D
One guy goes away and someone else takes over.....then he goes away and someone else takes over...
Forums tend to work like that. If somebody has something to say on the subject, they do so.
Additionally, in the thread that was linked to, the Prof addresses the subject of phenotypic plasticity (and how it arises through variation and natural selection, see specifically this post (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17486.msg800564#msg800564) and those that follow), which is exactly what you asked about.
-
Ok...you guys are saying that phenotypic plasticity has arisen in some instances due to random variation and NS. That is....having the cake and eating it too.
I am saying that....phenotypic plasticity is the natural mechanism by which evolution happens in every instance. That is what happens in the real world. There is no randomness and NS is just a metaphor, because there no real 'selection' going on.
And the impression that phenotypic plasticity happens due to genetic changes is not correct. In fact, the idea of polyphenism is that the same genotype can lead to multiple phenotypes depending on the environmental conditions. This is where the responsive nature of evolution comes out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphenism
-
What has our measuring the energy of the sun (or any external object) got to do with anything? I was referring to internal communication within an organism starting with recognition of external conditions and leading to suitable phenotypic changes to enable adaptation.
Because you are conflating phenomena (the energy of the sun, the existence of data) with the interpretation of those phenomena (the measurement of the output of the sun, the information deduce from the data).
O.
-
Ok...you guys are saying that phenotypic plasticity has arisen in some instances due to random variation and NS. That is....having the cake and eating it too.
Don't be silly. Phenotypic plasticity is a trait and, like other traits, it evolved by variation and natural selection.
I am saying that....phenotypic plasticity is the natural mechanism by which evolution happens in every instance.
You are simply wrong. What's more you've obviously and hopelessly wrong. Evolution (beyond changes in allele frequency) involves changes to the genome, phenotypic plasticity doesn't.
There is no randomness and NS is just a metaphor, because there no real 'selection' going on.
Your stubborn ignorance and refusal to learn or anything is truly staggering. As has already been pointed out, variation and selection is happening to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its implications are world news. How you can deny this is totally beyond me.
And the impression that phenotypic plasticity happens due to genetic changes is not correct. In fact, the idea of polyphenism is that the same genotype can lead to multiple phenotypes depending on the environmental conditions.
Which is exactly why it can't possibly be the mechanism for evolution. You can't explain the genetic diversity of life with a mechanism that doesn't change the genome.
Nobody has suggested that phenotypic plasticity (itself) happens due to genetic changes. It's a trait that evolved (by variation and selection) - as the prof explained to you on the other thread (here (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17486.msg800564#msg800564)). You might at least pay some attention.
-
As such we end up with consciousness which isn't intrinsically beneficial, but which is selected for by virtue of the selection pressure on the associated trait.
It is truly amazing how any amount of perceived complexity can be deemed to be an unintended by-product of the random, demonstrably destructive forces of nature.
I am constantly bombarded with accusations of personal incredulity, but what does it take to cling on to a belief that a microscopic molecule containing all the information and mechanisms to produce a complete human being (including the human mind!) can be the unintended by-product of nothing but unguided random forces? Sometimes we get so involved with examining the minutiae of evolutionary theory that we fail to step back and appreciate the bigger picture. I am frequently reminded of the CS Lewis lecture entitled "Fern Seed and Elephants" in which he compares some modern theorists with explorers who get carried away with examining the fern seeds beneath their feet and fail to see the elephant in front of them.
-
It is truly amazing how any amount of perceived complexity can be deemed to be an unintended by-product of the random, demonstrably destructive forces of nature.
I am constantly bombarded with accusations of personal incredulity, but what does it take to cling on to a belief that a microscopic molecule containing all the information and mechanisms to produce a complete human being (including the human mind!) can be the unintended by-product of nothing but unguided random forces? Sometimes we get so involved with examining the minutiae of evolutionary theory that we fail to step back and appreciate the bigger picture. I am frequently reminded of the CS Lewis lecture entitled "Fern Seed and Elephants" in which he compares some modern theorists with explorers who get carried away with examining the fern seeds beneath their feet and fail to see the elephant in front of them.
I think that sums you up. You have never produced any evidence to support your belief that the Biblical god character was responsible for creating humans.
-
It is truly amazing how any amount of perceived complexity can be deemed to be an unintended by-product of the random, demonstrably destructive forces of nature.
I am constantly bombarded with accusations of personal incredulity, but what does it take to cling on to a belief that a microscopic molecule containing all the information and mechanisms to produce a complete human being (including the human mind!) can be the unintended by-product of nothing but unguided random forces?
Nobody (except you) is clinging to anything. We have comprehensive evidence for the conclusions of science. You have nothing but blind faith in an old superstition, incredulity, and self-contradictory claims of magic.
-
It is truly amazing how any amount of perceived complexity can be deemed to be an unintended by-product of the random, demonstrably destructive forces of nature.
Argument from incredulity ... and actually argument from ignorance as there are loads of examples of what we may perceive as exquisite complexity arising as an unintended by-product of random forces of nature.
Here is a good example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake
Astonishing and exquisite crystalline structure that are unique and also (in human terms) amazingly beautiful. Yet clearly this complexity arises as the unintended by-product of random forces of nature.
The notion that complexity only arises through the actions of something more complex is a fool's grand of infinite reduction. Nope - the only logical explanation is that complexity must arise bottom up from more simple form and of course that explanation builds on massive amounts of evidence.
-
It is truly amazing how any amount of perceived complexity can be deemed to be an unintended by-product of the random, demonstrably destructive forces of nature.
I am constantly bombarded with accusations of personal incredulity, but what does it take to cling on to a belief that a microscopic molecule containing all the information and mechanisms to produce a complete human being (including the human mind!) can be the unintended by-product of nothing but unguided random forces?
It takes evidence. Hundreds and thousands of well documented, peer-reviewed examinations of phenomena as diverse as virology, immunology, genetics, sociology, archaeology and physics, all of which coalesce into well-defined theorems which are subject to repeated challenge and which come through as viable explanations for the interactions between the observable phenomena.
Sometimes we get so involved with examining the minutiae of evolutionary theory that we fail to step back and appreciate the bigger picture.
And you have at least some iota of evidence to suggest that there's a 'bigger picture'? Or is this just you trying to fit your incredulity around the evidence because it can't find a way through it?
I am frequently reminded of the CS Lewis lecture entitled "Fern Seed and Elephants" in which he compares some modern theorists with explorers who get carried away with examining the fern seeds beneath their feet and fail to see the elephant in front of them.
C.S. Lewis, from his peer-reviewed paper on... what, exactly? Let's imagine that those seed-obsessed explorers were blind to the elephant... I bet their take on the seeds was pretty accurate, though...
O.
-
What a waste of all those precious minutes of life to spend it chasing idiotic, completely insubstantial shadows. Ah well, I suppose each human has a right to be so ignorant of reality. It would certainly nott suit me.
-
It takes evidence. Hundreds and thousands of well documented, peer-reviewed examinations of phenomena as diverse as virology, immunology, genetics, sociology, archaeology and physics, all of which coalesce into well-defined theorems which are subject to repeated challenge and which come through as viable explanations for the interactions between the observable phenomena.
And you have at least some iota of evidence to suggest that there's a 'bigger picture'? Or is this just you trying to fit your incredulity around the evidence because it can't find a way through it?
C.S. Lewis, from his peer-reviewed paper on... what, exactly? Let's imagine that those seed-obsessed explorers were blind to the elephant... I bet their take on the seeds was pretty accurate, though...
O.
The problem with hundreds and thousands of well documented peer reviewed examinations of phenomena is that the mind becomes microscopic and is unable to see the woods for the trees.
There is no problem with science in its place. The microscopic mind has its uses no doubt. But when the same microscopic mindset is used to attempt an explanation of life in general, it is not up to the task. It is a zoom-in mind which is unable to zoom-out and see the big picture. It gets consumed in details.
It is a perception problem.
-
The problem with hundreds and thousands of well documented peer reviewed examinations of phenomena is that the mind becomes microscopic and is unable to see the woods for the trees.
There is no problem with science in its place. The microscopic mind has its uses no doubt. But when the same microscopic mindset is used to attempt an explanation of life in general, it is not up to the task. It is a zoom-in mind which is unable to zoom-out and see the big picture. It gets consumed in details.
It is a perception problem.
Vacuous nonsense. Churning out your usual empty mantras is neither a substitute for, nor a counterargument against, actual thought and real evidence. Science has nothing to do with 'zooming in' or a 'microscopic mind'. It's just about building hypotheses that fit the evidence and then testing them.
In this instance, not only have you provided no evidence or reasoning, you have shown, multiple times, that you don't even understand the concepts you are attempting to address.
On the subject of you not understanding, it's also worth pointing that the basis of the article in the OP would be undermined by both of the other speculations you posted on the other thread (The universe is conscious? (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18665.msg833805#msg833805)). So you've now indicated three wild speculations, any one of which would rule out the others.
-
Vacuous nonsense. Churning out your usual empty mantras is neither a substitute for, nor a counterargument against, actual thought and real evidence. Science has nothing to do with 'zooming in' or a 'microscopic mind'. It's just about building hypotheses that fit the evidence and then testing them.
In this instance, not only have you provided no evidence or reasoning, you have shown, multiple times, that you don't even understand the concepts you are attempting to address.
On the subject of you not understanding, it's also worth pointing that the basis of the article in the OP would be undermined by both of the other speculations you posted on the other thread (The universe is conscious? (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18665.msg833805#msg833805)). So you've now indicated three wild speculations, any one of which would rule out the others.
Panpsychism is just a broad concept now. Its just the very beginning. There are bound to be self contradictory models to begin with. Doesn't science have self contradictory models...? Of course it does!
The idea will evolve and find its moorings by and by. Reality will prevail...
-
I am frequently reminded of the CS Lewis lecture entitled "Fern Seed and Elephants" in which he compares some modern theorists with explorers who get carried away with examining the fern seeds beneath their feet and fail to see the elephant in front of them.
Pot and kettle.
It is, of course, the theists who are obsessed with the 'seed', their man-made god, who typically fail to appreciate the 'elephant', being the amazing natural phenomena that comprise the universe.
-
Panpsychism is just a broad concept now. Its just the very beginning.
No it isn't. It's been around since about 600BCE (source (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/#PanpHistWestPhil)).
There are bound to be self contradictory models to begin with. Doesn't science have self contradictory models...? Of course it does!
There are contradictory hypotheses but that's not really the point. You are trying to convince people of panpsychism (actually, not only that but pretty much anything that hints at consciousness or intelligence outside of brains) and the fact that you latch on to any idea at all that suggests it (even when they contradict each other) just emphasises that none of them have any evidential support and that it isn't that you have reason to believe it but that you just desperately want to believe it.
The idea will evolve and find its moorings by and by. Reality will prevail...
Since you have no evidence and no reasoning, this can only be blind faith. ::)
-
Argument from incredulity ... and actually argument from ignorance as there are loads of examples of what we may perceive as exquisite complexity arising as an unintended by-product of random forces of nature.
Here is a good example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake
Astonishing and exquisite crystalline structure that are unique and also (in human terms) amazingly beautiful. Yet clearly this complexity arises as the unintended by-product of random forces of nature.
The notion that complexity only arises through the actions of something more complex is a fool's grand of infinite reduction. Nope - the only logical explanation is that complexity must arise bottom up from more simple form and of course that explanation builds on massive amounts of evidence.
But what does the snowflake actually do apart from nurture the conscious admiration of those who choose to view it?
In comparison, the DNA molecule may not be as attractive, but what it actually achieves is truly mind blowing.
-
But what does the snowflake actually do apart from nurture the conscious admiration of those who choose to view it?
In comparison, the DNA molecule may not be as attractive, but what it actually achieves is truly mind blowing.
Oh dear AB - you really are achingly anthropocentric aren't you.
The point is that in both cases the complexity of the snowflake or the DNA arises out of something simpler and due to basic physical processes of energetics. That DNA also achieves something further than that is also due to those basic energetics processes applied to simpler (as we might perceive them) states. That we find the snowflake 'attractive' and the DNA 'truly mind blowing' is mere anthopocenticism.
-
The problem with hundreds and thousands of well documented peer reviewed examinations of phenomena is that the mind becomes microscopic and is unable to see the woods for the trees.
No, that's not a problem, because whilst there are papers that focus on microscopic - and even submicroscopic - elements of the interconnected set of events, there are others that implement those findings in ever broader sweeps and explanations, such that some of those peer-reviewed papers, resting on the foundations of the well established details, establish the broader phenomenon.
You have a problem with relying on the evolutionary mechanism to explain the world, but the explanation is well supported and your contentions are not.
There is no problem with science in its place.
Science's 'place' is in the observation of actual phenomena and investigations to attempt to explain how they come about - if it's happening, it's in science's remit. For you to establish that something is outside of science's remit you'd have to either establish that something is a) magic or b) not real.
The microscopic mind has its uses no doubt. But when the same microscopic mindset is used to attempt an explanation of life in general, it is not up to the task.
Or, perhaps, when a head that's full of mumbo-jumbo tries to accept an explanation that doesn't rely on woo, it's not up to the task?
It is a zoom-in mind which is unable to zoom-out and see the big picture. It gets consumed in details.
What 'big picture'? At what scale does the current explanation of evolution by natural selection acting upon variation start to break down? It explains the diversity of life on Earth currently, it explains individual vestigial organs in Amazonian birds, it explains the inordinately circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes, it explains why we keep getting COVID-19 variants... it seems the scale of this 'big picture' failure is approximately the size of one human head...
It is a perception problem.
It's quite remarkable how you've come to the right conclusion in answer to entirely the wrong question on the topic - it's almost as though you can't see the big picture.
O.
-
AB,
In comparison, the DNA molecule may not be as attractive, but what it actually achieves is truly mind blowing.
You’re trying the reference point error (also known as the lottery winner’s fallacy) again. You’ve made the same mistake many times before, been corrected on it just as many times, and consistently just ignored the corrections.
What then would be the point of correcting you on it yet again?
-
But what does the snowflake actually do apart from nurture the conscious admiration of those who choose to view it?
In comparison, the DNA molecule may not be as attractive, but what it actually achieves is truly mind blowing.
There is a profound principle to be understood here - the snowflake reminds us that the universe even though gradually disordering on long timescales, does produce orderliness, spontaneous self-organisation in spite of the overall tendency to disorder, and maybe even because of it.
Once you understand the example of the snowflake, you are one step on the way to understanding how a disordering universe not only can, but must, produce cells, and insects and fruit bats and insurance salesmen quite naturally, wherever, and whenever the conditions are conducive.
-
It is a pleasure as usual to read the logical, sensible, rational posts.
And no, that is definitely and most decidedly NOT you, AB!! Nor is it you, Sriram!
-
Oh dear AB - you really are achingly anthropocentric aren't you.
The point is that in both cases the complexity of the snowflake or the DNA arises out of something simpler and due to basic physical processes of energetics. That DNA also achieves something further than that is also due to those basic energetics processes applied to simpler (as we might perceive them) states. That we find the snowflake 'attractive' and the DNA 'truly mind blowing' is mere anthopocenticism.
There are two completely different forms of complexity involved.
One that produces a pretty pattern.
One that produces an entity which has conscious awareness of the universe in which it resides.
It is a relatively easy task to differentiate which could be an unintended consequence of natural forces, and which was an intended goal of an unimaginable creative force.
To try equate the two as both being accidental by-products of the purposeless forces of nature truly beggars belief.
-
AB,
There are two completely different forms of complexity involved.
One that produces a pretty pattern.
One that produces an entity which has conscious awareness of the universe from which it comes.
It is a relatively easy task to differentiate which could be an unintended consequence of natural forces, and which was an intended goal of an unimaginable creative force.
To try equate the two as both being accidental by-products of the purposeless forces of nature truly beggars belief.
It only "beggars belief" if you fail to understand the fallacy on which that conclusion relies though. I've explained the fallacy to you several times before now, so I don't know why you've just returned to it.
-
I am frequently reminded of the CS Lewis lecture entitled "Fern Seed and Elephants" in which he compares some modern theorists with explorers who get carried away with examining the fern seeds beneath their feet and fail to see the elephant in front of them.
Ferns are amazing organisms. Some species have been around, apparently unchanged, for up to 180 million years. Just because they are not big and grey and mammalian does not mean they are not objects worthy of study. And if you or CS Lewis had bothered to do anything more than sneer, you would know that ferns don't produce seeds.
-
AB,
I am frequently reminded of the CS Lewis lecture entitled "Fern Seed and Elephants" in which he compares some modern theorists with explorers who get carried away with examining the fern seeds beneath their feet and fail to see the elephant in front of them.
The problem with that of course being that "the elephant" actually means "whatever pops into my head". If you want to claim that "theorists" are missing the bigger picture that's fine so far as it goes, but then you have all your work ahead of you still to demonstrate that bigger picture rather than just assert it to be so.
This is basically the same vacuousness that Sriram peddles - "scientists" engage in "microscopic thinking" apparently, whereas he supposedly is capable of the macroscopic version. The problem with that though is that he hasn't one ounce of a jot of an iota of an inkling of a method to demonstrate that this supposed bigger picture actually exists, rather than it being just whatever notion happens to take his fancy.
-
It is a relatively easy task to differentiate which could be an unintended consequence of natural forces, and which was an intended goal of an unimaginable creative force.
But apparently completely beyond your ability to provide the slightest hint of a sound argument or the smallest morsel of evidence to support this assertion. ::)
-
But apparently completely beyond your ability to provide the slightest hint of a sound argument or the smallest morsel of evidence to support this assertion. ::)
You and I are the evidence.
-
AB,
You and I are the evidence.
No you're not. I can tell you why you're not in plain and comprehensible language. I can support the explanation for why you're not with reasoned argument. You though will just ignore the plainly expressed, reason-justified explanation I give you and will make exactly the same mistake again when you want to come back to it.
What's the point?
-
You and I are the evidence.
...of biological brains working happily under the auspices of determinustic principles! ::)
-
You and I are the evidence.
Reasoning-free drivel. ::)
We have a perfectly good explanation for the existence of humans that doesn't require your magic sky fairy. Even if we didn't, making the assumption that we are the "intended goal of an unimaginable creative force" would still be baseless.
You really don't appear to have the first hint of a clue as to what 'evidence' actually means.
-
AB,
No you're not. I can tell you why you're not in plain and comprehensible language. I can support the explanation for why you're not with reasoned argument. You though will just ignore the plainly expressed, reason-justified explanation I give you and will make exactly the same mistake again when you want to come back to it.
What's the point?
Your profound ability to consciously come up with reasoned argument provides all the evidence I need to know that you are more than just an unintended by-product of the crude process of natural selection from random mutations.
-
Reasoning-free drivel. ::)
We have a perfectly good explanation for the existence of humans that doesn't require your magic sky fairy. Even if we didn't, making the assumption that we are the "intended goal of an unimaginable creative force" would still be baseless.
You really don't appear to have the first hint of a clue as to what 'evidence' actually means.
The truth is that you haven't a clue what comprises the conscious "you" within the material elements which make up your material body. Every one of those material elements are just replaceable parts of the amazing machine over which you have the conscious freedom to control.
-
Your profound ability to consciously come up with reasoned argument provides all the evidence I need to know that you are more than just an unintended by-product of the crude process of natural selection from random mutations.
This is just childish foot-stamping. You have provided bugger all that connects what you call 'evidence' to your supposed conclusion. As I said, you don't appear to have the first clue what evidence is. You can't use the brute fact of the existence of something to distinguish between rival hypotheses about how it came to exist or how it works.
It's not even as if you have a rival hypothesis - nothing can ever possibly be evidence for something that is self-contradictory.
The truth is that you haven't a clue what comprises the conscious "you" within the material elements which make up your material body.
I have a far, far better clue than impossible, self-contradictory magic.
-
The truth is that you haven't a clue what comprises the conscious "you" within the material elements which make up your material body. Every one of those material elements are just replaceable parts of the amazing machine over which you have the conscious freedom to control.
A bit like the elephant having conscious control over its trunk then, or a peacock having conscious control over its tail then ? Or me having conscious control over my kidneys ? Oh, hang on a minute ....
-
Your profound ability to consciously come up with reasoned argument provides all the evidence I need to know that you
...are the product of a biological brain working happily under the auspices of determinustic principles! ::)
-
There are two completely different forms of complexity involved.
One that produces a pretty pattern.
One that produces an entity which has conscious awareness of the universe in which it resides.
It is a relatively easy task to differentiate which could be an unintended consequence of natural forces, and which was an intended goal of an unimaginable creative force.
To try equate the two as both being accidental by-products of the purposeless forces of nature truly beggars belief.
I'm not sure there are different sorts of complexity, but rather there is a gradient, or spectrum, of complexity, with simple things at one end, and very complex things at the other. A snowflake and a DNA molecule are at different points on the same spectrum of complexity. If you can understand how one forms, then you should be able to understand how the other forms, it just requires a little more work. Incredulity is a sign of lazy thinking
-
A snowflake and a DNA molecule are at different points on the same spectrum of complexity. If you can understand how one forms, then you should be able to understand how the other forms, it just requires a little more work. Incredulity is a sign of lazy thinking
You seem to be confusing functional complexity (needed to generate an entity which can perform specific tasks such as "thinking") and observed patterns of complexity which do not appear to have any intended functionality. You may try to argue that the functional capabilities of DNA in generating the conscious human mind are just an unintended consequence of natural selection, which is the only viable conclusion if you intend to discount God.
-
You seem to be confusing functional complexity (needed to generate an entity which can perform specific tasks such as "thinking") and observed patterns of complexity which do not appear to have any intended functionality.
Functionality (traits that serve some purpose) is something that arises perfectly naturally from evolution. See this post (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg833692#msg833692).
You may try to argue that the functional capabilities of the conscious human mind are just an unintended consequence of natural selection...
It's actually the only explanation (as opposed to trite 'just so' storytelling) available. It is also backed up by copious amounts of evidence.
...which is the only viable conclusion if you intend to discount God.
Yet again: nobody needs to discount 'god' (and you talk as if there was only one god-concept to discount, which is itself sloppy thinking) until and unless somebody provides some reason to take some version of 'god' in the least bit seriously.
We have evidence and explanation versus superstition and baseless storytelling that explains nothing. It's not a hard choice for rational people to make.
-
You seem to be confusing functional complexity (needed to generate an entity which can perform specific tasks such as "thinking") and observed patterns of complexity which do not appear to have any intended functionality. You may try to argue that the functional capabilities of DNA in generating the conscious human mind are just an unintended consequence of natural selection, which is the only viable conclusion if you intend to discount God.
That is your incredulity muddying what could otherwise be clear headed thinking. The claim that high end complexity is 'functional' is merely to anthropomorphise or teleologise it without warrant. The snowflake and the DNA molecule are on the same continuum, I see no justification for claiming one demonstrates intentionality whilst the other does not. Has God got something against snowflakes ? These things are all manifestations of the same underlying principles which provide for orderliness to arise inevitably as all dissipative structures, be they snowflakes or snails or snow leopards, they all serve to increase entropy in their own way in the long run.
-
No, that's not a problem, because whilst there are papers that focus on microscopic - and even submicroscopic - elements of the interconnected set of events, there are others that implement those findings in ever broader sweeps and explanations, such that some of those peer-reviewed papers, resting on the foundations of the well established details, establish the broader phenomenon.
You have a problem with relying on the evolutionary mechanism to explain the world, but the explanation is well supported and your contentions are not.
Science's 'place' is in the observation of actual phenomena and investigations to attempt to explain how they come about - if it's happening, it's in science's remit. For you to establish that something is outside of science's remit you'd have to either establish that something is a) magic or b) not real.
Or, perhaps, when a head that's full of mumbo-jumbo tries to accept an explanation that doesn't rely on woo, it's not up to the task?
What 'big picture'? At what scale does the current explanation of evolution by natural selection acting upon variation start to break down? It explains the diversity of life on Earth currently, it explains individual vestigial organs in Amazonian birds, it explains the inordinately circuitous route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes, it explains why we keep getting COVID-19 variants... it seems the scale of this 'big picture' failure is approximately the size of one human head...
It's quite remarkable how you've come to the right conclusion in answer to entirely the wrong question on the topic - it's almost as though you can't see the big picture.
O.
There is a far bigger world inside than outside.
Understanding our consciousness. Understanding life & death. Understanding complexity. Understanding the human mind. Understanding how all life is connected. Understanding the hidden patterns in our lives. Understanding absolute morality. Understanding the Self. ...and much more.
That is the big picture.
-
There is a far bigger world inside than outside.
Understanding our consciousness. Understanding life & death. Understanding complexity. Understanding the human mind. Understanding how all life is connected. Understanding the hidden patterns in our lives. Understanding absolute morality. Understanding the Self. ...and much more.
That is the big picture.
The thing is science is the best tool we have to understand most of those things* and you simply reject much of the understanding we do have (often without even bothering to grasp it yourself) and try to substitute it with baseless woo.
That isn't concentrating on any "big picture", it's just wishful thinking and superstition.
* Absolute morality appears to be entirely fictional and "hidden patterns in our lives" is just vague hand-waving.
-
There is a far bigger world inside than outside.
Understanding our consciousness. Understanding life & death. Understanding complexity. Understanding the human mind. Understanding how all life is connected. Understanding the hidden patterns in our lives. Understanding absolute morality. Understanding the Self. ...and much more.
That is the big picture.
Only if you consider things in a totally anthropocentric manner and to do so lacks perspective and is rather arrogant (assuming that everything revolves around humans). And somewhat 'patronising' to the rest of the universe in which we are an infinitesimally small piece around for a blink of an eye in cosmic time terms and likely gone in a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. While we might think ourselves incredibly important the imprint that human-kind makes on the universe is negligible.
-
To have a purely materialistic view of life is easy. Everyone has that at some stage. To see beyond the material requires certain faculties.
Materialists are just in denial of things beyond the material. I have already discussed many times about stubborn blind people denying the existence of light.
-
AB,
Your profound ability to consciously come up with reasoned argument provides all the evidence I need to know that you are more than just an unintended by-product of the crude process of natural selection from random mutations.
You're wrong again. I can tell you why you're wrong in plain and comprehensible language. I can support the explanation for why you're wrong with reasoned argument. You though will just ignore the plainly expressed, reason-justified explanation I give you and will make exactly the same mistake again when you want to come back to it.
What's the point?
-
Sriram,
To have a purely materialistic view of life is easy. Everyone has that at some stage. To see beyond the material requires certain faculties.
No, it requires you first to demonstrate that there even is a non-material. We need concern ourselves with whether you have magic glasses or mystical insights to see this supposed non-material when no-one else can only after you’ve managed to do that.
Good luck with it though.
Materialists are just in denial of things beyond the material.
You can’t deny something you’ve no good reason to think exists in the first place. You’re committing a fallacy here called reification.
I have already discussed many times about stubborn blind people denying the existence of light.
And you have already had explained to you just as many times why the analogy is a false one.
Perhaps if you change tack and try to argue for something rather than just assert it and then run away when even you can see the hole you’ve dug for yourself you’d finally post something worth reading.
Why not give it a try at least?
-
To see beyond the material requires certain faculties.
Such as blind faith, poor reasoning skills, and wishful thinking. ::)
The problem is that you have given us nothing but empty, unsupported assertions and your usual collection of trite (and false) little 'analogies' (like zoom-in, zoom-out). You have provided no reasoning and no evidence.
I have already discussed many times about stubborn blind people denying the existence of light.
Which only serves to show how shallow your thinking actually is (and how little regard you have for blind people). Yet again: it would be trivially easy to demonstrate light to a rational blind person, just like you accept the existence of infrared, radio waves, and X-rays.
-
Only if you consider things in a totally anthropocentric manner and to do so lacks perspective and is rather arrogant (assuming that everything revolves around humans). And somewhat 'patronising' to the rest of the universe in which we are an infinitesimally small piece around for a blink of an eye in cosmic time terms and likely gone in a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. While we might think ourselves incredibly important the imprint that human-kind makes on the universe is negligible.
There is nothing anthropocentric about it. All life is included in this way of thinking.
-
To have a purely materialistic view of life is easy. Everyone has that at some stage. To see beyond the material requires certain faculties.
Materialists are just in denial of things beyond the material. I have already discussed many times about stubborn blind people denying the existence of light.
To have an idealistic, mystical view of life is easy. Probably everyone has that at some stage. To see beyond this requires a disciplined, critical faculty which is always open to evidence.
Idealists are often in denial of the material reality of things. They are like stubborn blind people denying the existence of light.
-
There is nothing anthropocentric about it. All life is included in this way of thinking.
Of course it is anthropocentric as even in the context of life you are define things as important that are (although possibly not exclusively) human and are completely irrelevant for most life forms even just on this planet. How many forms of life consider ' Understanding life & death. Understanding complexity. Understanding the human mind. Understanding how all life is connected. Understanding the hidden patterns in our lives. Understanding absolute morality. Understanding the Self' as being important. I would argue these are purely human concerns.
And of course life represents an infinitesimally small portion of the universe.
-
Of course it is anthropocentric as even in the context of life you are define things as important that are (although possibly not exclusively) human and are completely irrelevant for most life forms even just on this planet. How many forms of life consider ' Understanding life & death. Understanding complexity. Understanding the human mind. Understanding how all life is connected. Understanding the hidden patterns in our lives. Understanding absolute morality. Understanding the Self' as being important. I would argue these are purely human concerns.
And of course life represents an infinitesimally small portion of the universe.
They are not just human concerns. They are a window into another (more important) aspect of our lives that we live through every day....but don't include in our objective view of the universe.
The subjective and objective aspects of life may seem unconnected....but are obviously connected. Bridging this gap is the challenge that some younger scientists seem to be taking up (thankfully)....making way for a new science or something beyond science itself as currently defined.
-
Sriram,
They are not just human concerns. They are a window into another (more important) aspect of our lives that we live through every day....but don't include in our objective view of the universe.
Yes we do “include them in our objective view of the universe” (or at least the ones that aren’t plain daft). If we don’t investigate and verify our understandings of these things with objective methods and tools, all we have is guessing.
The subjective and objective aspects of life may seem unconnected but are obviously connected…
Of course they’re connected – they’re on different parts of the epistemological spectrum though.
Bridging this gap is the challenge that some younger scientists seem to be taking up (thankfully)....making way for a new science or something beyond science itself as currently defined.
Not really. “Science as currently defined” (and the reason on which it rests) is both a method and a set of tools that gives us truths we call "objective". Maybe one day there will be some other way to do that but for now at least just guessing at truth claims is the alternative.
As Richard Feynman said, science begins with guessing. Your problem though is that your truth claims begin and end with guessing.
-
Sriram,
Yes we do “include them in our objective view of the universe” (or at least the ones that aren’t plain daft). If we don’t investigate and verify our understandings of these things with objective methods and tools, all we have is guessing.
Of course they’re connected – they’re on different parts of the epistemological spectrum though.
Not really. “Science as currently defined” (and the reason on which it rests) is both a method and a set of tools that gives us truths we call "objective". Maybe one day there will be some other way to do that but for now at least just guessing at truth claims is the alternative.
As Richard Feynman said, science begins with guessing. Your problem though is that your truth claims begin and end with guessing.
Unfortunately it does not yield any truth that supports your last statement.
-
Vlad,
Unfortunately it does not yield any truth that supports your last statement.
What doesn’t? What are you trying to say here?
-
They are not just human concerns. They are a window into another (more important) aspect of our lives that we live through every day....but don't include in our objective view of the universe.
You really don't get it Sriram - of course they are human concerns - just read what you have written:
'They are a window into another (more important) aspect of our lives that we live through every day....but don't include in our objective view of the universe.'
You are seeing things entirely from the narrow perspective (in cosmic terms) of the human condition.
Even on our own planet the vast, vast majority of life isn't even animal, but plant, bacterial, fungi etc etc - of what relevance is 'Understanding the human mind, Understanding the hidden patterns in our lives. Understanding absolute morality. Understanding the Self' to the oak tree growing in my front garden, or the soil bacteria living in my back garden? None whatsoever.
And that is just in the context of life on this planet. What relevance do those matters have to a rock on a moon of a planet within a solar system in another galaxy? None.
So, yes, Sriram - your perspective is achingly anthropocentric. Now I'm not denying that these matters are potentially really important to humans, but on a cosmic scale they are completely irrelevant and unimportant.
-
You really don't get it Sriram - of course they are human concerns - just read what you have written:
'They are a window into another (more important) aspect of our lives that we live through every day....but don't include in our objective view of the universe.'
You are seeing things entirely from the narrow perspective (in cosmic terms) of the human condition.
Even on our own planet the vast, vast majority of life isn't even animal, but plant, bacterial, fungi etc etc - of what relevance is 'Understanding the human mind, Understanding the hidden patterns in our lives. Understanding absolute morality. Understanding the Self' to the oak tree growing in my front garden, or the soil bacteria living in my back garden? None whatsoever.
And that is just in the context of life on this planet. What relevance do those matters have to a rock on a moon of a planet within a solar system in another galaxy? None.
So, yes, Sriram - your perspective is achingly anthropocentric. Now I'm not denying that these matters are potentially really important to humans, but on a cosmic scale they are completely irrelevant and unimportant.
Everything that we see and perceive is only through the human mind. Our impression that the universe is immensely large and we are just tiny beings on a tiny planet...is just a human impression generated in our mind. We are taking our perceived reality for granted. 'Reality' is generated by our mind....it is not real in an absolute sense.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16814.0
Whatever we perceive or think of as real is just our consciousness creating that impression. Therefore, understanding consciousness is most important.
Secondly, once consciousness is taken as fundamental, all life becomes important. Regardless of whether a tree or bacteria thinks the way we do or not, it has consciousness at a certain level and is connected to us in some way.
It is these things that are fundamental and most important to us. The external universe.....the big bang, the singularity, black holes, dark energy etc. are of no significance to us at all.
-
It is these things that are fundamental and most important to us.
Which is an entirely anthropocentric view - that is entirely my point.
The external universe.....the big bang, the singularity, black holes, dark energy etc. are of no significance to us at all.
Well actually they are, as without them the human-centric things wouldn't exist. But the point is that those elements are universal in their importance, whether to a human, to a plant species on earth, to non-life everywhere in the universe, to life that may exist somewhere else in the universe, to the universe now, in the past, and in the future. Those are the fundamentally important things in cosmic terms, not whether on species living on one planet during the blink of an eye in cosmic terms thinks absolute morality is important or not. That may be important to that species, it isn't important in cosmic terms.
-
Sriram,
Everything that we see and perceive is only through the human mind.
And everything llamas see and perceive is only through the llama mind. So what?
Our impression that the universe is immensely large and we are just tiny beings on a tiny planet...is just a human impression generated in our mind.
No really. Either you think there’s an “out there’ reality that we can map with some degree of fidelity at least, or you go full Bishop Berkeley (“This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are ideas perceived by the minds and, as a result, cannot exist without being perceived”):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
We are taking our perceived reality for granted. 'Reality' is generated by our mind....it is not real in an absolute sense.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16814.0
Whatever we perceive or think of as real is just our consciousness creating that impression. Therefore, understanding consciousness is most important.
Depends what you mean by “real in an absolute sense”. If you’re trying to say accurate in an absolute sense no-one much will disagree; if on the other hand you’re trying to say “out there” real at all, then you have all your work ahead of you still to make an argument for that.
Secondly, once consciousness is taken as fundamental, all life becomes important. Regardless of whether a tree or bacteria thinks the way we do or not, it has consciousness at a certain level and is connected to us in some way.
Who takes consciousness as fundamental? There are vague speculations to that effect but that’s all there are, and besides if you actually mean “fundamental” why stop at life? What about viruses? Or coral? Or rocks?
It is these things that are fundamental and most important to us. The external universe.....the big bang, the singularity, black holes, dark energy etc. are of no significance to us at all.
Erm, without all that cosmological stuff there’d be no “we” to talk about these things. Do you actually not think that makes them "significant" to us in a pretty profound way? (And besides, given your claim of “fundamental” consciousness wouldn’t these phenomena be part of the same conscious architecture in any case according to your speculation?)
-
There is a far bigger world inside than outside.
I know, and we've only just begun to explore it and understand it, so why are you so intent on inventing unevidenced phenomena rather that investigating it?
Understanding our consciousness. Understanding life & death. Understanding complexity. Understanding the human mind. Understanding how all life is connected. Understanding the hidden patterns in our lives. Understanding absolute morality. Understanding the Self. ...and much more.[/quote]
With the exception of the last two, science is intrinsically involved in all of those. Before you can start investigating 'absolute morality' you'd have to establish somehow that it existed, and I don't see enough evidence to support that claim yet. As to understanding the 'Self', that's an even more loaded question than absolute morality.
That is the big picture.
So where do you find 'soul/spirit/ka/woo' in that?
O.
-
Sriram,
And everything llamas see and perceive is only through the llama mind. So what?
No really. Either you think there’s an “out there’ reality that we can map with some degree of fidelity at least, or you go full Bishop Berkeley (“This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are ideas perceived by the minds and, as a result, cannot exist without being perceived”):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
Depends what you mean by “real in an absolute sense”. If you’re trying to say accurate in an absolute sense no-one much will disagree; if on the other hand you’re trying to say “out there” real at all, then you have all your work ahead of you still to make an argument for that.
Who takes consciousness as fundamental? There are vague speculations to that effect but that’s all there are, and besides if you actually mean “fundamental” why stop at life? What about viruses? Or coral? Or rocks?
Erm, without all that cosmological stuff there’d be no “we” to talk about these things. Do you actually not think that makes them "significant" to us in a pretty profound way? (And besides, given your claim of “fundamental” consciousness wouldn’t these phenomena be part of the same conscious architecture in any case according to your speculation?)
Tables and chairs (as all other objects) are just interactions between electron, quark and other fields. Tables do not really exist. Ask an electron...or even a virus! It is a certain way of perceiving reality and the tricks that our mind plays on us that make tables and chairs solid objects. Solidity is a perception not a basic reality.
-
I know, and we've only just begun to explore it and understand it, so why are you so intent on inventing unevidenced phenomena rather that investigating it?
Understanding our consciousness. Understanding life & death. Understanding complexity. Understanding the human mind. Understanding how all life is connected. Understanding the hidden patterns in our lives. Understanding absolute morality. Understanding the Self. ...and much more.
With the exception of the last two, science is intrinsically involved in all of those. Before you can start investigating 'absolute morality' you'd have to establish somehow that it existed, and I don't see enough evidence to support that claim yet. As to understanding the 'Self', that's an even more loaded question than absolute morality.
So where do you find 'soul/spirit/ka/woo' in that?
O.
The spirit or Self is what perceives things and is the essence of our subjectivity.
-
The spirit or Self is what perceives things and is the essence of our subjectivity.
A more fundamental definition of a self would be in terms of a unit of the cosmos that has a degree of persistence of inner homeostasis against external change. In this sense for example, a biological cell would be a simple form of a self, having a membrane that preserves homeostasis inside whilst permitting exchange of energy and nutrients with the changing outside world. Higher order instances of a self such as creatures with sophisticated sensory perception derive from simpler instances.
-
The spirit or Self is what perceives things and is the essence of our subjectivity./quote]
We already have a word for that - consciousness - why confuse the issue by adding terms with a lot of historically religious baggage?
O.
-
The spirit or Self is what perceives things and is the essence of our subjectivity./quote]
We already have a word for that - consciousness - why confuse the issue by adding terms with a lot of historically religious baggage?
O.
You can call it anything you want....no problem.
But consciousness is seen normally as some external quality ....in an objective sense. The Self is just .....the subjective self.....each of us. It is a better way of identifying with it rather than see it as some external entity. There is nothing religious about it...!
Essentially IMO...consciousness is an attribute or property of the Self.
-
A more fundamental definition of a self would be in terms of a unit of the cosmos that has a degree of persistence of inner homeostasis against external change. In this sense for example, a biological cell would be a simple form of a self, having a membrane that preserves homeostasis inside whilst permitting exchange of energy and nutrients with the changing outside world. Higher order instances of a self such as creatures with sophisticated sensory perception derive from simpler instances.
I don't know how you are using the term Self for a cell....! Self is the essence of subjectivity.
-
Tables and chairs (as all other objects) are just interactions between electron, quark and other fields. Tables do not really exist. Ask an electron...or even a virus! It is a certain way of perceiving reality and the tricks that our mind plays on us that make tables and chairs solid objects.
It is certainly a matter of human perception that we describe something as 'a table' as that relates to its value to us as humans. But that doesn't mean that a table only exists due to human perception. A table exists as a material entity, in other words as a basic reality, regardless of human perception and that we describe it as such.
Solidity is a perception not a basic reality.
Wrong - the notion that something is 'solid' (as opposed to liquid, gas etc) is a fundamental physical state, defined by physico-chemical laws. Something is a solid regardless of our perception of it. It is its fundamental physical state which makes it solid, not our perception of it. Solidity is a basic physical reality.
-
A more fundamental definition of a self would be in terms of a unit of the cosmos that has a degree of persistence of inner homeostasis against external change. In this sense for example, a biological cell would be a simple form of a self, having a membrane that preserves homeostasis inside whilst permitting exchange of energy and nutrients with the changing outside world. Higher order instances of a self such as creatures with sophisticated sensory perception derive from simpler instances.
You'll notice that Sriram used a capital 'S' in 'Self' which is often used to distinguish it from the small 's' 'self' which you have described. As I see it, within those 'religions' which make that distinction it represent a formless essence which is beyond subjective and objective formal description. Those who seek that 'inner nature' do not seek it through discussion as this just promotes more subjective mental forms or concepts and imagery. Conscious inner stillness is usually the way.
-
Sriram,
Tables and chairs (as all other objects) are just interactions between electron, quark and other fields. Tables do not really exist. Ask an electron...or even a virus!
Your lazy thinking is letting you down again! Tables do “really exist”! So do llamas! So do you! All these things exist at certain levels of abstraction, but simultaneously exist at other levels of abstraction! You’re making the fallacy of false binaries here! Selecting which level of abstraction to pick (tabular, molecular, atomic, sub-atomic, informational, whatever) is basically arbitrary, but at the human sensory level of perception of course tables exist!
(This inappropriate exclamation mark thing is getting boring by the way – shall we both drop it?)
It is a certain way of perceiving reality and the tricks that our mind plays on us that make tables and chairs solid objects. Solidity is a perception not a basic reality.
“Tricks” is dubious, and so is “a basic” (why pick one level of reality rather than another to arrive at what you consider basic?) but in any case no-one claimed otherwise (leaving aside for now your apparent misunderstanding of the word "solid"). Perhaps if you hadn’t just ignored the arguments I posted you wouldn’t have fallen on your face again?
Just a thought.
-
You can call it anything you want....no problem.
But consciousness is seen normally as some external quality ....in an objective sense. The Self is just .....the subjective self.....each of us. It is a better way of identifying with it rather than see it as some external entity. There is nothing religious about it...!
No, consciousness is the sense of self; consciousness is not something 'external', I'm not aware of anyone portraying a purely material view of reality who suggests that consciousness is somehow 'external'. Advocates of ideas like souls, spirits or universal consciousnesses do, and it's that confusion that I think is invited if you're referring to consciousness as a facet of an individual but using words like 'soul' or 'spirit'.
O.
-
Sriram,
Erm, without all that cosmological stuff there’d be no “we” to talk about these things.
Shame then that when pressed on this, the response is ''The universe just is''?
-
Vlad,
Shame then that when pressed on this, the response is ''The universe just is''?
Yet another of your countless misrepresentations. The "brute fact" universe may be "just is" or may have a cause other than itself. For those who would assert the latter though, the burden of proof is on them to make a cogent argument to justify the claim - which is when you always run away scattering rhetorical fallacies behind you as you go.
Oh, and your reply was a non sequitur in any case. Sriram was claiming that "the big bang, the singularity, black holes, dark energy etc. are of no significance to us at al". I was just correcting him on that.
-
Shame then that when pressed on this, the response is ''The universe just is''?
Actually the response generally is "we don't know". That it might "just be" is one of the options and a response to other people (like yourself) making specific claims about it.
-
You can call it anything you want....no problem.
But consciousness is seen normally as some external quality ....in an objective sense. The Self is just .....the subjective self.....each of us. It is a better way of identifying with it rather than see it as some external entity. There is nothing religious about it...!
Essentially IMO...consciousness is an attribute or property of the Self.
Firstly, there is plenty of evidence that there is a state called consciousness(i.e. the mind's awareness of the world, which may or may not include awareness of itself)
Secondly, all the evidence suggests that the state of consciousness is limited to the neural processes within the organism which produces it. Hence it is a subjective state, not an objective state.
Thirdly, the sense of self is just the way that a human being describes his/her awareness of the state of himself/herself.
Fourthly, there is no evidence that Self is an actual entity, whether that be in either a subjective or objective setting. Rather than consciousness being an attribute or property of something distinct which you seem to be calling 'Self', it is much more likely that the sense of 'Self' is a product of the self awareness aspect of consciousness which human beings display.
If the brain is impaired, then there is a risk of the mind being impaired, and, as it has been shown in numerous instances, this can lead to an alteration or, in the case of traumatic injury, even the disappearance of this sense of 'Self' completely with the accompanying loss of awareness. Of course, correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but, unless this 'formless essence' of Self, (as Ekim describes it) has hard evidence to support it, then, like the smoking correlation with lung cancer, I'll go with the correlation until that day arrives.
-
It is certainly a matter of human perception that we describe something as 'a table' as that relates to its value to us as humans. But that doesn't mean that a table only exists due to human perception. A table exists as a material entity, in other words as a basic reality, regardless of human perception and that we describe it as such.
Wrong - the notion that something is 'solid' (as opposed to liquid, gas etc) is a fundamental physical state, defined by physico-chemical laws. Something is a solid regardless of our perception of it. It is its fundamental physical state which makes it solid, not our perception of it. Solidity is a basic physical reality.
You are not getting the point. Regardless of how we perceive a table, the fact remains that it is largely empty space and consists of elementary particles which are probably fields of some kind. This is not some philosophical speculative idea. It is a fact.
Reality eludes us and we only see what we are capable of seeing. Rather as Donald Hoffman says, we see only what is necessary for us at our level. Reality is hidden from us because it is not necessary for us to see.
-
No, consciousness is the sense of self; consciousness is not something 'external', I'm not aware of anyone portraying a purely material view of reality who suggests that consciousness is somehow 'external'. Advocates of ideas like souls, spirits or universal consciousnesses do, and it's that confusion that I think is invited if you're referring to consciousness as a facet of an individual but using words like 'soul' or 'spirit'.
O.
When I said 'external', I meant external to our Self. Not necessarily external in a physical sense. Consciousness IMO, is an attribute of the Self that we really are. It is not different from me or you.
'Self' is the term used in Hindu philosophy to refer to what is traditionally called the soul. It helps in identifying with it as different from identifying with the body and treating the soul as external. Some people say... 'when I die, the soul departs.' I would rather say...'when the body dies, I depart'.
-
Firstly, there is plenty of evidence that there is a state called consciousness(i.e. the mind's awareness of the world, which may or may not include awareness of itself)
Secondly, all the evidence suggests that the state of consciousness is limited to the neural processes within the organism which produces it. Hence it is a subjective state, not an objective state.
Thirdly, the sense of self is just the way that a human being describes his/her awareness of the state of himself/herself.
Fourthly, there is no evidence that Self is an actual entity, whether that be in either a subjective or objective setting. Rather than consciousness being an attribute or property of something distinct which you seem to be calling 'Self', it is much more likely that the sense of 'Self' is a product of the self awareness aspect of consciousness which human beings display.
If the brain is impaired, then there is a risk of the mind being impaired, and, as it has been shown in numerous instances, this can lead to an alteration or, in the case of traumatic injury, even the disappearance of this sense of 'Self' completely with the accompanying loss of awareness. Of course, correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but, unless this 'formless essence' of Self, (as Ekim describes it) has hard evidence to support it, then, like the smoking correlation with lung cancer, I'll go with the correlation until that day arrives.
There is enough evidence (NDE's) of the Self or soul being different from the body. There is also enough evidence of consciousness and mind being present even after brain injury or even in the near absence of a brain.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125
-
When I said 'external', I meant external to our Self. Not necessarily external in a physical sense.
That's presuming a duality that isn't supported by the evidence - we are the physical, our sense of self is determined by the activity in our brains which is defined by the physical structure and interconnect nature of the various neurons in there.
Consciousness IMO, is an attribute of the Self that we really are. It is not different from me or you.
Consciousness IS the self.
'Self' is the term used in Hindu philosophy to refer to what is traditionally called the soul. It helps in identifying with it as different from identifying with the body and treating the soul as external. Some people say... 'when I die, the soul departs.' I would rather say...'when the body dies, I depart'.
I'm not anywhere close to an expert on Hindu philosophy, so I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting, but that still sounds like it's trying to differentiate between a physical body and an 'other' source for the consciousness/self complex. If it can 'depart' it's separate - I would rather say that when my body dies, I die with it, or perhaps that when my body dies that pattern of activity within in that characterises me stops.
O.
-
You are not getting the point. Regardless of how we perceive a table, the fact remains that it is largely empty space and consists of elementary particles which are probably fields of some kind. This is not some philosophical speculative idea. It is a fact.
Reality eludes us and we only see what we are capable of seeing. Rather as Donald Hoffman says, we see only what is necessary for us at our level. Reality is hidden from us because it is not necessary for us to see.
Sorry Sriram, it is you that doesn't get it.
You seem completely incapable of seeing things except through the incredibly narrow prism of human perception. Unless you are able to do so then you will never understand the 'big picture' in cosmic terms. Let's not forget that humans aren't necessary for the universe to exist and indeed did not exist for the vast, vast majority of cosmic time. Hence seeing everything through the prism of human perception cannot be the correct approach to understand the universe.
That you describe the table as 'empty space' again shows your ignorance. In terms of fundamental physical laws what you describe as empty space is not that at all, as it is defined by energetics and fields (as you vaguely acknowledge) - it is those physical properties which are defining and create what we might perceive as a solid object. However the perception is irrelevant - those physical properties remain the same regardless of how that object is perceived, or indeed whether it is perceived at all. It is those physical laws and properties that are important in cosmic terms not some narrow parochial perception of an object by one species of life living on one planet in the universe in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms.
-
That's presuming a duality that isn't supported by the evidence - we are the physical, our sense of self is determined by the activity in our brains which is defined by the physical structure and interconnect nature of the various neurons in there.
Consciousness IS the self.
I'm not anywhere close to an expert on Hindu philosophy, so I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting, but that still sounds like it's trying to differentiate between a physical body and an 'other' source for the consciousness/self complex. If it can 'depart' it's separate - I would rather say that when my body dies, I die with it, or perhaps that when my body dies that pattern of activity within in that characterises me stops.
O.
Yes...the Self is seen as separate from the body and mind. The body-mind is a complex network of energies that house or connect to the Self (soul). When we die, the Self departs leaving behind the body. The mind deteriorates.
Consciousness which is a property of the Self...remains with the Self.
-
Sorry Sriram, it is you that doesn't get it.
You seem completely incapable of seeing things except through the incredibly narrow prism of human perception. Unless you are able to do so then you will never understand the 'big picture' in cosmic terms. Let's not forget that humans aren't necessary for the universe to exist and indeed did not exist for the vast, vast majority of cosmic time. Hence seeing everything through the prism of human perception cannot be the correct approach to understand the universe.
That you describe the table as 'empty space' again shows your ignorance. In terms of fundamental physical laws what you describe as empty space is not that at all, as it is defined by energetics and fields (as you vaguely acknowledge) - it is those physical properties which are defining and create what we might perceive as a solid object. However the perception is irrelevant - those physical properties remain the same regardless of how that object is perceived, or indeed whether it is perceived at all. It is those physical laws and properties that are important in cosmic terms not some narrow parochial perception of an object by one species of life living on one planet in the universe in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms.
How do we know that the table remains as it is when a human (or animal) does not see it? Will it remain a table for something as small as an electron? No!
The electron or even a virus or bacteria will see the world very differently from us. It is only our classical level of perception given our brain and senses that makes the world what it is. With very different type of senses and a very different mind and brain....how we will perceive the world we cannot say.
Reality appears different at different levels and scales. Our reality gets created in our mind/body and is true only at our scale. It is not really out there.
-
Yes...the Self is seen as separate from the body and mind. The body-mind is a complex network of energies that house or connect to the Self (soul). When we die, the Self departs leaving behind the body. The mind deteriorates.
Consciousness which is a property of the Self...remains with the Self.
It comes down, again, to the fact that I don't see anyone providing any evidence for:
- something 'else' interacting with the body
- anything in the observed activity that can't be rationally explained by physical activity
- any activity that appears to be spontaneous which could be said to be a result of this intangible 'soul' interaction.
In the absence of a need to explain something currently not explained and the absence of any evidence of something else, I don't see any validity to the claim of a 'bigger picture'.
O.
-
How do we know that the table remains as it is when a human (or animal) does not see it?
Evidence.
Will it remain a table for something as small as an electron? No!
Of course a table (the physical object, not the concept) exists for everything. The descriptions at different levels does nothing at all to change the fact that it is a physical collection of matter in its solid state.
The electron or even a virus or bacteria will see the world very differently from us.
We have no reason to think that they see the world at all (have an experience of it), but of course an electron can still interact with the object that is a table (or a tiny part of it) and a virus may well survive on its surface.
It is only our classical level of perception given our brain and senses that makes the world what it is.
Except that (as you keep pointing out) we are able to access far more and different views of the world using technology. We have gone way beyond just what our unaided senses can tell us (which is why your blind person analogy is such a joke).
You keep citing our (extended) perception and understanding or the world to try to claim that our perception is subjective or flawed. You really should think a bit more about what you're actually saying.
-
Yes...the Self is seen as separate from the body and mind. The body-mind is a complex network of energies that house or connect to the Self (soul). When we die, the Self departs leaving behind the body. The mind deteriorates.
Consciousness which is a property of the Self...remains with the Self.
Baseless superstition. ::)
And nothing is a "network of energies". Energy isn't a thing, it's a property of things.
-
The mind is generated by the brain which is part of the body once the body dies so does the mind, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
-
How do we know that the table remains as it is when a human (or animal) does not see it?
But calling it a 'table' is already anthropocentric as it has no relevant beyond humans. Hence it isn't a table but a material entity. And yes it does remain as such whether or not we are looking at it, as we can demonstrate easily through objective scientific measurement should we wish to do.
Will it remain a table for something as small as an electron? No!
It will remain a material entity and although the level of interaction between the electron and a human will be different (as a human and an electron are different) both are governed by exactly the same fundamental physical properties and laws.
The electron or even a virus or bacteria will see the world very differently from us.
Achingly anthropomorphic bollox - a virus or an electron doesn't not 'see the world' at all - you are imposing human-based attributes on them. They may interact with the table (or rather the material entity) but they do not 'see it'. And those interactions are entirely consistent with the basic physical properties of that material entity - so their interactions may be different but the material entity is exactly the same.
It is only our classical level of perception given our brain and senses that makes the world what it is. With very different type of senses and a very different mind and brain....how we will perceive the world we cannot say.
Human-centric central :o
Reality appears different at different levels and scales. Our reality gets created in our mind/body and is true only at our scale. It is not really out there.
Non-sense - our perception of reality may change, but that doesn't mean that reality alters - the table (or rather the material entity) remains the table (or material entity) regardless of how we perceive it. It is really out there, regardless of whether we look at it or not.
-
But calling it a 'table' is already anthropocentric as it has no relevant beyond humans. Hence it isn't a table but a material entity. And yes it does remain as such whether or not we are looking at it, as we can demonstrate easily through objective scientific measurement should we wish to do.
It will remain a material entity and although the level of interaction between the electron and a human will be different (as a human and an electron are different) both are governed by exactly the same fundamental physical properties and laws.
Achingly anthropomorphic bollox - a virus or an electron doesn't not 'see the world' at all - you are imposing human-based attributes on them. They may interact with the table (or rather the material entity) but they do not 'see it'. And those interactions are entirely consistent with the basic physical properties of that material entity - so their interactions may be different but the material entity is exactly the same.
Human-centric central :o
Non-sense - our perception of reality may change, but that doesn't mean that reality alters - the table (or rather the material entity) remains the table (or material entity) regardless of how we perceive it. It is really out there, regardless of whether we look at it or not.
What do you think of the issue connected to the question....'If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there, does it make a sound?'
-
What do you think of the issue connected to the question....'If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there, does it make a sound?'
Of course it does ... and it is pretty easy to demonstrate this, for example by using sound monitoring equipment.
And in a similar context, but more relevant to the discussion in cosmic terms, how about the birth and death of stars. Well we can see this happening with the technology we have to hand. Yet we know that the information takes millions of years to reach us so this happened when no human was watching and indeed in many cases before humans even existed. But we can be pretty confident that these things happened regardless of the fact that no-one was around at the time to see it.
-
What do you think of the issue connected to the question....'If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there, does it make a sound?'
It follows from the principle of the conservation of energy - the tree has potential energy which is converted into kinetic energy during the fall, which is converted to a variety of energies upon impact with the floor, one of which is noise. Given the overwhelming consistency with which this can be demonstrated during observable interactions, and the consistency with which the principle can be applied to deduce the sequence of events which were not directly observed, why would anyone question it?
O.
-
There is enough evidence (NDE's) of the Self or soul being different from the body.
I don't intend to dwell on the anecdotal evidence of your interpretation of NDEs when verifiable evidence is so sadly lacking. We have dealt with this in some detail before. Suffice it to say that while you may find your interpretation convincing, I do not, and for reasons that I have already explained.
There is also enough evidence of consciousness and mind being present even after brain injury or even in the near absence of a brain.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125
I didn't suggest that brain injury would automatically lead to lack of consciousness and lack of mind, but that there is plenty of evidence that it can if the damage is extensive enough. You really should read what I wrote before responding.
However the instance(and the link) that you referred to doesn't back up your ideas at all, if you bother to read it. Cleeremans makes the point that "It is so stunning a case of the brain's ability to adapt" a statement with which I agree. There is no mention here of your pet theory of Self/Soul at all. That's you selecting bits of science in order to put your own gloss on it.
And, if you are going to do that, perhaps it might just be a good idea to keep abreast of any updated information which questions whether he actually lost 90% of his brain at all.
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness
Look at the last paragraph in particular and then notice the heading talks about damage to 90% of his brain, rather than the original study which talks about 'missing 90% of his brain.
So, no Sriram, you'd have to come up with hard evidence to convince me and so far it seems to be completely lacking.
-
Of course it does ... and it is pretty easy to demonstrate this, for example by using sound monitoring equipment.
And in a similar context, but more relevant to the discussion in cosmic terms, how about the birth and death of stars. Well we can see this happening with the technology we have to hand. Yet we know that the information takes millions of years to reach us so this happened when no human was watching and indeed in many cases before humans even existed. But we can be pretty confident that these things happened regardless of the fact that no-one was around at the time to see it.
The tree in the forest is an example to show that sound is not a real external phenomenon. It is an experience. Our ears and brain and mind create the experience. Extending it further, all other senses that we have including touch....create the experience of physical objects with a certain appearance, color, shape etc and with a certain taste and smell. These don't actually exist in the real world.
It is said that every second considerable dark matter passes through us....but we are not even aware of it. If dark matter interacted with us how the world would be we cannot say.
The physical external world gets created only due to our interactions with it. Without interactions, it does not exist at all as far as we are concerned. It is not as if the world actually exists as we see it and our senses only pass on the information like cameras or microphones. No.
In what form the physical world actually exits depends on the scale we use. Our senses and mind create the world as we experience it. In that sense, if there was no one to experience the world at our scale, it really will not exist in that scale.
-
I don't intend to dwell on the anecdotal evidence of your interpretation of NDEs when verifiable evidence is so sadly lacking. We have dealt with this in some detail before. Suffice it to say that while you may find your interpretation convincing, I do not, and for reasons that I have already explained.
I didn't suggest that brain injury would automatically lead to lack of consciousness and lack of mind, but that there is plenty of evidence that it can if the damage is extensive enough. You really should read what I wrote before responding.
However the instance(and the link) that you referred to doesn't back up your ideas at all, if you bother to read it. Cleeremans makes the point that "It is so stunning a case of the brain's ability to adapt" a statement with which I agree. There is no mention here of your pet theory of Self/Soul at all. That's you selecting bits of science in order to put your own gloss on it.
And, if you are going to do that, perhaps it might just be a good idea to keep abreast of any updated information which questions whether he actually lost 90% of his brain at all.
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness
Look at the last paragraph in particular and then notice the heading talks about damage to 90% of his brain, rather than the original study which talks about 'missing 90% of his brain.
So, no Sriram, you'd have to come up with hard evidence to convince me and so far it seems to be completely lacking.
You are clutching at straws Enki. You are seeing what you want to see.
If a person can be near normal without 90% of his brain or with a 90% damaged brain, it tells us that the brain is not the main factor in the generation and working of our mind.
-
If a person can be near normal without 90% of his brain or with a 90% damaged brain, it tells us that the brain is not the main factor in the generation and working of our mind.
That is your addiction to woo robbing you of the real and reasonable interpretation of such cases. What those those figures really point to is a crude way to quantify the neural plasticity that brains are capable of. Brains quickly re-organise themselves to make best use of whatever cortex is available and they always prioritise the most important functionality. We don't see any cases of a zero brained person behaving normally, or in fact, behaving at all.
-
The tree in the forest is an example to show that sound is not a real external phenomenon.
The tree in the forest is a childish play on words that depends entirely on which meaning of the word 'sound' you use (the vibrations in the air or the experience). As has already been pointed out, we can record sounds without anybody being present.
It is an experience. Our ears and brain and mind create the experience. Extending it further, all other senses that we have including touch....create the experience of physical objects with a certain appearance, color, shape etc and with a certain taste and smell. These don't actually exist in the real world.
Actually all our senses correspond to aspects of the world. Colour (as we see it) doesn't exactly exist in the world but we know exactly how it corresponds to frequencies of electromagnetic radiation and can record and reproduce any colour we want.
It is said that every second considerable dark matter passes through us....but we are not even aware of it. If dark matter interacted with us how the world would be we cannot say.
Irrelevant.
The physical external world gets created only due to our interactions with it.
Utterly baseless assertion that has nothing to do with any of your previous waffle.
In what form the physical world actually exits depends on the scale we use.
Irrelevant.
Our senses and mind create the world as we experience it.
Our senses create a 'rough sketch' of the world we interact with at the scale we need. We now know how to go way beyond that.
In that sense, if there was no one to experience the world at our scale, it really will not exist in that scale.
Just silly. ::)
-
You are clutching at straws Enki. You are seeing what you want to see.
If a person can be near normal without 90% of his brain or with a 90% damaged brain, it tells us that the brain is not the main factor in the generation and working of our mind.
On the contrary it is you that is clutching at straws, Sriram. What this case seems to show is the malleability and plasticity of the brain in its ability to reroute neural pathways. There is no evidence whatever for your pet theories.
-
On the contrary it is you that is clutching at straws, Sriram. What this case seems to show is the malleability and plasticity of the brain in its ability to reroute neural pathways. There is no evidence whatever for your pet theories.
Indeed - and in addition the most recent understanding is that the brain is compacted (which would potentially result in damage) not destroyed. So the numbers of neurones and their connectivity may be much closer to normal than the headline '90%' suggests.
But the broader point is it is, and will continue to be, science that provides an understanding of this phenomenon and how it relates to neurophysiology and consciousness. The unevidenced woo and god-of-the-gaps that Sriram spouts provides nothing of value to advance our understanding.
-
Indeed - and in addition the most recent understanding is that the brain is compacted (which would potentially result in damage) not destroyed. So the numbers of neurones and their connectivity may be much closer to normal than the headline '90%' suggests.
But the broader point is it is, and will continue to be, science that provides an understanding of this phenomenon and how it relates to neurophysiology and consciousness. The unevidenced woo and god-of-the-gaps that Sriram spouts provides nothing of value to advance our understanding.
Where does God come into all this?! Your God phobia is showing.
The 'brain did it' that most of you keep repeating....is no better than 'God did it'.
-
That is your addiction to woo robbing you of the real and reasonable interpretation of such cases. What those those figures really point to is a crude way to quantify the neural plasticity that brains are capable of. Brains quickly re-organise themselves to make best use of whatever cortex is available and they always prioritise the most important functionality. We don't see any cases of a zero brained person behaving normally, or in fact, behaving at all.
What woo? 'Brains reorganize themselves'......you know how silly that sounds. No different from 'the eye reorganizes itself' or the 'hand reorganizes itself' or 'the stomach reorganizes itself'.
The brain is just a piece of flesh. just check the brain of a dead person.
Of course, it is plastic...not in itself but because of Consciousness that works through it.
-
What woo? 'Brains reorganize themselves'......you know how silly that sounds. No different from 'the eye reorganizes itself' or the 'hand reorganizes itself' or 'the stomach reorganizes itself'.
Biological systems are often astonishingly good at remodelling and repair - in effect reorganising. In most cases they do this continually - so in the case of two of the three examples you give the tissues are constantly remodelling themselves, for example the skin and bone within the hand and also the cells of the lining of the stomach.
So it isn't silly, it is completely established within biology - the only thing that is silly is the person who doesn't understand those very basic aspects of human physiology.
Now neuronal systems aren't terribly good at basic remodelling and repair (hence the challenge for people with spinal cord injuries), but the brain has built in 'redundancy' - effectively multiple routes that can be reconnected under circumstances where an original network becomes compromised. So to put it in simple terms - if you want to travel from A-B via C and there is a road block or the road is damaged at C you can reroute yourself to travel from A-B via D, or F etc etc.
-
The 'brain did it' that most of you keep repeating....is no better than 'God did it'.
Wrong - because firstly we have evidence that the brain exists, while there is no evident that god exists. And we also have growing evidence on how the brain does it. The difference, Sriram, is evidence.
-
Biological systems are often astonishingly good at remodelling and repair - in effect reorganising. In most cases they do this continually - so in the case of two of the three examples you give the tissues are constantly remodelling themselves, for example the skin and bone within the hand and also the cells of the lining of the stomach.
So it isn't silly, it is completely established within biology - the only thing that is silly is the person who doesn't understand those very basic aspects of human physiology.
Now neuronal systems aren't terribly good at basic remodelling and repair (hence the challenge for people with spinal cord injuries), but the brain has built in 'redundancy' - effectively multiple routes that can be reconnected under circumstances where an original network becomes compromised. So to put it in simple terms - if you want to travel from A-B via C and there is a road block or the road is damaged at C you can reroute yourself to travel from A-B via D, or F etc etc.
Yes....I have no doubt that the body has an inbuilt intelligence that enables remodeling and plasticity. I also keep citing the example of phenotypic plasticity in evolution. But a dead body doesn't do it.
It is consciousness present within the body/mind that does it.
-
Yes....I have no doubt that the body has an inbuilt intelligence that enables remodeling and plasticity. I also keep citing the example of phenotypic plasticity in evolution. But a dead body doesn't do it.
It is consciousness present within the body/mind that does it.
Would just point out, that the brain's housekeeping work, strengthening / paring connections for instance, is not done consciously; it all goes on without our conscious knowledge all the time, even when we are fast asleep etc. Consciousness is not involved in such subliminal processes
-
Would just point out, that the brain's housekeeping work, strengthening / paring connections for instance, is not done consciously; it all goes on without our conscious knowledge all the time, even when we are fast asleep etc. Consciousness is not involved in such subliminal processes
Never heard of the unconscious mind and Libet's ideas?
-
Yes....I have no doubt that the body has an inbuilt intelligence that enables remodeling and plasticity.
Intelligence is a loaded term - the word you are looking for is physiology.
It is consciousness present within the body/mind that does it.
No it isn't as the physiological processes we are describing exist across all sorts of species, regardless of their levels of 'conciousness' - indeed they exist in plants as well as animal species, and in animals some of the most remarkable examples of remodelling, plasticity and regeneration are in species with very low levels of consciousness. Humans tend to be pretty 'fixed' by comparison.
-
Intelligence is a loaded term - the word you are looking for is physiology.
No it isn't as the physiological processes we are describing exist across all sorts of species, regardless of their levels of 'conciousness' - indeed they exist in plants as well as animal species, and in animals some of the most remarkable examples of remodelling, plasticity and regeneration are in species with very low levels of consciousness. Humans tend to be pretty 'fixed' by comparison.
Exactly the point. Consciousness (of different levels) exists in all living organisms. What is the problem with that?
-
Never heard of the unconscious mind and Libet's ideas?
Yes. It is therefore not the case that "It is consciousness present within the body/mind that does it". Most brain function is non-conscious.
-
Exactly the point. Consciousness (of different levels) exists in all living organisms. What is the problem with that?
I think that is stretching a point - and you are stretching it because consciousness is important to your unevidenced argument.
There is very little evidence that the ability for organisms to exhibit plasticity, regeneration and remodelling is somehow aligned to consciousness or its level. Indeed there is greater argument that the ability of an organism to exhibit plasticity, regeneration and remodelling is inversely related to its level of consciousness and certainly higher consciousness. We as humans, for all are higher consciousness, are pretty crap in this regard compared to organisms that go though multiple forms over a lifecycle (e.g. many insects and corals) or phenomenal regeneration ability (e.g. salamanders, star fish, nematodes).
And that is just animals - many plants have even more phenomenal levels plasticity, regeneration and remodelling, yet is is hard to argue that they are conscious in the manner that we mean in relation to humans.
-
Life is consciousness. Without some form of consciousness there is no life. By consciousness is meant the ability to experience and respond.
Consciousness is not just wakefulness and self awareness. That is just one form of consciousness. A large part of our consciousness is unconscious. Our instincts and intuitions are all unconscious....which is why animals birds and other organisms function and respond to their environment.
It is this form of response to the environment that results in evolution and complexity.
-
Life is consciousness. Without some form of consciousness there is no life. By consciousness is meant the ability to experience and respond.
So are you suggesting that bacteria are conscious, or that bacteria aren't alive, because I don't recognise either of those suggestions as valid.
Consciousness is not just wakefulness and self awareness. That is just one form of consciousness. A large part of our consciousness is unconscious. Our instincts and intuitions are all unconscious....which is why animals birds and other organisms function and respond to their environment.
Whereas I would have said that consciousness is an attempt to classify those parts of the mental processes that aren't instinctive... that's why it's difficult to determine if some of the more capable other members of the animal kingdom have crossed the threshold.
t is this form of response to the environment that results in evolution and complexity.
No, it isn't. Evolution isn't a 'response' to the environment, it's the effect of the environmental pressures on otherwise random variation.
O.
-
Life is consciousness. Without some form of consciousness there is no life.
Baseless assertion.
By consciousness is meant the ability to experience and respond.
Consciousness is not just wakefulness and self awareness. That is just one form of consciousness. A large part of our consciousness is unconscious. Our instincts and intuitions are all unconscious....which is why animals birds and other organisms function and respond to their environment.
Not only is the phrase "a large part of our consciousness is unconscious" self-contradictory, it also contradicts the definition you gave in the previous paragraph; we obviously don't experience our subconscious mind, only its effects.
It is this form of response to the environment that results in evolution and complexity.
Yet again emphasising your total lack of understanding of how evolution works. It's one thing to disagree with evolution (although it requires an incredible amount of reality denial) but by declaring that natural selection is a "metaphor" and making statements like this, it's quite clear that you simply don't understand it and, apparently, don't care and refuse to learn.
Until you get what natural selection actually means, everything you say about evolution is going to be a joke.
-
Life is consciousness.
Non-sense, 'life' and 'consciousness' are not synonymous. There are plenty of things that are living but lack consciousness.
-
It is this form of response to the environment that results in evolution and complexity.
Again non-sense with stilts on.
Evolution involves random changes some of which convey an evolutionary advantage (normally involving making the organisms with that trait better adapted to their environment such that they are more likely to pass on that trait through reproduction). That being the case, the trait is selected for by natural selection.
It is of course the case that a random mutation may allow an organism to detect and respond to changes in its environment (for example a cell receptor where a mutation makes it change its conformation/function in response to changes in salinity). If this is the case then the evolutionary advantage may be an organism that is able to adapt to changes in salinity in its environment. However the basic evolutionary paradigm remains - in other words that the ability to adapt is determined through random changes/mutations in the genome of that organism.
-
This sort of to and fro could go on forever.
I am convinced (and perhaps even some scientists and philosophers are beginning to think that way) that life is essentially about consciousness. It is consciousness that makes organisms adapt and evolve.
The old school ...random variation, natural selection and other chance factors....are so archaic now! New ways of thinking are called for.
I am optimistic...
-
I am convinced (and perhaps even some scientists and philosophers are beginning to think that way) that life is essentially about consciousness.
You can be convinced all you like ... that doesn't make you right. And it doesn't surprise me that someone whose world (or rather universe) view is achingly human-centric sees consciousness as somehow the be all and end all.
It is consciousness that makes organisms adapt and evolve.
You are wrong ... not because that is my opinion, but because the evidence indicates as such.
The old school ...random variation, natural selection and other chance factors....are so archaic now! New ways of thinking are called for.
We are talking about some here today, gone tomorrow, fashion. We are talking about understanding fundamental mechanisms based on evidence.
I am optimistic...
Fine - that's up to you. But your opinion about evolution wont have one iota of impact on the actual process, nor our understanding of it.
-
This sort of to and fro could go on forever.
Only because one side isn't updating their understanding based on the evidence.
I am convinced (and perhaps even some scientists and philosophers are beginning to think that way) that life is essentially about consciousness.
Convinced by what?
It is consciousness that makes organisms adapt and evolve.
We have a very well supported model of how evolution works, and it doesn't involve consciousness.
The old school ...random variation, natural selection and other chance factors....are so archaic now!
Whereas allegations of 'soul' are so 2022, right?
New ways of thinking are called for.
No, new ways of thinking are called for if evidence emerges that calls into question old ways of thinking, or if old ways of thinking are insufficient to the task of explaining or predicting phenomena; so far as evolution goes, that's not the case.
I am optimistic...
It's easy to be optimistic when your hypothesis, evidence and conclusion are independent of actual events.
O.
-
Only because one side isn't updating their understanding based on the evidence.
Convinced by what?
We have a very well supported model of how evolution works, and it doesn't involve consciousness.
Whereas allegations of 'soul' are so 2022, right?
No, new ways of thinking are called for if evidence emerges that calls into question old ways of thinking, or if old ways of thinking are insufficient to the task of explaining or predicting phenomena; so far as evolution goes, that's not the case.
It's easy to be optimistic when your hypothesis, evidence and conclusion are independent of actual events.
O.
I'm beginning to think it is even more painful to read Sriram's words than it is Ab's!
-
This sort of to and fro could go on forever.
I am convinced (and perhaps even some scientists and philosophers are beginning to think that way) that life is essentially about consciousness. It is consciousness that makes organisms adapt and evolve.
The old school ...random variation, natural selection and other chance factors....are so archaic now! New ways of thinking are called for.
I am optimistic...
It's not usually a good plan to throw baby out with the bath water. There might be a paradigm shift or two coming in order to reconcile QM with GR or to integrate experience and mental phenomena into the material sciences; but the principle of mutation with selection is not likely to be abandoned any day soon. That happens at a higher level of emergence than whatever new insights we derive with respect to the underlying fundamental nature of reality.
-
It's not usually a good plan to throw baby out with the bath water. There might be a paradigm shift or two coming in order to reconcile QM with GR or to integrate experience and mental phenomena into the material sciences; but the principle of mutation with selection is not likely to be abandoned any day soon. That happens at a higher level of emergence than whatever new insights we derive with respect to the underlying fundamental nature of reality.
If consciousness (mental phenomenon) is integrated with the physical world....there is no reason to assume that everything else will continue as usual (randomness etc).
The very fact that organisms (even the simplest) have a survival and reproductive instinct shows a direction with consciousness behind the evolutionary process. Quite clearly, Neo Darwinism is not the way forward. We need a bigger picture with more subtle elements influencing the process.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
You guys are allowing your God phobia and distrust of religions to color your thinking.
-
If consciousness (mental phenomenon) is integrated with the physical world....there is no reason to assume that everything else will continue as usual (randomness etc).
The very fact that organisms (even the simplest) have a survival and reproductive instinct shows a direction with consciousness behind the evolutionary process. Quite clearly, Neo Darwinism is not the way forward. We need a bigger picture with more subtle elements influencing the process.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
You guys are allowing your God phobia and distrust of religions to color your thinking.
Trying to crowbar gods into an explanatory model doesn't work.
https://twitter.com/nvanzalk/status/1022517034389786625/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/nvanzalk/status/1022517034389786625/photo/1)
It's a cheap way out of doing the hard work to gain understanding. Whatever fundamental new insights are suggested they are tested against observation and if they don't explain observation then they are wrong. Your new model of reality, whatever it is, has to allow for speciation through genetic mutation and natural selection at the level of biology because it is observed. And as for direction, we already have one, the unidirectional arrow of time, thermodynamics, the overarching tendency to disorder, it is this perhaps that results in the phenomena that we observe, that water going down a plughole spontaneously self-organises into a vortex, that trees grow but don't ungrow, that life arises from unliving matter and that genetic mutations that happen to confer a reproductive advantage will tend to be conserved and not the other way round.
-
Trying to crowbar gods into an explanatory model doesn't work.
https://twitter.com/nvanzalk/status/1022517034389786625/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/nvanzalk/status/1022517034389786625/photo/1)
It's a cheap way out of doing the hard work to gain understanding. Whatever fundamental new insights are suggested they are tested against observation and if they don't explain observation then they are wrong. Your new model of reality, whatever it is, has to allow for speciation through genetic mutation and natural selection at the level of biology because it is observed. And as for direction, we already have one, the unidirectional arrow of time, thermodynamics, the overarching tendency to disorder, it is this perhaps that results in the phenomena that we observe, that water going down a plughole spontaneously self-organises into a vortex, that trees grow but don't ungrow, that life arises from unliving matter and that genetic mutations that happen to confer a reproductive advantage will tend to be conserved and not the other way round.
You equate consciousness to gods?! This is what I mean by the God phobia...
-
The very fact that organisms (even the simplest) have a survival and reproductive instinct shows a direction with consciousness behind the evolutionary process.
If you had the slightest inkling of an understating of natural selection, you wouldn't make such idiotic assertions. I'm seriously finding it hard to believe that you really are that clueless. Look, if some organism has some (heritable) trait that aids its survival and others don't have that trait, do you think that individual is likely to have more or less offspring that the others? Given that the trait will be passed on to many of said offspring, what about their relative reproduction? What impact will it have on the population over time?
Try thinking about it.
Quite clearly, Neo Darwinism is not the way forward. We need a bigger picture with more subtle elements influencing the process.
Baseless assertion.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
It's not, it's just obviously based on nothing but misunderstanding, your blind superstitions, and what you'd like to be true.
You guys are allowing your God phobia and distrust of religions to color your thinking.
From the person who latches desperately on to anything at all he imagines will support his baseless superstitions. Hilarious.
-
If you had the slightest inkling of an understating of natural selection, you wouldn't make such idiotic assertions. I'm seriously finding it hard to believe that you really are that clueless. Look, if some organism has some (heritable) trait that aids its survival and others don't have that trait, do you think that individual is likely to have more or less offspring that the others? Given that the trait will be passed on to many of said offspring, what about their relative reproduction? What impact will it have on the population over time?
Try thinking about it.
Baseless assertion.
It's not, it's just obviously based on nothing but misunderstanding, your blind superstitions, and what you'd like to be true.
From the person who latches desperately on to anything at all he imagines will support his baseless superstitions. Hilarious.
Why does an organism need to survive and reproduce at all?!!
-
Why does an organism need to survive and reproduce at all?!!
They don't - but we only observe those that do because the others are dead.
This really isn't difficult. If you have variation and some resulting trait confers a survival advantage, then those individuals with it are the ones whose offspring are going to dominate future generations. After billions of years, the only living things left are the ones that have been the very best at survival and reproduction (due to the succession of survival traits that they've inherited).
-
Why does an organism need to survive and reproduce at all?!!
That's a bit like asking why does a race need to have a winner ? Races will have winners and losers by definition. All life is competitive, so the forms of life we observe are those that are better at surviving than other forms. Individuals with a strong will to survive and reproduce will more likely pass on that instinct to their descendants than others who aren't really all that fussed about staying alive.
-
You guys are not getting it. You are taking survival and reproduction for granted.
My question is fundamental....why do organisms need to survive and reproduce at all? What generates this instinct and why is there a race at all? Just because a RNA strand is formed due to abiogenesis does not mean that living organisms should evolve or that they should have the need to survive and reproduce.
-
You guys are not getting it. You are taking survival and reproduction for granted.
My question is fundamental....why do organisms need to survive and reproduce at all? What generates this instinct and why is there a race at all? Just because a RNA strand is formed due to abiogenesis does not mean that living organisms should evolve or that they should have the need to survive and reproduce.
Your conceptualisation is all back to front. Things don't reproduce because they have a-priori needs to survive so much as those needs and those wills to survive derive from the competition of existing in a world of constant change. If the universe was static, unchanging over time, then you would not have will to survive, you would not have DNA and you would not have antelopes or fraudsters or bus stops. We have these things because we live in a universe with a time dimension, which means constant change, which means competition, which means winners and losers which means life has to arise which means mind and consciousness will inevitably evolve wherever and whenever conditions are conducive.
-
You guys are not getting it. You are taking survival and reproduction for granted.
My question is fundamental....why do organisms need to survive and reproduce at all? What generates this instinct and why is there a race at all? Just because a RNA strand is formed due to abiogenesis does not mean that living organisms should evolve or that they should have the need to survive and reproduce.
It's you who seems unable to grasp this rather simple concept. Reproduction is what started it all. That's what made the first RNA strand (assuming that hypothesis for a moment) special. All the other molecules that didn't reproduce are lost to history. Once you have reproduction (with some variation), natural selection is inevitable because it's just the simple fact that those things that reproduce better than the others, reproduce more than others. The better survivors are (incredible as it seems!) the ones that survived more, so everything left alive today comes from an unbroken line of survivors.
There is no fundamental imperative that life exists or that it's good at reproduction and survival, that is the simple consequence of starting with something that reproduces with inheritance and variation.
-
Sriram,
You guys are not getting it. You are taking survival and reproduction for granted.
My question is fundamental....why do organisms need to survive and reproduce at all? What generates this instinct and why is there a race at all? Just because a RNA strand is formed due to abiogenesis does not mean that living organisms should evolve or that they should have the need to survive and reproduce.
Why does a lottery winner need to win the lottery at all?
Once again, you're making a basic mistake in reasoning here called the reference point error (also the lottery winner's fallacy). You look at the "winners" (ie, life) and just assume an a priori reason (or "need") for their success. Evolution though functions bottom up, not top down (see also the Occam's razor principle you didn't understand either).
-
You guys are just repeating the same thing over and over again. Why should any organism survive or fight for survival or get selected at all? Why are survival and reproduction at all important?
-
You guys are just repeating the same thing over and over again. Why should any organism survive or fight for survival or get selected at all? Why are survival and reproduction at all important?
It's not that its important it's just that it happens.
It happens because it can happen
-
Sriram,
You guys are just repeating the same thing over and over again.
There are only so many ways to explain why 2=2=4. Perhaps if you tried to engage with the arguments you wouldn't keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again?
Why should any organism survive or fight for survival or get selected at all? Why are survival and reproduction at all important?
I explained to you in my last Reply why this is wrongheaded thinking. You're still looking down the wrong end of the telescope - evolution functions bottom up, not top down and "important" is just a value judgment you apply after the event.
-
You guys are just repeating the same thing over and over again.
If you actually engaged your brain and tried to address what has actually been said many times already, we'd maybe get somewhere.
Why should any organism survive or fight for survival or get selected at all?
Completely arse about face. Things are selected exactly because they are better at surviving and reproducing. The first replicators didn't "fight for survival", but every trait that aids survival would survive better and therefore dominate the population. The "fighting for survival" or "survival instinct" would be built up one tiny step at a time, each one slightly better at survival.
The absolutely inevitable result of natural selection is that everything is good at surviving (in the context of their environment) and that means things that "fight for survival" or have a "survival instinct". Those things are the result of variation and selection, not its input.
Why are survival and reproduction at all important?
They aren't. It's just what inevitably happens when you get replication with inheritance, variation, and limited resources.
-
Why don't you guys grit your teeth and face up to the fact that you have no explanation for why organisms reproduce and fight for survival?! You can only cite 'chance' or 'emergence' as an explanation. Or contend that the question 'why' is irrelevant or some such.....
However life came about...it evolved and continued to exist in increasingly complex forms only because there was a driving force within that induced the reproductive instinct and the survival instinct. Without these two, life would not have evolved at all. This is a fact.
-
Sriram,
Why don't you guys grit your teeth and face up to the fact that you have no explanation for why organisms reproduce and fight for survival?! You can only cite 'chance' or 'emergence' as an explanation. Or contend that the question 'why' is irrelevant or some such.....
“We” do have an explanation. It's called the Theory of Evolution. We keep giving it to you too. That you cannot or will not address the explanation is a matter for you though, not for the people trying to educate you.
However life came about...it evolved and continued to exist in increasingly complex forms only because there was a driving force within that induced the reproductive instinct and the survival instinct.
Why on earth would you think there to be a “driving force” when there’s no need for it in evolutionary theory, no evidence for it in practice and no way to arrive at that conclusion without false reasoning (or no reasoning at all)?
Without these two, life would not have evolved at all. This is a fact.
No it isn’t. It’s just the unqualified conclusion of a lazy or reason-impaired mind. It's good enough for the Christmas cracker level “philosophy” that appeals to you, but that’s all.
-
Why don't you guys grit your teeth and face up to the fact that you have no explanation for why organisms reproduce and fight for survival?!
Are you even being serious? Is this a joke? The reason is that it's patently untrue. You have been given the explanation. Not understanding it, or refusing to think about it in case it challenges your cherished beliefs (which seems more likely - surely you can't be too stupid to get it if you tried), does not mean it doesn't exist or hasn't been explained to you (multiple times).
You can only cite 'chance' or 'emergence' as an explanation. Or contend that the question 'why' is irrelevant or some such.....
Drivel.
However life came about...it evolved and continued to exist in increasingly complex forms only because there was a driving force within that induced the reproductive instinct and the survival instinct. Without these two, life would not have evolved at all. This is a fact.
No, it is not. You're still looking at everything backwards and mistaking effect for cause.
-
Why don't you guys grit your teeth and face up to the fact that you have no explanation for why organisms reproduce and fight for survival?! You can only cite 'chance' or 'emergence' as an explanation. Or contend that the question 'why' is irrelevant or some such.....
However life came about...it evolved and continued to exist in increasingly complex forms only because there was a driving force within that induced the reproductive instinct and the survival instinct. Without these two, life would not have evolved at all. This is a fact.
i've already given you one contender for that 'driving force' - thermodynamics. Might not be the whole story of course but it might provide a way to understand life in a broader context of basic physics. Putting a boulder in a mountain stream will create a phenomenon that wasn't there before - a whirlpool. This is a case of spontaneous self-organisation of the water that has to happen, it allows the water to get from the top of the mountain to the bottom whilst doing the least work. If you can understand that, then you are on the way to understanding life in the same terms - all living things are effective dissipative structures, increasing entropy over time. Life has to arise wherever it can just as surely as whirlpools have to form around a boulder in a stream in order to be consistent with the overarching tendency to increase entropy. And likewise forms of life that are better at dissipating energy will inevitably tend to replace less efficient forms. This is consistent with what we observe with life on Earth - it starts with simple organisms and gets gradually more complex over time, until you get Americans driving to the local shop in a Hummer using ridiculous amounts of energy in the process.
-
You cannot offer mechanisms as causes. Causes define mechanisms, not the other way around. Mechanisms cannot arise spontaneously by themselves.
You guys are mixing up the 'how' and the 'why'.
-
You cannot offer mechanisms as causes. Causes define mechanisms, not the other way around. Mechanisms cannot arise spontaneously by themselves.
The mechanism of natural selection is a simple logical consequence of having things that reproduce with inheritance and variation in an environment with limited resources. The "survival instinct" is the logical consequence of natural selection.
This has been explained to you multiple times, why don't you actually address the explanations given instead of just making assertions?
-
You cannot offer mechanisms as causes. Causes define mechanisms, not the other way around. Mechanisms cannot arise spontaneously by themselves.
You guys are mixing up the 'how' and the 'why'.
So what is your answer to the 'Why' question ?
-
So what is your answer to the 'Why' question ?
One answer, from Hinduism, might be that there is no reason why. Brahman or Conscious Intelligence is engaged in Lila or creative play with infinite potential, of which, what we call 'evolution' is just a small part. Unlike, as suggested with the Abrahamic God, there is no designing involved.
-
The mechanism of natural selection is a simple logical consequence of having things that reproduce with inheritance and variation in an environment with limited resources. The "survival instinct" is the logical consequence of natural selection.
This has been explained to you multiple times, why don't you actually address the explanations given instead of just making assertions?
You are again talking of mechanisms. Mechanisms arise because something wants to survive and reproduce. The need to survive and reproduce, which we call as instincts....are the basic reason for evolution. These are primary. Evolution is just a mechanism, not a cause.
The cause is the basic instinct. Why and how these instincts arise is the basic question. They have to be induced in the organism in some way. This is what we call its consciousness. It has to be extra-physical.
-
So what is your answer to the 'Why' question ?
That is a complex answer involving spiritual evolution, reincarnation, several celestial worlds and the one Universal Consciousness and many more things. Take up yogic practice and theory and you will understand that.
More to the point, evolution is just a mechanism not a cause. Consciousness that is fundamental to life, is the cause of the survival, reproduction and parental instincts. These instincts lead to a fight for survival, leading to the process of evolution.
-
You are again talking of mechanisms. Mechanisms arise because something wants to survive and reproduce. The need to survive and reproduce, which we call as instincts....are the basic reason for evolution. These are primary. Evolution is just a mechanism, not a cause.
This is just more thought-free foot-stamping. The instincts arise because of natural selection (and of course mechanisms can cause things), in the way I (and others) have already explained and you've totally ignored. Why don't you actually address the explanation instead of just repeating your baseless dogma?
Why and how these instincts arise is the basic question. They have to be induced in the organism in some way.
We know how they arise and how they are introduced into the population. It's blindingly obvious how they do once you get reproduction with inheritance and variation and hence natural selection.
This is what we call its consciousness. It has to be extra-physical.
Baseless nonsense.
-
You cannot offer mechanisms as causes. Causes define mechanisms, not the other way around. Mechanisms cannot arise spontaneously by themselves.
You guys are mixing up the 'how' and the 'why'.
To suggest 'why' is a relevant question assumes conscious intent and therefore yet more anthropocentric thinking. Given that there is no evidence that the process of evolution is based on conscious intent rather than simply a mechanistic phenomenon, then the issue of 'why' is moot.
Sure 'instinct' and 'intent' in species are known to be consequences of evolution and can have evolutionary benefit in terms of survival and reproduction, but that is a different question.
-
That is a complex answer involving spiritual evolution, reincarnation, several celestial worlds and the one Universal Consciousness and many more things. Take up yogic practice and theory and you will understand that.
More to the point, evolution is just a mechanism not a cause. Consciousness that is fundamental to life, is the cause of the survival, reproduction and parental instincts. These instincts lead to a fight for survival, leading to the process of evolution.
Most of that is baseless conjecture, though, it is not derived from evidence. We don 't have any evidence for a universal consciousness and we don't have any evidence for multiple celestial worlds, whatever you mean by that. And if 'reincarnation' for example was the underlying cause that explains observations, we can still ask the Why question to that - why does reincarnation or spiritual evolution exist ?
-
Take up yogic practice and theory and you will understand that.
Yet more anthropocentric non-sense. What relevance does yogic practice and theory have to the vast majority of life on this planet (e.g. the oak tree in my front garden or the soil bacteria in the beds in my back garden), let alone non-living entities on this planet and beyond.
-
This is just more thought-free foot-stamping. The instincts arise because of natural selection (and of course mechanisms can cause things), in the way I (and others) have already explained and you've totally ignored. Why don't you actually address the explanation instead of just repeating your baseless dogma?
We know how they arise and how they are introduced into the population. It's blindingly obvious how they do once you get reproduction with inheritance and variation and hence natural selection.
Baseless nonsense.
Instincts don't arise due to NS. Did DNA start to replicate due to natural selection? That is rubbish.
-
Most of that is baseless conjecture, though, it is not derived from evidence. We don 't have any evidence for a universal consciousness and we don't have any evidence for multiple celestial worlds, whatever you mean by that. And if 'reincarnation' for example was the underlying cause that explains observations, we can still ask the Why question to that - why does reincarnation or spiritual evolution exist ?
I agree that it is philosophical conjecture (hypothesis)....but not without basis. There is plenty of reason to believe that life has arisen and evolved due to conscious intent. There is evidence for life after death and reincarnation.
Why and how it all happens we may not know with any degree of accuracy (everything is not physics), but that is the right direction to start thinking. Pure materialism will take us nowhere.
-
To suggest 'why' is a relevant question assumes conscious intent and therefore yet more anthropocentric thinking. Given that there is no evidence that the process of evolution is based on conscious intent rather than simply a mechanistic phenomenon, then the issue of 'why' is moot.
Sure 'instinct' and 'intent' in species are known to be consequences of evolution and can have evolutionary benefit in terms of survival and reproduction, but that is a different question.
Evolution is a consequence of instinct and intent, not the other way around. Evolution is only a mechanism.
-
Instincts don't arise due to NS. Did DNA start to replicate due to natural selection? That is rubbish.
Things don't replicate because of natural selection; nobody claims that, Natural Selection acts upon the variation that inevitably arises from reproduction, given that reproduction is imperfect.
-
Yet more anthropocentric non-sense. What relevance does yogic practice and theory have to the vast majority of life on this planet (e.g. the oak tree in my front garden or the soil bacteria in the beds in my back garden), let alone non-living entities on this planet and beyond.
How yoga is relevant is a lengthy discussion requiring a background in spirituality. Some other time maybe. :)
-
Evolution is a consequence of instinct and intent, not the other way around. Evolution is only a mechanism.
That doesn't make any sense. Nothing evolved by intention. Do all the new strains of coronavirus arise because the virus has intentions ? Something as simple as a virus is incapable of complex mind states like desire and intention.
-
That doesn't make any sense. Nothing evolved by intention. Do all the new strains of coronavirus arise because the virus has intentions ? Something as simple as a virus is incapable of complex mind states like desire and intention.
We have discussed all these things before. Consciousness is not just about wakeful human consciousness. Consciousness is very complex with many layers. There is a common consciousness which coordinates all life and ensures the ecological balance. Viruses and bacteria etc are all a part of this.
This is not a new idea. Many western people have also proposed this.
-
Instincts don't arise due to NS.
More foot-stamping. ::)
Why do you continue to ignore the actual explanation...?
Did DNA start to replicate due to natural selection? That is rubbish.
Nobody suggested that replication started due to natural selection - and it certainly wasn't due to instinct or consciousness either.
Yet again: something started to replicate for entirely chemical reasons. Let's say it's an RNA strand like this (which actually does replicate if given the right chemical environment):
NNNNNNUGCUCGAUUGGUAACAGUUUGAAUGGGUUGAAGUAU–GAGACCGNNNNNN
Obviously it doesn't have any instincts, it's just a molecule. All we then need is for the replication to be imperfect sometimes so we have variation. Once we have variation, some replicators can be better than others at replicating in the environment. If resources are (or become) limited with respect to the population, so not every individual survives, then obviously those that are better at surviving and replicating will come to dominate.
Over time, variations that aid survival will build up in the population and each individual will have accumulated lots of individual traits that aid its survival and reproduction in its environment. At some point, some observer may look at all these traits and say "oh look, these things have a 'survival instinct'", and if they don't understand natural selection and think it's just a metaphor, then they may jump to daft conclusion about that being the cause, rather than the effect.
-
It is DNA replication that is the source of the reproductive and survival instinct. This should be obvious.
All your explanations are just the mechanism by which it happens. The cause behind it is consciousness.
-
I agree that it is philosophical conjecture (hypothesis)....but not without basis. There is plenty of reason to believe that life has arisen and evolved due to conscious intent. There is evidence for life after death and reincarnation.
That's back to front thinking. Conscious intent is a complex state and yet simple logic and observation tells us that complex states derive from simpler states. You've seen that large houses can be made of small bricks, but have you ever seen small bricks that are made of large houses ? The idea that the universe came about by conscious intent fails for the same reason. Intentions are a complex product of a slowly evolving universe. Do you think intentions can self-substantiate out of nothing ?
-
It is DNA replication that is the source of the reproductive and survival instinct. This should be obvious.
It's obviously nonsense. The mechanics of replication can't produce an 'instinct', you need natural selection for anything remotely like that.
The cause behind it is consciousness.
More reasoning- and evidence-free assertion. ::)
-
Sriram,
All your explanations are just the mechanism by which it happens.
There’s no “just” about it, but essentially yes – the ToE explains very powerfully how speciation occurs. Your why question though is only valid if you can show first that evolution is purposive - for which claim there's no evidence at all.
The cause behind it is consciousness.
And that’s just a repetition of your mindless faith claim. A “consciousness behind it” is something the ToE doesn’t require, that has no evidence for its existence at all, and that you can only conclude if you rely on false arguments (or, more often in your case, on no argument at all).
You can of course believe any unqualified faith claim to be true if you want to, as can I. If you expect anyone to take the claim seriously though then you must justify it with something other than bad reasoning and wishful thinking. And that’s your problem.
-
That's back to front thinking. Conscious intent is a complex state and yet simple logic and observation tells us that complex states derive from simpler states. You've seen that large houses can be made of small bricks, but have you ever seen small bricks that are made of large houses ? The idea that the universe came about by conscious intent fails for the same reason. Intentions are a complex product of a slowly evolving universe. Do you think intentions can self-substantiate out of nothing ?
I think that a Hindu view is that consciousness is the simplest of 'states' and is omnipresent. Complexity arises through its interaction with the physical. To use your analogy, it takes a consciousness to assemble the small bricks into a large house. I suspect that the view comes from yogic practices which attempt to be in union with that simple conscious state which is blissful. This is possibly what is behind the Jesus saying 'Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of Heaven as a little child will not be able to enter therein' i.e. simplicity rather than mental complexity is the way.
-
There is plenty of reason to believe that life has arisen and evolved due to conscious intent.
There is overwhelming evidence that conscious intent is the result of evolution. It's also worth pointing out that even if we were to accept some of the speculations you've posted, like Orch OR or IIT, they wouldn't actually change that conclusion.
-
That is a complex answer involving spiritual evolution, reincarnation, several celestial worlds and the one Universal Consciousness and many more things. Take up yogic practice and theory and you will understand that.
More to the point, evolution is just a mechanism not a cause. Consciousness that is fundamental to life, is the cause of the survival, reproduction and parental instincts. These instincts lead to a fight for survival, leading to the process of evolution.
Why dies water want to freeze at low temperature
-
Why dies water want to freeze at low temperature
Because it wanted to get to another state.
-
Because it wanted to get to another state.
Clearly that is the sort of thinking Sriram is using.
-
It's obviously nonsense. The mechanics of replication can't produce an 'instinct', you need natural selection for anything remotely like that.
More reasoning- and evidence-free assertion. ::)
Replication is the fundamental source of the basic instincts. Why replication? You have no answer...except 'emergence'.
Rather....consciousness is the cause of replication. It is not just a chance happening. It is like the first diode or transistor or valve....that later evolved into very complex silicon chips. Electronic products have also evolved...but there is always consciousness and intelligence (human) behind it.
-
Sriram,
There’s no “just” about it, but essentially yes – the ToE explains very powerfully how speciation occurs. Your why question though is only valid if you can show first that evolution is purposive - for which claim there's no evidence at all.
And that’s just a repetition of your mindless faith claim. A “consciousness behind it” is something the ToE doesn’t require, that has no evidence for its existence at all, and that you can only conclude if you rely on false arguments (or, more often in your case, on no argument at all).
You can of course believe any unqualified faith claim to be true if you want to, as can I. If you expect anyone to take the claim seriously though then you must justify it with something other than bad reasoning and wishful thinking. And that’s your problem.
ToE only explains the mechanisms....not the cause. Like saying....'I understand how the computer works...but I don't know what it is for'. That is silly.
Increasingly consciousness is being seen as fundamental both by scientists and philosophers and I am sure the basic role of consciousness behind evolution as all creation, will soon be acknowledged.
-
There is overwhelming evidence that conscious intent is the result of evolution. It's also worth pointing out that even if we were to accept some of the speculations you've posted, like Orch OR or IIT, they wouldn't actually change that conclusion.
Conscious intent is the source of evolution. This is very clear in phenotypic plasticity.
Survival, reproduction, parenting, changing ones phenotypes to suit the environment etc. are clear indicators of direction and purpose behind evolution.
Some form of consciousness and intent is obvious.
-
Replication is the fundamental source of the basic instincts.
Drivel. Simple replication cannot produce anything except more of the same, you need variation and, most importantly, selection to produce anything that is useful for survival (like instincts).
You have no answer...except 'emergence'.
I never mentioned emergence - it's not directly relevant to the basic point. Replication is the starting point. Relatively simple molecules can replicate but obviously can't have any instincts. Instinct arise from natural selection. I explained you again exactly how instincts arise via natural selection (#165 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18664.msg834430#msg834430)) and, yet again, you've just ignored it. That is an actual explanation, not a superstition driven assertion.
Rather....consciousness is the cause of replication.
Conscious intent is the source of evolution.
Just more empty foot-stamping.
This is very clear in phenotypic plasticity.
Survival, reproduction, parenting, changing ones phenotypes to suit the environment etc. are clear indicators of direction and purpose behind evolution.
Just repeating the same baseless, scientifically illiterate drivel over and over again, isn't going to change the answers. Phenotypic plasticity is not evolution. It is the result of evolution (the first replicators couldn't possible have had phenotypic plasticity) and it doesn't change the genome so cannot possibly explain the diversity of life.
Why do you always run away from addressing the actual points being made? You seem to be too afraid to actually think about the subject.
Some form of consciousness and intent is obvious.
"It's obvious, innit?" is such a convincing argument. Doubly so coming from somebody who has repeatedly shown they don't understand even the basics of the science, totally ignores the reasoning presented to them, and obviously desperately wants there assertions to be true.
As long as you don't understand evolution (think natural selection is a metaphor), your posts about it are going to be based on false assumptions, so, at the very least, and if you have any interest at all in reality, you need to grasp the theory of evolution as it stands.
-
Conscious intent is the source of evolution. This is very clear in phenotypic plasticity.
Survival, reproduction, parenting, changing ones phenotypes to suit the environment etc. are clear indicators of direction and purpose behind evolution.
Some form of consciousness and intent is obvious.
Not clear at all. There is no evidence that plants evolved phenotypic plasticity because they intended to; rather, it was an inevitable development in plant biology given the laws of nature. Likewise, the Earth does not revolve around the Sun because it planned it that way; rather it is an inevitable outcome of the law of gravity.
-
ToE only explains the mechanisms....not the cause. Like saying....'I understand how the computer works...but I don't know what it is for'. That is silly.
You have yet to provide the first hint of evidence or the merest suggestion of a logical argument that would tell us that evolution is for anything.
Increasingly consciousness is being seen as fundamental both by scientists and philosophers...
By some philosophers and a few scientists. I'm not aware of any serious scientific conjecture that would take you where you want to go with evolution, though. Certainly not Orch OR or IIT. As far as I can see, you're very much out in your own little fantasy world on that one.
...and I am sure the basic role of consciousness behind evolution as all creation, will soon be acknowledged.
Surety from a position of ignorance and superstition....
-
Drivel. Simple replication cannot produce anything except more of the same, you need variation and, most importantly, selection to produce anything that is useful for survival (like instincts).
I never mentioned emergence - it's not directly relevant to the basic point. Replication is the starting point. Relatively simple molecules can replicate but obviously can't have any instincts. Instinct arise from natural selection. I explained you again exactly how instincts arise via natural selection (#165 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18664.msg834430#msg834430)) and, yet again, you've just ignored it. That is an actual explanation, not a superstition driven assertion.
Just more empty foot-stamping.
Just repeating the same baseless, scientifically illiterate drivel over and over again, isn't going to change the answers. Phenotypic plasticity is not evolution. It is the result of evolution (the first replicators couldn't possible have had phenotypic plasticity) and it doesn't change the genome so cannot possibly explain the diversity of life.
Why do you always run away from addressing the actual points being made? You seem to be too afraid to actually think about the subject.
"It's obvious, innit?" is such a convincing argument. Doubly so coming from somebody who has repeatedly shown they don't understand even the basics of the science, totally ignores the reasoning presented to them, and obviously desperately wants there assertions to be true.
As long as you don't understand evolution (think natural selection is a metaphor), your posts about it are going to be based on false assumptions, so, at the very least, and if you have any interest at all in reality, you need to grasp the theory of evolution as it stands.
'useful for survival'....you are again taking the need to survive for granted. And NS is a metaphor because environmental changes are largely chance. Deliberate adaptation however, is not chance because it is an intelligent response to changes in the environment.
-
Not clear at all. There is no evidence that plants evolved phenotypic plasticity because they intended to; rather, it was an inevitable development in plant biology given the laws of nature. Likewise, the Earth does not revolve around the Sun because it planned it that way; rather it is an inevitable outcome of the law of gravity.
Phenotypic plasticity is an intelligent response to changes in the environment. If normal biology allows for these types of adaptation....there is obviously a conscious intent behind it.
Dead bodies do not adapt. Clearly biology by itself does nothing. It is Life and its accompanying consciousness that make these things happen.
-
If consciousness (mental phenomenon) is integrated with the physical world....there is no reason to assume that everything else will continue as usual (randomness etc).
If strawberry jam is integrated into the fundamental rules there is no reason to think that everything else will continue as usual, either, but the important step being missed there is a reason to think that consciousness is both extrinsic to the current model and in need of being integrated into it.
The very fact that organisms (even the simplest) have a survival and reproductive instinct shows a direction with consciousness behind the evolutionary process.
No, it doesn't, it show that historically there has been a penalty to not having those instincts which meant they were less successful in replicating themselves at a particular point in evolutionary history.
Quite clearly, Neo Darwinism is not the way forward.
It really isn't clear at all why you think that might be the case - don't presume everyone sees things from your perspective, if you have support for that contention then put it forward.
We need a bigger picture with more subtle elements influencing the process.
So far all I see is that you need a better understanding of what the process actually entails.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
I don't think the basic principle is, but you still seem not to really grasp it.
You guys are allowing your God phobia and distrust of religions to color your thinking.
If you're resorting to ad hominems (and, to note, you're usually better than that, Sriram) then you're kind of admitting that you've run out of argument.
O.
-
'useful for survival'....you are again taking the need to survive for granted.
No, I am not. Those variations (traits) that are useful for survival are the ones that survive more - that is mind-numbingly obvious! There is no need - that's just what inevitably happens.
What would you expect if a variation occurred in an individual that just happened to be useful for survival?
And NS is a metaphor because environmental changes are largely chance
That doesn't make it a metaphor. It's relative to the environment, just like actual design would have to be. What it does is change populations to suit their environment. That is all that it needs to do. When the environment changes, sometimes populations can't change fast enough and they go extinct, sometimes they survive long enough for variation and selection to work and they change and adapt. That's exactly what we see.
Deliberate adaptation however, is not chance because it is an intelligent response to changes in the environment.
And variation and natural selection explains that apparent intelligence (e.g. phenotypic plasticity). If the environment is volatile, obviously any trait that aids adaptation to the changes would have a survival advantage - and we're back at natural selection.
-
No, I am not. Those variations (traits) that are useful for survival are the ones that survive more - that is mind-numbingly obvious! There is no need - that's just what inevitably happens.
What would you expect if a variation occurred in an individual that just happened to be useful for survival?
That doesn't make it a metaphor. It's relative to the environment, just like actual design would have to be. What it does is change populations to suit their environment. That is all that it needs to do. When the environment changes, sometimes populations can't change fast enough and they go extinct, sometimes they survive long enough for variation and selection to work and they change and adapt. That's exactly what we see.
And variation and natural selection explains that apparent intelligence (e.g. phenotypic plasticity). If the environment is volatile, obviously any trait that aids adaptation to the changes would have a survival advantage - and we're back at natural selection.
'What would you expect if a variation occurred in an individual that just happened to be useful for survival?'
You are still taking 'survival' for granted. Unless there is a need to survive why would any organism adapt and survive?
-
Phenotypic plasticity is an intelligent response to changes in the environment. If normal biology allows for these types of adaptation....there is obviously a conscious intent behind it.
This is evolution 101. It explains apparent intelligence without the need for an actual intelligence. Your 'thinking' is stuck in pre-Darwin times.
Dead bodies do not adapt. Clearly biology by itself does nothing.
Non sequitur. Dead things don't have functioning biology.
It is Life and its accompanying consciousness that make these things happen.
There is no evidence that life always involves consciousness - quite the reverse.
-
'What would you expect if a variation occurred in an individual that just happened to be useful for survival?'
You are still taking 'survival' for granted. Unless there is a need to survive why would any organism adapt and survive?
You didn't answer the question. No organism needs to 'deliberately' adapt to anything - that's the whole point. Individual organisms don't evolve, populations do.
Random variation will sometimes produce a trait that makes an individual better at surviving in its environment. Given that the trait is heritable, what do you think will happen then?
-
:D :D 'apparent intelligence'...eh?! Really?! What is that?!
You are clutching at straws again.....
Organisms do deliberately adapt and change their phenotype to suit the environment. You can't deny that. Even a straight forward example of the chameleon is enough for that. You will immediately explain the mechanism by which the chameleon changes its color...which is irrelevant....
-
Organisms do deliberately adapt and change their phenotype to suit the environment. You can't deny that. Even a straight forward example of the chameleon is enough for that. You will immediately explain the mechanism by which the chameleon changes its color...which is irrelevant....
Of course they do - but only when that particular trait has arisen via random mutations in the heritable genome and selected for via natural selection.
The ability of an organism (or cell) to change its phenotype to be better adapted to a particular environment is a product of evolutionary change, not the cause of evolutionary change.
So a colour changing chameleon species will have evolved from an earlier species (quite likely one that isn't around any more) that did not have that ability. Clearly the ability to change ones colour to camouflage itself is likely to improve survival and once that trait has arisen through genetic mutation then it is likely to be retained as the individual animals with that trait are more likely to survive and reproduce.
-
Organisms do deliberately adapt and change their phenotype to suit the environment. You can't deny that. Even a straight forward example of the chameleon is enough for that. You will immediately explain the mechanism by which the chameleon changes its color...which is irrelevant....
Just think about it for a second Sriram.
If an organism can just develop adaptations to suit intent or desire, then why wouldn't all sorts of species simply develop the ability to change colour - it is clearly such a useful adaptation. That they haven't indicates very clearly that species cannot just adapt themselves as they wish, rather than they can only develop a trait if it occurs by chance.
-
'What would you expect if a variation occurred in an individual that just happened to be useful for survival?'
You are still taking 'survival' for granted. Unless there is a need to survive why would any organism adapt and survive?
The instinct to survive is one that has proven beneficial in the past - it's not a deliberate attempt to improve, it's the result of prior events.
O.
-
:D :D 'apparent intelligence'...eh?! Really?! What is that?!
You are clutching at straws again.....
You really don't have the first clue about this subject, do you? Honestly, even if you'd read the most basic pop-science introduction you'd get how evolution explains apparent 'design' (or intelligence). Again, this is evolution 101. Basic school level stuff.
The irony in you accusing me of clutching at straws is truly comical. I'm just explaining the basic, well tested and established science of the subject, while you are desperately trying to deny it to make space for your baseless superstitions.
We know what natural selection can do - it's directly observable and can easily be simulated.
Organisms do deliberately adapt and change their phenotype to suit the environment. You can't deny that. Even a straight forward example of the chameleon is enough for that.
As Prof D has already explained, this is just another trait that has evolved in the usual way.
And I note that you're still running away from thinking about my question: if a random variation just happens to produce a trait that is useful for survival and reproduction in the environment, and that trait is heritable, what do you think will happen?
-
Of course they do - but only when that particular trait has arisen via random mutations in the heritable genome and selected for via natural selection.
The ability of an organism (or cell) to change its phenotype to be better adapted to a particular environment is a product of evolutionary change, not the cause of evolutionary change.
So a colour changing chameleon species will have evolved from an earlier species (quite likely one that isn't around any more) that did not have that ability. Clearly the ability to change ones colour to camouflage itself is likely to improve survival and once that trait has arisen through genetic mutation then it is likely to be retained as the individual animals with that trait are more likely to survive and reproduce.
You are again saying that something anthropomorphically called 'evolution' is responsible for plasticity. What is responsible for evolution? Why should anything evolve at all? Obviously because of the innate need to survive and reproduce!
We come back to the fundamental need to survive and reproduce which is responsible for life evolving! This cannot be avoided. This need is the objective and goal of life itself. Evolution is only the mechanism.
How can life have a goal and objective without consciousness and intelligence?
It is only in order to circumvent this obvious conclusion that convoluted explanations of random variations and a chance driven NS are resorted to.
-
The instinct to survive is one that has proven beneficial in the past - it's not a deliberate attempt to improve, it's the result of prior events.
O.
What is the benefit of survival without the need to survive? 'Survival' is a meaningless 'benefit' without a need for it.
-
You really don't have the first clue about this subject, do you? Honestly, even if you'd read the most basic pop-science introduction you'd get how evolution explains apparent 'design' (or intelligence). Again, this is evolution 101. Basic school level stuff.
The irony in you accusing me of clutching at straws is truly comical. I'm just explaining the basic, well tested and established science of the subject, while you are desperately trying to deny it to make space for your baseless superstitions.
We know what natural selection can do - it's directly observable and can easily be simulated.
As Prof D has already explained, this is just another trait that has evolved in the usual way.
And I note that you're still running away from thinking about my question: if a random variation just happens to produce a trait that is useful for survival and reproduction in the environment, and that trait is heritable, what do you think will happen?
Consciousness is not a superstitious concept. It is real and is increasingly being regarded as fundamental.
If there is no need or instinct to survive...any variation cannot survive. Survival as a mere accidental happening is meaningless.
-
Sriram,
You are again saying that something anthropomorphically called 'evolution' is responsible for plasticity.
It’s just “called evolution”. And yes.
What is responsible for evolution?
Chemistry.
Why should anything evolve at all? Obviously because of the innate need to survive and reproduce!
Obviously not. The first life had no such “innate need” – it was just organic chemistry doing what organic chemistry does in the right circumstances. The “innate need” you have to eat or to keep warm to maximise your survival and reproductive success is just what’s at the current point in that process.
We come back to the fundamental need to survive and reproduce which is responsible for life evolving! This cannot be avoided. This need is the objective and goal of life itself. Evolution is only the mechanism.
No we don’t. Evolution isn’t directed or goal-orientated. Perhaps if you found out what the ToE actually says you’d find this out for yourself.
How can life have a goal and objective without consciousness and intelligence?
“Life” as you put it - or rather evolution itself - doesn’t have a goal and objectives. Your premise is wrong
It is only in order to circumvent this obvious conclusion…
Obvious but wrong remember?
…that convoluted explanations of random variations and a chance driven NS are resorted to.
One great advantage of the ToE is that’s the least convoluted explanation we have. Positing consciousness a priori that intended all along life to be as we observe it requires by magnitudes more convoluted reasoning than the “simple-to-complex” model does. How on earth would you begin with something a complex as purposive consciousness?
Short version: your poor (or non-) reasoning is letting you down again.
-
Consciousness is not a superstitious concept.
I didn't say it was. Your view of it and, more specifically, your attempts to link it to phenomena where it's not needed and there is no evidence of its involvement, however, are.
It is real and is increasingly being regarded as fundamental.
There are some speculations about that, none of which (that I'm aware of) would make a difference to evolutionary theory.
If there is no need or instinct to survive...any variation cannot survive.
Obviously false. Again you're looking at it arse about face. Think about the question! Some small random change makes an individual a bit better at survival and reproduction and it will, inevitably, increase from generation to generation exactly because it is an advantage.
A "survival instinct" is just a lot of traits that aid survival. In other words, it is the result of random variation and natural selection.
Look at the classic peppered moth example. It didn't adapt to its new environment because of phenotypic plasticity, because it consciously wanted to, or because of some survival instinct, it was a genetic mutation (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36424768) that just happened to be useful in the new conditions.
Survival as a mere accidental happening is meaningless.
Where is the first hit of any evidence that any of this has any absolute meaning?
-
If there is no need or instinct to survive...any variation cannot survive. Survival as a mere accidental happening is meaningless.
Of course it can - all that is needed is a trait that improves the likelihood of survival and is heritable.
Just look at the Delta variant of the coronavirus - it has no instinct to survive, it has no need to survive, but it has become the dominant strain in the UK and elsewhere because a random mutation in the genome of a previous strain rendered the new variant more transmissible and therefore better able to survive and be replicated.
-
What is the benefit of survival without the need to survive? 'Survival' is a meaningless 'benefit' without a need for it.
You're tying yourself in knots looking for things that aren't there. There is no absolute benefit or meaning. Things survive because they are good at survival and they got to be good at survival by accumulating lots of random changes, over multiple generations, that were better at surviving than their peers and hence passed on their survival traits to the next generation.
It is only in order to circumvent this obvious conclusion that convoluted explanations of random variations and a chance driven NS are resorted to.
Thinking that random variation and selection is at all convoluted is just more evidence that you haven't grasped it. It's not at all convoluted, it's stunning, beautifully, amazingly simple.
-
AB,
You're wrong again. I can tell you why you're wrong in plain and comprehensible language. I can support the explanation for why you're wrong with reasoned argument. You though will just ignore the plainly expressed, reason-justified explanation I give you and will make exactly the same mistake again when you want to come back to it.
What's the point?
The reason why I am unable to accept any of your reasoned arguments is because they deny the reality of God's love.
I have quoted this incident before, but I feel it is worth recalling:
Our son was acting as an alter server during a school Mass. After the distribution of Holy Communion, a girl pupil sang Bob Dylan's "To Make You Feel My Love". The inspired words of the song brought tears to the eyes of most who were there - including teachers. It was a truly amazing experience. Those who know God's love would recognise that Dylan's song was more than just a trite love story between two people. Those who do not yet know God's love should take heed of what they are missing out on.
-
The god of the Bible has a very weird take on love, if the deeds attributed to it are true.
-
The reason why I am unable to accept any of your reasoned arguments is because they deny the reality of God's love.
I don't know how you can look at the reality of this Universe and conclude God loves you.
-
The reason why I am unable to accept any of your reasoned arguments is because they deny the reality of God's love.
So you're simply refusing to accept reasoning and logic because it would upset your cherished preconceptions and superstitions. If you can't face the reality exposed by logic, I guess that's up to you, but, if that is the real reason, then pretending that you have logic or evidence yourself is dishonest.
Oh, and an omnipotent, omniscient, just and fair, creator god, who actually loves us and has an important message for us is completely inconsistent with reality regardless of any arguments about free will.
-
AB,
The reason why I am unable to accept any of your reasoned arguments is because they deny the reality of God's love.
Unless you can justify a claim like “the reality of God’s love” all you have is unqualified assertion.
I have quoted this incident before, but I feel it is worth recalling:
Our son was acting as an alter server during a school Mass. After the distribution of Holy Communion, a girl pupil sang Bob Dylan's "To Make You Feel My Love". The inspired words of the song brought tears to the eyes of most who were there - including teachers. It was a truly amazing experience. Those who know God's love would recognise that Dylan's song was more than just a trite love story between two people. Those who do not yet know God's love should take heed of what they are missing out on.
And that’s it? A song well performed brought tears to your eyes and so that’s enough evidence for you dismiss any “reasoned arguments” at all? Seriously though?
And by the way it troubles you not that people with no religious beliefs or with different religious beliefs to your own can have just as powerful emotional reactions to songs, that this supposed god occupies his time making your cry at Dylan songs while permitting babies to die of brain cancer, that there’s no means to deduce from “I cried at a song” the conclusion “therefore a loving god” other than by blind faith?
Seriously though Alan, this is embarrassing.
-
Phenotypic plasticity is an intelligent response to changes in the environment. If normal biology allows for these types of adaptation....there is obviously a conscious intent behind it.
Think about it this way : a phenotypic response may be an example of defacto intelligence, but that doesn't mean that there was an intelligence 'behind it'. The response itself is something we might describe as intelligent, a phenomenon we can observe just like we can describe the sky as blue or water as wet. 'Intelligent' may be a word we can use to describe the brilliance of Paul Dirac, or it could be the emergent behaviour of an insect swarm, it is an observed phenomenon of complexity. But to say there is something 'behind it' adds nothing of value. It is the phenomenon itself that merits the description 'intelligent'.
-
Those who know God's love would recognise that Dylan's song was more than just a trite love story between two people.
So the love that may exist between two people is 'trite' is it AB.
Well you know what, the love between two people is hugely more profound and significant than the love between a single person and a man-made god.
-
What is the benefit of survival without the need to survive? 'Survival' is a meaningless 'benefit' without a need for it.
Nature is a lethal competition - if you fail to survive, you fail to pass on traits to your offspring. The benefit of survival, in this scenario, is not to the individual...
O.
-
The reason why I am unable to accept any of your reasoned arguments is because they deny the reality of God's love.
I have quoted this incident before, but I feel it is worth recalling:
Our son was acting as an alter server during a school Mass. After the distribution of Holy Communion, a girl pupil sang Bob Dylan's "To Make You Feel My Love". The inspired words of the song brought tears to the eyes of most who were there - including teachers. It was a truly amazing experience. Those who know God's love would recognise that Dylan's song was more than just a trite love story between two people. Those who do not yet know God's love should take heed of what they are missing out on.
Up until at least the 1800s 1 in 3 children died before their 5th birthday... but God loves us, right?
Entire species lifecycle is dependent upon burying into various human organs... but God loves us, right?
The reality of, well, reality, does not support the contention that the universe was produced for our benefit by a loving God, but it is entirely in keeping with an amoral universe in which beneficial survival traits are inherited by descendants leading to variation amongst species.
O.
-
Think about it this way : a phenotypic response may be an example of defacto intelligence, but that doesn't mean that there was an intelligence 'behind it'. The response itself is something we might describe as intelligent, a phenomenon we can observe just like we can describe the sky as blue or water as wet. 'Intelligent' may be a word we can use to describe the brilliance of Paul Dirac, or it could be the emergent behaviour of an insect swarm, it is an observed phenomenon of complexity. But to say there is something 'behind it' adds nothing of value. It is the phenomenon itself that merits the description 'intelligent'.
Finally you accept that many of the processes in evolution and in nature are intelligent. They are not just random. That is fine.
Intelligence has to be a product of consciousness because the response cannot be just a blind response. It has to be a considered response taking into account the overall scenario. Considerable coordination is required. Otherwise it will not be intelligent.
-
Nature is a lethal competition - if you fail to survive, you fail to pass on traits to your offspring. The benefit of survival, in this scenario, is not to the individual...
O.
You talk of the benefit of survival but you are still not telling me why survival is important or beneficial. Why is living important?
Why would something fight to survive without a need to survive?
-
Finally you accept that many of the processes in evolution and in nature are intelligent. They are not just random. That is fine.
Intelligence has to be a product of consciousness because the response cannot be just a blind response. It has to be a considered response taking into account the overall scenario. Considerable coordination is required. Otherwise it will not be intelligent.
We might say that intellligence emerges in an insect swarm. A swarm of bees can make intelligent choices that an individual bee cannot. So what this means is that intelligence is an emergent phenomenon arising out of complex systems. It doesn't mean there is something 'behind' it. If intelligence were something that requires another intelligence to be behind it, then from what would the 'behind' intelligence arise from ? This implies an infinite regress of intelligences, and so cannot be the right way to understand these things. Likewise, the wetness of water arises from the interaction of water molecules, it does not need some 'wetness' to be behind it. The blueness of the sky does not need some blueness to be behind it. The garden can be seen to be quite beautiful without there having to be fairies behind it.
-
We might say that intellligence emerges in an insect swarm. A swarm of bees can make intelligent choices that an individual bee cannot. So what this means is that intelligence is an emergent phenomenon arising out of complex systems. It doesn't mean there is something 'behind' it. If intelligence were something that requires another intelligence to be behind it, then from what would the 'behind' intelligence arise from ? This implies an infinite regress of intelligences, and so cannot be the right way to understand these things. Likewise, the wetness of water arises from the interaction of water molecules, it does not need some 'wetness' to be behind it. The blueness of the sky does not need some blueness to be behind it. The garden can be seen to be quite beautiful without there having to be fairies behind it.
In fact, the swarm of bees behaving in an intelligent manner is sufficient evidence that there is a common coordinating consciousness behind it.
The infinite regress argument is meaningless in a situation where we cannot see beyond a certain level of reality. What is behind the big bang, what causes the singularity, what is behind the multiverse, what causes virtual particles to arise........ ad infinitum...! These questions are anyway endless.
When you say something 'emerges' from something...you are advocating 'magic'. Emergence of such complex properties is nothing short of magic.
-
In fact, the swarm of bees behaving in an intelligent manner is sufficient evidence that there is a common coordinating consciousness behind it.
The infinite regress argument is meaningless in a situation where we cannot see beyond a certain level of reality. What is behind the big bang, what causes the singularity, what is behind the multiverse, what causes virtual particles to arise........ ad infinitum...! These questions are anyway endless.
When you say something 'emerges' from something...you are advocating 'magic'. Emergence of such complex properties is nothing short of magic.
No, I am saying you are mistaking emergence for something spooky. The fact that intelligence emerges in an insect swarm helps us to understand what intelligence actually is. The idea that intelligence arises because of the intelligence behind it goes nowhere useful. So, the intelligence behind intelligence must derive from the intellligence behind the intelligence and the intelligence behind the intelligence behind the intelligence .... This is a nonsense way to understand complex phenomena. Complexity arises from the bottom up, from simplicity, not the other way round, that is a fundamentally irrational way to conceptualise things.
-
Ok....thanks guys....! :)
-
You talk of the benefit of survival but you are still not telling me why survival is important or beneficial. Why is living important?
It's not important in any absolute sense - it's just what happens.
Why would something fight to survive without a need to survive?
This isn't a difficult question: fighting for survival is a survival advantage. Amazing, isn't it? ::)
Given a two organisms, one that fights (or fights better) for survival and one that doesn't (or is less good at it), which do you think is more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on its genes?
Everything alive today comes from a long line of ancestors who were better at surviving than their peers. It couldn't be less surprising or mysterious that we observe 'survival instincts' and organisms that fight for their survival. No further explanation is needed. No intelligence, no basic need to survive, no absolute importance to survival, just the really, really simple process of variation and selection.
-
You talk of the benefit of survival but you are still not telling me why survival is important or beneficial. Why is living important?
To the first ones, it wasn't - and they died in equal measure. To their offspring, some of them had a trait for survival, others didn't, and the ones with the trait survived and passed that trait on. It became important because of environmental pressures, it wasn't designed as important, it's not important in some overarching metaphorical sense.
Why would something fight to survive without a need to survive?
Initially they wouldn't - over time, because the instinct to survive proves effective at replication.
O.
-
When I was very young my mother told me that I tripped on a stone step and immediately tried to hit the step because I blamed it for me stumbling. I saw the step as having some sort of magical personality and therefore, in my mind, it was responsible for me tripping. This is not an uncommon feature in small children of course.
The way Sriram insists that there has always been some form of survival instinct induced by some sort of consciousness, seems to be an extension of such childish thinking. It would also explain his complete misunderstanding of the basic idea that if A is more likely to survive and reproduce than B then its progeny will be more likely to flourish, no survival instinct needed.. I don't think that he appreciates that any random changes which aid that effect will necessarily lead to greater chances of survival. So, just as I anthropormophised the step by making it responsible for my stumbling, Sriram is inclined to imprint some sort of non material 'consciousness' to explain evolutionary processes.
For Sriram it all ties in with his celestial worlds, universal consciousness, reincarnation ideas etc. He isn't going to deviate from this, I suspect, because it makes sense to him, just as hitting the step made sense to me when I was young.
-
When I was very young my mother told me that I tripped on a stone step and immediately tried to hit the step because I blamed it for me stumbling. I saw the step as having some sort of magical personality and therefore, in my mind, it was responsible for me tripping. This is not an uncommon feature in small children of course.
The way Sriram insists that there has always been some form of survival instinct induced by some sort of consciousness, seems to be an extension of such childish thinking. It would also explain his complete misunderstanding of the basic idea that if A is more likely to survive and reproduce than B then its progeny will be more likely to flourish, no survival instinct needed.. I don't think that he appreciates that any random changes which aid that effect will necessarily lead to greater chances of survival. So, just as I anthropormophised the step by making it responsible for my stumbling, Sriram is inclined to imprint some sort of non material 'consciousness' to explain evolutionary processes.
For Sriram it all ties in with his celestial worlds, universal consciousness, reincarnation ideas etc. He isn't going to deviate from this, I suspect, because it makes sense to him, just as hitting the step made sense to me when I was young.
Your ability to allocate blame for such an incident would indicate a unique form of consciousness not found in other species whose instinctive behaviour would be restricted to overcoming the negative consequences. Your ability to consciously allocate blame appears to go beyond what is needed for mere survival.
-
Finally you accept that many of the processes in evolution and in nature are intelligent. They are not just random. That is fine.
Random and intelligent are not the only two options.
Intelligence has to be a product of consciousness because the response cannot be just a blind response. It has to be a considered response taking into account the overall scenario. Considerable coordination is required. Otherwise it will not be intelligent.
I think we've got a problem here with both the definition of intelligence and consciousness.
-
Your ability to allocate blame for such an incident would indicate a unique form of consciousness not found in other species whose instinctive behaviour would be restricted to overcoming the negative consequences.
One tends not to find the human brain in other species, so your comparison (such as it is) is vacuous: just as it would be vacuous to point out that some species have wings, but we don't.
Your ability to consciously allocate blame appears to go beyond what is needed for mere survival.
Our species has acquired the capacity to learn from experience, which is a useful survival trait, such as in learning to be careful when negotiating stone steps.
-
Your ability to allocate blame for such an incident would indicate a unique form of consciousness not found in other species whose instinctive behaviour would be restricted to overcoming the negative consequences. Your ability to consciously allocate blame appears to go beyond what is needed for mere survival.
The tendency to allocate blame where none is due (as in the case of Enki's step) is a cognitive bias, agent detection, and it features in other animals too, not just humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection)
And, yes, there clearly is survival value in it, why otherwise would it become so widespread ?
-
Your ability to allocate blame for such an incident would indicate a unique form of consciousness not found in other species whose instinctive behaviour would be restricted to overcoming the negative consequences.
Possibly - our ability to ascertain the exact level of understanding elsewhere in the animal kingdom is limited, however, your implicit assertion that this behaviour on our part is somehow not an 'instinctive behaviour... [for]... overcoming the negative consequences' is not warranted. We don't know exactly what environmental pressures led to this trait being selected for.
Your ability to consciously allocate blame appears to go beyond what is needed for mere survival.
Perhaps - it may be a byproduct of some other facet which provides an advantage but which doesn't, itself, pose either a benefit or a penalty to passing on genes. On the other hand, the idea that Type I errors when reacting to potentially deliberate threats (i.e. a predator) give an evolutionary benefit over Type II errors is a reasonably clear evidence that mischaracterising intent on the part of inanimate objects could simply be a byproduct of our having evolved from the forebears who presumed a threat and reacted.
O.
-
The tendency to allocate blame where none is due (as in the case of Enki's step) is a cognitive bias, agent detection, and it features in other animals too, not just humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection)
And, yes, there clearly is survival value in it, why otherwise would it become so widespread ?
Yes...it is an intelligent response to a situation that could potentially be dangerous. It also helps in watching out in the future.
I would say that....it is an intelligent 'program' built into the system to meet the objective of survival.
You will tell me that....it is a random response that just happened to get perpetuated through 'chance' natural selection because it happened to be useful.
That is the difference between our way of thinking.
-
Yes...it is an intelligent response to a situation that could potentially be dangerous. It also helps in watching out in the future.
I would say that....it is an intelligent 'program' built into the system to meet the objective of survival.
You will tell me that....it is a random response that just happened to get perpetuated through 'chance' natural selection because it happened to be useful.
That is the difference between our way of thinking.
Yes, genetic mutations are random, or effectively random, at least. We have no evidence to the contrary. Seeing design where there is no designer in actual fact is just another example of the agent detection bias at work, writ large through millennia of human thinking.
-
Yes...it is an intelligent response to a situation that could potentially be dangerous. It also helps in watching out in the future.
I would say that....it is an intelligent 'program' built into the system to meet the objective of survival.
You will tell me that....it is a random response that just happened to get perpetuated through 'chance' natural selection because it happened to be useful.
That is the difference between our way of thinking.
It isn't a different way of thinking, it's you (apparently) just stubbornly refusing to even try to understand. Of course things that are useful for survival do, in fact, survive more than others, and, given random variation, useful traits will appear from time to time. That is all the explanation needed for why organisms today have lots of useful survival features. No intelligence needed. Well, none for the process to take place, and very little to understand it. Why not give it a go? Go on, dare to think outside your comfort zone!
-
Yes...it is an intelligent response to a situation that could potentially be dangerous. It also helps in watching out in the future.
Yes.
I would say that....it is an intelligent 'program' built into the system to meet the objective of survival.
Probably.
You will tell me that....it is a random response that just happened to get perpetuated through 'chance' natural selection because it happened to be useful.
No. Once again, natural selection is exactly the opposite of chance, it's a rigorous (life and death in many instances, including the scenarios envisioned in this example) selection conducted continuously over generations of offspring, it's about as far from 'chance' as you can get. The original variations upon which the selection may act are, functionally, random so far as we can tell, but once the variations are in place the selection is anything but 'chance'.
That is the difference between our way of thinking.
To be blunt, that we appear to understand the broad sweep of how the neo-Darwinian model of evolution works, and you appear not to. You continue to equate natural selection with random chance.
O.
-
Your ability to allocate blame for such an incident would indicate a unique form of consciousness not found in other species whose instinctive behaviour would be restricted to overcoming the negative consequences. Your ability to consciously allocate blame appears to go beyond what is needed for mere survival.
What this incident seems to be an example of is the ability of humans to create imaginary scenarios in their own head, hence the idea that the step, in some imaginary way, had some sort of personality. I immediately thought of how young animals can stalk inanimate objects and even pounce on them? Are they showing similar use of imagination? It's certainly a good learning strategy to hone their survival skills. And then, I found this fascinating article which deserves to be read in its entirety.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130207-can-animals-imagine
The evidence suggests that the ability to imagine is not unique to humans and its origins could well be in the fact that it aided survival learning techniques. As far as the blaming aspect is concerned, I see no reason to think that this is not simply an extension of this aspect stemming from the complexity of the human brain and the complexity of human language. I wonder, for instance, how often a mother/father has said to their child "naughty step" when the child has tripped over it!
-
Yes.
Probably.
No. Once again, natural selection is exactly the opposite of chance, it's a rigorous (life and death in many instances, including the scenarios envisioned in this example) selection conducted continuously over generations of offspring, it's about as far from 'chance' as you can get. The original variations upon which the selection may act are, functionally, random so far as we can tell, but once the variations are in place the selection is anything but 'chance'.
To be blunt, that we appear to understand the broad sweep of how the neo-Darwinian model of evolution works, and you appear not to. You continue to equate natural selection with random chance.
O.
I understand the Neo Darwinian model....but I don't agree with it. Fundamentally, in this model, the reason any trait appears is random. NS acts only on phenotypes that happen to arise by chance.
Phenotypic plasticity clearly indicates that phenotypes do not just happen to arise. They arise in response to environmental requirements. There is an intelligent responsive 'program' built into the system.
Some people will immediately argue that the intelligent responsive element is itself a 'selected' trait through NS. :D That is having the cake and eating it too!
Once 'survival' becomes an objective of evolution...there is intent behind it.
-
I understand the Neo Darwinian model...
No, it's blindingly obvious from your posts that you don't. You may think you do, but that isn't the same thing at all.
Fundamentally, in this model, the reason any trait appears is random. NS acts only on phenotypes that happen to arise by chance.
And that is absolutely all that is needed. Traits that aid survival are bound to arise and then natural selection takes over. It will also, of course, stamp out unhelpful traits.
Phenotypic plasticity clearly indicates that phenotypes do not just happen to arise. They arise in response to environmental requirements. There is an intelligent responsive 'program' built into the system.
Now you're showing again that you don't understand. Phenotypic plasticity is not evolution, it is the product of evolution.
Some people will immediately argue that the intelligent responsive element is itself a 'selected' trait through NS. :D That is having the cake and eating it too!
In what possible way is that "having the cake and eating it too"? It is obvious, and backed up by endless evidence.
Once 'survival' becomes an objective of evolution...there is intent behind it.
It isn't the 'object' of evolution. It's just what inevitably happens as a result of it. If all life doesn't die out, the resulting life will be good at survival. It doesn't need some mysterious explanation, it's practically a truism.
Come on Sriram, step outside your comfort zone, just a little bit, and think about it!
-
I understand the Neo Darwinian model....but I don't agree with it. Fundamentally, in this model, the reason any trait appears is random.
Arguably, no; however, the proximate cause is likely happening on a scale that makes the environmental factors which will exert selection functionally irrelevant. It's random with respect to the macroscopic activity the organism is encountering.
NS acts only on phenotypes that happen to arise by chance.
Functionally, yes; absolutely, possibly (arguably probably) not.
Phenotypic plasticity clearly indicates that phenotypes do not just happen to arise. They arise in response to environmental requirements.
No, it doesn't; they arise, in terms of the environmental influences, in most instances randomly. They persist in response to the environmental pressures, but they arise regardless.
There is an intelligent responsive 'program' built into the system.
I have seen no evidence of that whatsoever; I'd be interested to see some creditable science that suggests that.
Some people will immediately argue that the intelligent responsive element is itself a 'selected' trait through NS. :D That is having the cake and eating it too!
That really depends on if the response is a cultural one (i.e. tribalism, mating rituals) or something phsyiological (i.e. long necks, webbed feet).
Once 'survival' becomes an objective of evolution...there is intent behind it.
If survival became an objective, yes; however, survival is overwhelmingly more often simply a result, there is no planning, there are just organisms that survival preferentially because of a functionally random trait emerging or diminishing.
O.
-
Phenotypic plasticity clearly indicates that phenotypes do not just happen to arise.
Phenotypic plasticity (as you call it) - not a term I recognise although I have spent about 35 years largely studying changes in phenotype at a cellular level. I assume you mean the ability of a cell or organism to adapt its phenotype in response to an environmental stimulus. Yup - it occurs all the time, but it is the product of evolution, but the cause of it.
They arise in response to environmental requirements.
Not they don't - they arise randomly via standard genomic mutations and it there is an evolutionary advantage (as will often be the case if it allows the organism to be better adapted to a changing environment) they will persist and be selected for via standard evolutionary natural selection processes.
There is an intelligent responsive 'program' built into the system.
'Intelligence' - better described as adaptability, arises through evolutionary processes - there is no 'intelligent responsive 'program' built into the system'. The system simply favours traits that are heritable and confer better likelihood of survival - nothing more, nothing less.
Some people will immediately argue that the intelligent responsive element is itself a 'selected' trait through NS.
Indeed they do - many of those people may be scientists and it is an argument based on overwhelming evidence.
That is having the cake and eating it too!
No it isn't - it is perfectly consistent with the basic principles of evolution by natural selection.
Once 'survival' becomes an objective of evolution...there is intent behind it.
No there isn't - as it is self evidence that if a trait supports survival it will ... err ... survive, provided that it is heritable. There is no intent, merely a basic mechanism.
-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/phenotypic-plasticity
*********
Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of an organism to change in response to stimuli or inputs from the environment.
Phenotypic plasticity refers to the observation that a given genotype expresses different phenotypes in different ecological settings.
Phenotypic plasticity refers to the ability of a genotype to express different phenotypes depending on the environment in which it resides.
Morphological plasticity, also called phenotypic plasticity, refers to the potential of organisms to change specific anatomical traits in response to different environments independent of their genotype.
*********
Clearly Phenotypic plasticity does not arise randomly....
-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/phenotypic-plasticity
*********
Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of an organism to change in response to stimuli or inputs from the environment.
Phenotypic plasticity refers to the observation that a given genotype expresses different phenotypes in different ecological settings.
Phenotypic plasticity refers to the ability of a genotype to express different phenotypes depending on the environment in which it resides.
Morphological plasticity, also called phenotypic plasticity, refers to the potential of organisms to change specific anatomical traits in response to different environments independent of their genotype.
Yes I know what you mean by it. What I was pointing out is that it isn't a term widely used by researchers who study the adaptation of phenotype to environmental stimuli or changes. Why do I know this - well because I am a professional academic researcher with 35 years of experience studying just that, and have published well over 100 research journal articles on the topic. Yet I've never used the term myself nor, to my recollection, have I heard any one of my esteemed research colleagues use the term.
*********
Clearly Phenotypic plasticity does not arise randomly....
Nope - it arises randomly through mutations in the genome and if advantageous and heritable will be retained. Standard evolution.
-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/phenotypic-plasticity
*********
Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of an organism to change in response to stimuli or inputs from the environment.
Phenotypic plasticity refers to the observation that a given genotype expresses different phenotypes in different ecological settings.
Phenotypic plasticity refers to the ability of a genotype to express different phenotypes depending on the environment in which it resides.
Morphological plasticity, also called phenotypic plasticity, refers to the potential of organisms to change specific anatomical traits in response to different environments independent of their genotype.
*********
Clearly Phenotypic plasticity does not arise randomly....
I don't think anybody apart from you is confused about what it is. What you don't seem to understand is that phenotypic plasticity is something (a collection of traits) that evolved in the normal way. It isn't how things evolve.
-
A Arctic fox that is white in winter and brown in summer is due to random variation?? A chameleon that changes color by the minute is due to random variation??
-
A Arctic fox that is white in winter and brown in summer is due to random variation??
Yup - a mutation that results in alterations in pigment colour, probably linked to temperature or some other environmental cue. Quite likely at some point another mutation may have occurred that resulted in white colouration in the summer and brown in the winter. Can you begin to see why that one might not have been selected for via natural selection, while the reverse will have been.
A chameleon that changes color by the minute is due to random variation??
The ability to change colour to blend into a background is so mind bogglingly useful in survival terms if it derives in the manner you suggest, why wouldn't all sorts of species have developed it. That they haven't is very strong evidence that the trait is the result of chance mutation rather than deliberate adaptation.
-
A Arctic fox that is white in winter and brown in summer is due to random variation?? A chameleon that changes color by the minute is due to random variation??
The change in colour isn't a random variation, the ability to change colour in response to the environment came about through random variation and selection, just like any other ability that is useful for survival.
-
But polyphenism is not due to change in genotype (mutation). With the same genotype changes in phenotype happen. The Arctic fox is one instance.
-
But polyphenism is not due to change in genotype (mutation). With the same genotype changes in phenotype happen. The Arctic fox is one instance.
You really are totally confused about this. Polyphenism itself (the actual ability to produce more than one phenotype from a single genotype) is something that evolved by genetic variation and natural selection.
See: Polyphenism - Evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphenism#Evolution).
A mechanism has been proposed for the evolutionary development of polyphenisms:
- A mutation results in a novel, heritable trait.
- The trait's frequency expands in the population, creating a population on which selection can act.
- Pre-existing (background) genetic variation in other genes results in phenotypic differences in expression of the new trait.
- These phenotypic differences undergo selection; as genotypic differences narrow, the trait becomes:
- Genetically fixed (non-responsive to environmental conditions)
- Polyphenic (responsive to environmental conditions)
Evolution of novel polyphenisms through this mechanism has been demonstrated in the laboratory. Suzuki and Nijhout used an existing mutation (black) in a monophenic green hornworm (Manduca sexta) that causes a black phenotype. They found that if larvae from an existing population of black mutants were raised at 20˚C, then all the final instar larvae were black; but if the larvae were instead raised at 28˚C, the final instar larvae ranged in color from black to green. By selecting for larvae that were black if raised at 20˚C but green if raised at 28˚C, they produced a polyphenic strain after thirteen generations.
This fits the model described above because a new mutation (black) was required to reveal pre-existing genetic variation and to permit selection. Furthermore, the production of a polyphenic strain was only possible because of background variation within the species: two alleles, one temperature-sensitive and one stable, were present for a single gene upstream of black (in the pigment production pathway) before selection occurred. The temperature-sensitive allele was not observable because at high temperatures, it caused an increase in green pigment in hornworms that were already bright green. However, introduction of the black mutant caused the temperature-dependent changes in pigment production to become obvious. The researchers could then select for larvae with the temperature-sensitive allele, resulting in a polyphenism.
-
But polyphenism is not due to change in genotype (mutation). With the same genotype changes in phenotype happen. The Arctic fox is one instance.
No shit Sherlock - I know. Indeed the difference between the phenotype of a nerve cell, a white blood cell and a muscle cell in our bodies is also not due to change in genotype.
The point is that a random mutation may result in a system that become adaptable to the environment. Usually this will involve proteins (coded for by the genotype) where the protein function is determined by its shape or conformation. A simple mutation in the genome can result in a slight variation in the protein. This may make the protein non-functional, or more functional (e.g. for an enzyme), but it may also make the protein change shape in response to changes in the environment. Good examples would be salinity and temperature. So this may result in a protein that is non functional at one temperature (or salinity) and functional at another temperature (or salinity). Now if this turn on, turn off mutation is evolutionarily advantageous it will be selected for and will persist.
And one thing that proteins also do is turn on and off other genes so you can get a whole load of phenotypic changes associated with a single mutation if that mutation is for a so-called response element that controls the activity of other genes.
-
Our species has acquired the capacity to learn from experience, which is a useful survival trait, such as in learning to be careful when negotiating stone steps.
I've been away for a couple of days so am catching up on this.
Wouldn't it be truer to say that many species have the capacity to learn from experience. The essential difference between homo sapiens and other species is that its members have the ability to pass onto other members the information concerned with the experience and its consequences so that they, when faced with the experience, can deal with it appropriately?
-
I've been away for a couple of days so am catching up on this.
Wouldn't it be truer to say that many species have the capacity to learn from experience. The essential difference between homo sapiens and other species is that its members have the ability to pass onto other members the information concerned with the experience and its consequences so that they, when faced with the experience, can deal with it appropriately?
Certain other species appear to have the ability to pass on the information, and indeed the consequences.
-
No shit Sherlock - I know. Indeed the difference between the phenotype of a nerve cell, a white blood cell and a muscle cell in our bodies is also not due to change in genotype.
The point is that a random mutation may result in a system that become adaptable to the environment. Usually this will involve proteins (coded for by the genotype) where the protein function is determined by its shape or conformation. A simple mutation in the genome can result in a slight variation in the protein. This may make the protein non-functional, or more functional (e.g. for an enzyme), but it may also make the protein change shape in response to changes in the environment. Good examples would be salinity and temperature. So this may result in a protein that is non functional at one temperature (or salinity) and functional at another temperature (or salinity). Now if this turn on, turn off mutation is evolutionarily advantageous it will be selected for and will persist.
And one thing that proteins also do is turn on and off other genes so you can get a whole load of phenotypic changes associated with a single mutation if that mutation is for a so-called response element that controls the activity of other genes.
And to Never Talk to Strangers......
You are again discussing mechanisms. Which are fine....I have no problems with that....but not relevant to what I am saying. You are so involved in details that you are missing the woods for the trees.
Polyphenism indicates an intelligent and responsive mechanism that enables adaptation to changing environments. It indicates that 'survival' and reproduction are objectives of Life and evolution.
Complexity is probably another objective because increasing complexity does not necessarily mean better survival and reproduction. Simpler organisms could survive better. So, complexity has to be an additional objective for whatever reason.
You people keep saying that everything is due to random variations and natural selection. You keep insisting that mechanisms are causes....to which I can't agree.
According to me randomness doesn't exist and natural selection is just a metaphor. Selection, if at all, happens through active adaptation and intelligent responses.
-
And to Never Talk to Strangers......
You are again discussing mechanisms. Which are fine....I have no problems with that....but not relevant to what I am saying. You are so involved in details that you are missing the woods for the trees.
Polyphenism indicates an intelligent and responsive mechanism that enables adaptation to changing environments. It indicates that 'survival' and reproduction are objectives of Life and evolution.
Complexity is probably another objective because increasing complexity does not necessarily mean better survival and reproduction. Simpler organisms could survive better. So, complexity has to be an additional objective for whatever reason.
You people keep saying that everything is due to random variations and natural selection. You keep insisting that mechanisms are causes....to which I can't agree.
According to me randomness doesn't exist and natural selection is just a metaphor. Selection, if at all, happens through active adaptation and intelligent responses.
The rise of the Delta strain of Sars-Cov2 is a classic case of Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
So, according to you, the various mutations that together make up the Delta variant are not random, so, by implication, you believe they must be planned.
According to you, the fact that this strain is now outcompeting the Alpha strain is because particles of the Delta variant are showing more intelligence than particles with Alpha DNA.
Is that what you think ?
-
The rise of the Delta strain of Sars-Cov2 is a classic case of Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
So, according to you, the various mutations that together make up the Delta variant are not random, so, by implication, you believe they must be planned.
According to you, the fact that this strain is now outcompeting the Alpha strain is because particles of the Delta variant are showing more intelligence than particles with Alpha DNA.
Is that what you think ?
I am not saying any such thing. I am saying that Intelligence is built into the system and Life (and evolution) have a purpose. This has nothing to do with religion or scriptures of any culture.
I don't claim to understand it all. Obviously I don't. The fact that Life and evolution have a purpose (survival, reproduction and complexity) shows that there is some Intent behind it.
To me, Consciousness is ubiquitous and is responsible for Life and evolution. The article in the OP and other articles I have linked here and in other threads indicate that Consciousness could be fundamental and survives death.
IMO, dismissing Life and evolution and complexity as just a result of random events...is quite inane.
-
You are again discussing mechanisms. Which are fine....I have no problems with that....but not relevant to what I am saying. You are so involved in details that you are missing the woods for the trees.
No, it appears we're missing the fairy-tale castle for the trees.
Polyphenism indicates an intelligent and responsive mechanism that enables adaptation to changing environments. It indicates that 'survival' and reproduction are objectives of Life and evolution.
No, you're conflating correlation with causation.
Complexity is probably another objective because increasing complexity does not necessarily mean better survival and reproduction. Simpler organisms could survive better. So, complexity has to be an additional objective for whatever reason.
No, complexity is sometimes the result, sometimes not. It's a possibility that can be selected for or against in any given situation.
You people keep saying that everything is due to random variations and natural selection. You keep insisting that mechanisms are causes....to which I can't agree.
Unless you can give a cogent reason, though, that says more about you than it does about evolution. It's your inability to accept/understand rather than evolutionary theory's ability to explain the observable phenomena.
According to me randomness doesn't exist and natural selection is just a metaphor.
I don't think there's a random element in an absolute sense; I think the scale at which effects bringing about mutation happen are so fundamentally different to the scale on which organisms are operating that functionally it's random. For me it's akin to weather - each atom in the atmosphere is subject to deterministic influences of temperature, gravity, electromagnetism etc., but the overall effect is weather which is on a day to day basis functionally random.
Selection, if at all, happens through active adaptation and intelligent responses.
You can assert it as much as you like, but unless you can explain why that's the case you're just the evolutionary equivalent of a flat earther insisting that our planet is fundamentally different from every other object in the heavens because reasons.
O.
-
I am not saying any such thing. I am saying that Intelligence is built into the system and Life (and evolution) have a purpose. This has nothing to do with religion or scriptures of any culture.
I don't claim to understand it all. Obviously I don't. The fact that Life and evolution have a purpose (survival, reproduction and complexity) shows that there is some Intent behind it.
To me, Consciousness is ubiquitous and is responsible for Life and evolution. The article in the OP and other articles I have linked here and in other threads indicate that Consciousness could be fundamental and survives death.
IMO, dismissing Life and evolution and complexity as just a result of random events...is quite inane.
You're not joining your own dots. If mutations on the Sars-Cov2 genome did not happen by 'random' copy errors, then by what mechanism did they happen ? Explain.
-
You're not joining your own dots. If mutations on the Sars-Cov2 genome did not happen by 'random' copy errors, then by what mechanism did they happen ? Explain.
Obviously survival is its objective....and it finds ways of surviving and increasing its numbers. Why should it be random...?
-
Obviously survival is its objective....and it finds ways of surviving and increasing its numbers. Why should it be random...?
How can a virus particle have objectives ? Outside of a human cell, a particle of Sars-Cov2 is not even alive. Do inanimate stretches of DNA go looking for a host with the objective of replicating themselves imperfectly ?
-
How can a virus particle have objectives ? Outside of a human cell, a particle of Sars-Cov2 is not even alive. Do inanimate stretches of DNA go looking for a host with the objective of replicating themselves imperfectly ?
Clearly, 'survival' is its objective. There is no doubt about that. Why, I don't know. Why life itself has evolved I don't know. If you have any idea...let me know....except random, of course.
A virus does not know its objectives any more than a bird or an ant....or even we humans for that matter. Do we know why we exist...or why we want to survive and reproduce.......no.
I can't separate a virus from the totality. I can sense an objective for humans and I do believe that consciousness survives death (NDE). I do believe that there is order and a pattern in life. There is an intent and purpose. A virus cannot be outside the system. It also serves some purpose in the totality.
-
Obviously survival is its objective....and it finds ways of surviving and increasing its numbers. Why should it be random...?
You're just desperately trying to see something that isn't there and isn't needed.
It doesn't need an objective. Viruses mutate all the time. Sometimes a mutation gives it a survival advantage, so those with the mutation survive better and become dominant. It really is that simple. It doesn't mutate because of some survival objective, it's just not perfect at making copies of itself - and that's all that is required.
Plenty of mutations will have happened that either don't give it an advantage or make it less able to survive. I wonder if you could guess why we never get to hear about those?
-
Clearly, 'survival' is its objective. There is no doubt about that.
Unmitigated drivel.
Why, I don't know. Why life itself has evolved I don't know. If you have any idea...let me know....except random, of course.
Evolution. That theory you refuse to even try to understand in case it punctures your comfort zone of blind superstition.
Do we know why we exist...or why we want to survive and reproduce.......no.
There is no 'why we exist' as far as I can see but we know perfectly well why we want to survive and reproduce.
I can't separate a virus from the totality. I can sense an objective for humans and I do believe that consciousness survives death (NDE). I do believe that there is order and a pattern in life. There is an intent and purpose. A virus cannot be outside the system. It also serves some purpose in the totality.
Which is nothing more but a statement of your own blind faith.
-
I've been away for a couple of days so am catching up on this.
Wouldn't it be truer to say that many species have the capacity to learn from experience. The essential difference between homo sapiens and other species is that its members have the ability to pass onto other members the information concerned with the experience and its consequences so that they, when faced with the experience, can deal with it appropriately?
True: but, in my defense, I was deliberately posting a brief response to Alan's post (his #220) which was specifically about Enki's 'stone steps' example.
-
It doesn't need an objective. Viruses mutate all the time. Sometimes a mutation gives it a survival advantage, so those with the mutation survive better and become dominant. It really is that simple. It doesn't mutate because of some survival objective, it's just not perfect at making copies of itself - and that's all that is required.
Absolutely - there are (I think literally) countless numbers of mutations that have occurred in the SARS-coV-2 virus over the past 18 months or so.
I was just looking at a paper published in summer last year, so using data from only about the first 6 months of the pandemic. They detected over 300,000 mutations in the relatively small samples they looked at. So fast forward to now and there will be many millions of mutations that have happened. And the reason I say countless is because you will only be able to analyse samples where the mutation doesn't render the virus nonviable or transmissible. So there will be a bias in the analysis to mutations that aren't catastrophic in terms of virus viability - those ones we simply won't be aware of.
So of those millions of random mutations (most being single nucleotide) you can count on the fingers of one hand the ones that appear to render the virus more transmissible and are therefore variants of concern.
If survival was an objective, as Sriram claims, then why would the hit rate of perhaps one in a million, be so low. The reason is that mutations are simply random events - the majority have no effect in survival terms (or are detrimental). Very, very occasionally a mutation arises randomly that is beneficial in terms of virus replication/transmissibility. And guess what - we see that strain rapidly dominate as it replicates more rapidly.
A perfect example of classical Darwinian evolution by natural selection going on before our very eyes in a little over a year.
-
A perfect example of classical Darwinian evolution by natural selection going on before our very eyes in a little over a year.
But how can this observation of a crude process of fine tuning lead to the presumption that such a process can be used to generate new species?
-
But how can this observation of a crude process of fine tuning lead to the presumption that such a process can be used to generate new species?
It leads to new strains - there is a relatively fine line between a new strain and a new species. And don't forget what we are watching has taken place over just 18 months - typically we might consider evolutionary changes occurring over millions of years. If we can observe such clear and dramatic Darwinian evolution over 18 months think about what can occur over a million years.
-
But how can this observation of a crude process of fine tuning lead to the presumption that such a process can be used to generate new species?
It's not a presumption, it's a scientific theory, one that is backed up by copious evidence, not just one observation. Jeez, what planet are you on?
-
You're just desperately trying to see something that isn't there and isn't needed.
It doesn't need an objective. Viruses mutate all the time. Sometimes a mutation gives it a survival advantage, so those with the mutation survive better and become dominant. It really is that simple. It doesn't mutate because of some survival objective, it's just not perfect at making copies of itself - and that's all that is required.
Plenty of mutations will have happened that either don't give it an advantage or make it less able to survive. I wonder if you could guess why we never get to hear about those?
Why do viruses make copies of themselves? Why don't they just live for some time and die? That reason is the basis of the survival and reproductive instinct......which are the objectives of life and evolution.
I don't claim absolute knowledge. You do....by asserting that life and evolution are just random, chance events.
-
Why do viruses make copies of themselves?
To use the word why shows your inherent bias as it implies intent.
The relevant question is how do viruses make copies of themselves? And the answer is purely one of fundamental chemistry and physics. And actually viruses don't make copies of themselves, they are unable to do that. However they do include genetic material as a component of the virus which if it gets into the cell of a host that includes the mechanisms for both replicating that genetic material and producing proteins from that material will cause the virus to be replicated.
-
....Why life itself has evolved I don't know....
A virus does not know its objectives any more than a bird or an ant....or even we humans for that matter....
I can sense an objective for humans and I do believe that consciousness survives death (NDE). I do believe that there is order and a pattern in life. There is an intent and purpose....
Just wondering why you think any of this matters. How is the belief that life is driven by an unknown purpose practically any different from the belief that there is no purpose involved? How could this alleged purpose have any significance for us if we know nothing about it?
-
I don't claim absolute knowledge.
Thanks goodness for that - although you might want to actually spend a bit of time understanding the fundamental knowledge that is well accepted and based on evidence. Your problem Sriram is that you see everything in terms of opinion - I have one opinion, you have another opinion, each has equal validity. But that isn't how it works - in terms of the things we are talking about an opinion is value-less unless it is backed up by evidence. So one person's opinion does not have equal validity to another person's if one of those opinions is supported by evidence while the other is unevidenced.
You do....by asserting that life and evolution are just random, chance events.
I certainly don't claim to have absolute knowledge - no scientist ever would as they spend their waking hours trying to push forward the frontiers of knowledge, to know a little bit more than we did yesterday. But we don't claim we know everything as were we to think that we'd simply have to close down our labs as it would be 'job done'.
But the claims I an others are making about evolution are based on huge amounts of evidence, including the observations before our very eyes with the virus. Your view are, frankly, completely devoid of evidence and convey clear anthropocentric biases, which borderline on arrogance in consider that everything must be seen through the prism of human-centricity.
-
It's not a presumption, it's a scientific theory, one that is backed up by copious evidence, not just one observation. Jeez, what planet are you on?
The "observable" evidence of the process of natural selection can only be seen as a fine tuning process on existing life forms. To extrapolate this to presume it can generate new life forms without intelligent guidance is a presumption based upon the belief that intelligent guidance does not exist.
-
The "observable" evidence of the process of natural selection can only be seen as a fine tuning process on existing life forms. To extrapolate this to presume it can generate new life forms without intelligent guidance is a presumption based upon the belief that intelligent guidance does not exist.
Non-sense - that evidence in its earliest forms existed over 150 years ago from meticulous observation of species differences and has been built on by vast amounts of data that looks at speciation, genomics etc etc.
The evidence for the appearance of new species through genetic mutation and natural selection is overwhelming. The evidence for for the appearance of new species through intelligent guidance is non existent*.
*With the exception of humans using the basic theories of evolution by natural selection to create new strains of organisms.
-
Why do viruses make copies of themselves?
Chemistry. The whole of life started because something started to reproduce for purely chemical reasons.
That reason is the basis of the survival and reproductive instinct......which are the objectives of life and evolution.
Drivel. Once you get replicators, inheritance, variation, and limited resources, that's all you need. Any instincts follow directly from the consequences of those things via natural selection.
I don't claim absolute knowledge. You do....by asserting that life and evolution are just random, chance events.
I'm doing no such thing. What we have, though, is a very well tested theory, backed up be copious amounts of evidence, that offers a simple explanation for how the complexity and variety of life evolved from simple replicators. The process can be directly observed and simulated on a computer.
You are desperately trying to inject some intelligence into it, without offering a shred of evidence or the slightest hint of rational argument. What's more, you repeatedly show that you haven't understood the basics of the theory that you're trying to deny (or even much awareness that you are actually denying it).
-
But how can this observation of a crude process of fine tuning lead to the presumption that such a process can be used to generate new species?
How could it possibly not lead to new species ?
There's nothing magical about 'species'. It's just a fact that lots of little changes will accumulate into a larger net change over time.
-
Why do viruses make copies of themselves? Why don't they just live for some time and die? That reason is the basis of the survival and reproductive instinct......which are the objectives of life and evolution.
I don't claim absolute knowledge. You do....by asserting that life and evolution are just random, chance events.
Anything that replicates itself, such as DNA, is going to be around in numbers. Simpler things, such as snowflakes, do not replicate, so they last for a while before succumbing to the entropy gradient and then they are gone. This is just observation, some things are complex, others less so. If life and evolution were some sort of universal objective, then why do snowflakes not replicate also ?
I think you are still looking down the wrong end of telescope, imagining some sort of a-priori universal intent, and then trying to map the natural world to that belief and that gives problems with the observation that mutations are random, which is not remotely consistent with a notion of intent. Better, is it not, to follow the example of Aristotle, go out, observe the world, and try to make sense of it from first principles, freeing yourself from cultural and cognitive biases.
-
The "observable" evidence of the process of natural selection can only be seen as a fine tuning process on existing life forms. To extrapolate this to presume it can generate new life forms without intelligent guidance is a presumption based upon the belief that intelligent guidance does not exist.
It's what the evidence clearly reveals.
Cretaceous, big dinos everywhere, scarcely any mammals at all. Big rock falls out of the sky, no more dinos, but hey, 60 million years later we've got plenty of mammals that weren't there before - hippos, giraffes, dogs, zebras, need I go on ? What do you imagine happened ? God used his special powers to instantiate a breeding population of zebras on the African savannahs some time during the late Pleistocene when no one was looking, all fully kitted out with a horse-like anatomy and a genome backfilled to make it look exactly as if zebras had evolved quite naturally within an equine lineage ?
-
The evidence for the appearance of new species through genetic mutation and natural selection is overwhelming. The evidence for for the appearance of new species through intelligent guidance is non existent*.
The overwhelming evidence for the existence of intelligent guidance towards a perceived goal lies in the unfathomable complexity of the human mind and its ability to consciously contemplate such possibilities, coupled with the extreme unlikelihood that such functionality could come into existence through the unintended consequences of purposeless unguided forces of nature alone.
The fact that we are unable to detect a perceivable source for such intelligent guidance is not evidence that such guidance cannot exist.
-
The overwhelming evidence for the existence of intelligent guidance towards a perceived goal lies in the unfathomable complexity of the human mind and its ability to consciously contemplate such possibilities, coupled with the extreme unlikelihood that such functionality could come into existence through the unintended consequences of purposeless unguided forces of nature alone.
Your personal incredulity does not constitute evidence. ::)
The fact that we are unable to detect a perceivable source for such intelligent guidance is not evidence that such guidance cannot exist.
However, we have a perfectly good, evidence-based, well tested theory that requires no such guidance.
-
The overwhelming evidence for the existence of intelligent guidance towards a perceived goal lies in the unfathomable complexity of the human mind and its ability to consciously contemplate such possibilities, coupled with the extreme unlikelihood that such functionality could come into existence through the unintended consequences of purposeless unguided forces of nature alone.
Anthropocentric argument from incredulity.
Come back when you have a decent argument involving some evidence rather than a naive and unevidenced argument that everything revolves around people and if people don't understand it it must be because their man-made god did-it.
-
Your personal incredulity does not constitute evidence. ::)
To merely label the unlikelihood of the human mind coming into existence from unintended, random events as "personal incredulity" offers no meaningful argument.
However, we have a perfectly good, evidence-based, well tested theory that requires no such guidance.
For such a theory to be feasible, you need to show how the specific complexity needed for the working of a conscious human mind could have been generated by the random forces of nature alone. Just quoting the observed mutations in the corona virus cannot be used to extrapolate the process of natural selection to achieve any conceivable degree of physical complexity. And there is still the problem of being able to find a feasible explanation for how our conscious awareness can be generated by physical reactions alone - for without this there could be no possibility of any degree of natural selection being able to produce conscious awareness. And there is still the question of how our freedom to guide our own thought processes comes into existence - a freedom which you constantly deny exists, but without which you would be unable to contemplate such denial.
-
The overwhelming evidence for the existence of intelligent guidance towards a perceived goal lies in the unfathomable complexity of the human mind and its ability to consciously contemplate such possibilities, coupled with the extreme unlikelihood that such functionality could come into existence through the unintended consequences of purposeless unguided forces of nature alone.
The fact that we are unable to detect a perceivable source for such intelligent guidance is not evidence that such guidance cannot exist.
And, of course, by simply following your own incredulous argument:
The overwhelming evidence for the existence of intelligent guidance towards a perceived goal lies in the unfathomable complexity of God's mind and its ability to consciously contemplate such possibilities, coupled with the extreme unlikelihood that such functionality could come into existence through the unintended consequences of purposeless unguided forces of nature alone.
The fact that we are unable to detect a perceivable source for such intelligent guidance is not evidence that such guidance cannot exist.
An ultra God perhaps?
Mind you, a least we have evidence that humans exist, no evidence that any god exists, no evidence of this ultra God and its intelligent guidance which must be needed to fulfill your incredulous requirements, and emphatically no evidence of this ultra ultra God which would then be needed to fulfill your incredulous arguments, and ..... :D
-
To merely label the unlikelihood of the human mind coming into existence from unintended, random events as "personal incredulity" offers no meaningful argument.For such a theory to be feasible, you need to show how the specific complexity needed for the working of a conscious human mind could have been generated by the random forces of nature alone. Just quoting the observed mutations in the corona virus cannot be used to extrapolate the process of natural selection to achieve any conceivable degree of physical complexity. And there is still the problem of being able to find a feasible explanation for how our conscious awareness can be generated by physical reactions alone - for without this there could be no possibility of any degree of natural selection being able to produce conscious awareness. And there is still the question of how our freedom to guide our own thought processes comes into existence - a freedom which you constantly deny exists, but without which you would be unable to contemplate such denial.
That's just your usual mishmash of incredulity and misconceptualisation. I can't figure this out, its all too complex, therefore, magic. ???
-
To merely label the unlikelihood of the human mind coming into existence from unintended, random events as "personal incredulity" offers no meaningful argument.
That's rich coming from a true master of baseless assertion. Anything that evolves is going to be unlikely, it's like shuffling a pack of cards and getting a sequence that has a probability of one in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000. Your error is assuming that humans were some sort of goal.
For such a theory to be feasible, you need to show how the specific complexity needed for the working of a conscious human mind could have been generated by the random forces of nature alone.
This has been done. It's called the theory of evolution - you might have heard of it. It's been studied now for 150+ years and is backed up by copious evidence and tests.
And there is still the problem of being able to find a feasible explanation for how our conscious awareness can be generated by physical reactions alone - for without this there could be no possibility of any degree of natural selection being able to produce conscious awareness.
All the evidence is that consciousness is produced by brains and that brains evolved. The hypocrisy of demanding a complete explanation, when your only suggested alternative is "it must be magic", is truly breathtaking.
And there is still the question of how our freedom to guide our own thought processes comes into existence - a freedom which you constantly deny exists, but without which you would be unable to contemplate such denial.
Drivel. ::)
To the extent that "guiding our own thought processes" makes any sense at all, I do not deny it. You have yet to provide the first hint of any reason at all why the impossible, nonsensical, self-contradictory, unimaginable 'ability' to have done differently, in exactly the same circumstances, without randomness, would in any way at all help with anything humans do.
-
Obviously survival is its objective....and it finds ways of surviving and increasing its numbers. Why should it be random...?
It has no objective - survival to the point of replication is a behaviour that is, functionally, 'rewarded' by evolutionary success, but that's not to say that anything selects survival as an objective in advance.
O.
-
To merely label the unlikelihood of the human mind coming into existence from unintended, random events as "personal incredulity" offers no meaningful argument.For such a theory to be feasible, you need to show how the specific complexity needed for the working of a conscious human mind could have been generated by the random forces of nature alone. Just quoting the observed mutations in the corona virus cannot be used to extrapolate the process of natural selection to achieve any conceivable degree of physical complexity. And there is still the problem of being able to find a feasible explanation for how our conscious awareness can be generated by physical reactions alone - for without this there could be no possibility of any degree of natural selection being able to produce conscious awareness. And there is still the question of how our freedom to guide our own thought processes comes into existence - a freedom which you constantly deny exists, but without which you would be unable to contemplate such denial.
Does God have a soul?
-
It has no objective - survival to the point of replication is a behaviour that is, functionally, 'rewarded' by evolutionary success, but that's not to say that anything selects survival as an objective in advance.
O.
Of course evolution has an objective....survival, reproduction and complexity. When I say 'objective' it does not mean that the organism should be consciously aware of it. It is an unconscious instinctive impulse...which is what I mean by 'objective'.
What do you mean by 'reward'....?! 'Reward' is relevant only if the organism is trying to survive and reproduce in the first place.
-
Of course evolution has an objective....survival, reproduction and complexity.
You can stamp your foot all you like but it won't make this silly assertion any more true. ::)
When I say 'objective' it does not mean that the organism should be consciously aware of it. It is an unconscious instinctive impulse...which is what I mean by 'objective'.
Yet again: individuals are good at survival (including having instincts) because of natural selection.
What do you mean by 'reward'....?! 'Reward' is relevant only if the organism is trying to survive and reproduce in the first place.
Yet again: individuals that are better at surviving and reproducing are the ones that survive and reproduce more (duh!) and pass on their genes. Hence you get populations full of individuals that come from a long, unbroken line of survivors.
This isn't rocket science, it's simple and obvious. Just forget all your preconceived ideas about intelligence, and think about it for a second or two. Even school kids manage to grasp this.
-
Of course evolution has an objective....survival, reproduction and complexity.
That's like saying weather has an objective, it's ridiculous.
When I say 'objective' it does not mean that the organism should be consciously aware of it. It is an unconscious instinctive impulse...which is what I mean by 'objective'.
You're still putting the cart before the horse. The effects happen to the successul and unsuccessful variants equally - that the result favours the survivors does not mean there is any intent, design or forethought to that process. Gravity does not have an objective, it just has an effect.
What do you mean by 'reward'....?! 'Reward' is relevant only if the organism is trying to survive and reproduce in the first place.
Exactly.
O.
-
Of course evolution has an objective....survival, reproduction and complexity.
That's just non-sense. Evolution is a process and may cause those things to occur, but there is no 'objective', which is a conscious intent or a plan.
-
It is an unconscious instinctive impulse...which is what I mean by 'objective'.
There is no 'impulse' - evolution isn't impulsive, there is no intent, there is no objective.
-
There is no 'impulse' - evolution isn't impulsive, there is no intent, there is no objective.
Don't keep saying that as if you actually KNOW it!
Life has order and complexity. We therefore have reason to surmise that life has a meaning and a purpose. I and others are only trying to see why and how this works. Many renowned philosophers and science people also believe that consciousness is fundamental and is responsible for life and the material universe. Nothing alarming or 'out of the world' about it.
-
Life has order and complexity. We therefore have reason to surmise that life has a meaning and a purpose. ..
Why does that follow ?
We observe that life produces various phenomena such as meaning and purpose. But that doesn't mean that meaning and purpose produce life. That would be circular.
-
Why does that follow ?
We observe that life produces various phenomena such as meaning and purpose. But that doesn't mean that meaning and purpose produce life. That would be circular.
Quite evidently, you people are not worried about what Life really could be or might be. You are insistent that life cannot (and perhaps should not) have a meaning and purpose. You are just using 'evidence' as an excuse.
Your indoctrination against religions has brought about that mind set.....even though I am not talking in favor of religions at all.
-
Don't keep saying that as if you actually KNOW it!
Why not? You keep on saying the opposite as if you KNOW it. What's more, you have nothing to base your assertion on and there is good evidence and reasoning behind the conclusion that evolution has no objective or intention.
Life has order and complexity. We therefore have reason to surmise that life has a meaning and a purpose.
Non sequitur. Why would having order and complexity imply meaning and purpose?
I and others are only trying to see why and how this works.
We have a well established theory, backed up by plentiful evidence, that tells us why and how it works. It's not a mystery. Your apparent inability to grasp it (despite its simplicity) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
-
Quite evidently, you people are not worried about what Life really could be or might be. You are insistent that life cannot (and perhaps should not) have a meaning and purpose. You are just using 'evidence' as an excuse.
Genuine laugh out loud! If you were at all genuinely interested in the truth (rather than just confirming your own superstitions), you wouldn't be ignoring the evidence (and lack of evidence).
Your indoctrination against religions has brought about that mind set....
Irony.... ::)
-
Quite evidently, you people are not worried about what Life really could be or might be.
On the contrary, it's because we are that you've been so precisely and eruditely put right on this - in particular you've had this explained to you in technical detail by someone who does this for a living. They are professionally right at this, this is how they bring money home....
You are insistent that life cannot (and perhaps should not) have a meaning and purpose.
Firsty, no-one is saying that it can't have some purpose imposed from outside, just that you've not provided any evidence that it does. Secondly, why does meaning have to be imposed from outside? I don't believe evolution is guided, I don't believe my life is part of someone or something's grand plan, I don't even believe in the capacity to change the outcome of the events in my life, deep down. But my life has meaning; to me, to my wife, to my children, to my work colleagues, and to my friends.
You are just using 'evidence' as an excuse.
No, I'm using it as a basis on which to make a conclusion; if you want to base your conclusion on something else, that's up to you, but if you want me to base my opinion on something else you need to explain why it's a more significant basis than verifiable evidence, and so far all you've given me is 'but I don't like that conclusion'.
Your indoctrination against religions has brought about that mind set.....even though I am not talking in favor of religions at all.
My upbringing was a number of things, but an indoctrination against religion it was not :) A dislike of religion is not, itself, an argument for or against a particular stance on religion. My stance on religion, alongside this stance on evolution, comes from not accepting supernatural claims; if you want to include something in an explanation of how reality works and have me accept it, you need to be able to support the argument with something more than 'yeah, but, what if...'.
O.
-
Quite evidently, you people are not worried about what Life really could be or might be. You are insistent that life cannot (and perhaps should not) have a meaning and purpose. You are just using 'evidence' as an excuse.
Your indoctrination against religions has brought about that mind set.....even though I am not talking in favor of religions at all.
Surely everybody here is interested in life etc etc. If you want to get to the truth of the matter, experience show that rigorous methodological thinking with due respect to evidence and reason is the way to go; anything less is just sloppy thinking which allows free rein for our biases and predispositions
-
On the contrary, it's because we are that you've been so precisely and eruditely put right on this - in particular you've had this explained to you in technical detail by someone who does this for a living. They are professionally right at this, this is how they bring money home....
Firsty, no-one is saying that it can't have some purpose imposed from outside, just that you've not provided any evidence that it does. Secondly, why does meaning have to be imposed from outside? I don't believe evolution is guided, I don't believe my life is part of someone or something's grand plan, I don't even believe in the capacity to change the outcome of the events in my life, deep down. But my life has meaning; to me, to my wife, to my children, to my work colleagues, and to my friends.
No, I'm using it as a basis on which to make a conclusion; if you want to base your conclusion on something else, that's up to you, but if you want me to base my opinion on something else you need to explain why it's a more significant basis than verifiable evidence, and so far all you've given me is 'but I don't like that conclusion'.
My upbringing was a number of things, but an indoctrination against religion it was not :) A dislike of religion is not, itself, an argument for or against a particular stance on religion. My stance on religion, alongside this stance on evolution, comes from not accepting supernatural claims; if you want to include something in an explanation of how reality works and have me accept it, you need to be able to support the argument with something more than 'yeah, but, what if...'.
O.
First of all we need to come from the most basic issues.
1. Why does life arise and why does it evolve? Not 'how' ...why?
2. What is death? Is it a final elimination or is there an after-life?
3. What is right and wrong? Is it just based on social norms or is there an absolute morality?
4. We find a great amount of coordination and connection between organisms? Is there a common consciousness?
5. Why are some people good and saintly and why are others evil and selfish?
6. There is great order and pattern in life. Is it directed intelligently?
Just off the cuff ....these are some of the basic questions that interest most people in the world.
I know that many of you will have ready answers to all these questions....random variation and Natural Selection.. Death is the end...no such drivel as an after-life! Morality is just of social importance! There is not such thing as a common consciousness....how can there be when consciousness is a product of the brain! No such nonsense as intelligent direction absolutely....it is all natural selection! 'Why' need not have an answer! People are just different because of their genetic make up!
I just don't agree with all these ready and off hand answers. For microscopic thinkers these questions will seem meaningless...
-
First of all we need to come from the most basic issues.
1. Why does life arise and why does it evolve? Not 'how' ...why?
You're presuming that 'why' is a valid question, and in doing so you are begging the question.
2. What is death? Is it a final elimination or is there an after-life?
The evidence suggests the former, since there is no evidence for the latter.
3. What is right and wrong? Is it just based on social norms or is there an absolute morality?
The former, since we can observe that the moral zeitgeist isn't static.
4. We find a great amount of coordination and connection between organisms? Is there a common consciousness?
There is no evidence to support this notion.
5. Why are some people good and saintly and why are others evil and selfish?
Biology, personal traits, environment, relationships, social skills and competencies, opportunities and life experiences etc etc.
6. There is great order and pattern in life. Is it directed intelligently?
There are no good reasons to think so.
-
First of all we need to come from the most basic issues.
1. Why does life arise and why does it evolve? Not 'how' ...why?
2. What is death? Is it a final elimination or is there an after-life?
3. What is right and wrong? Is it just based on social norms or is there an absolute morality?
4. We find a great amount of coordination and connection between organisms? Is there a common consciousness?
5. Why are some people good and saintly and why are others evil and selfish?
6. There is great order and pattern in life. Is it directed intelligently?
Just off the cuff ....these are some of the basic questions that interest most people in the world.
I know that many of you will have ready answers to all these questions....random variation and Natural Selection.. Death is the end...no such drivel as an after-life! Morality is just of social importance! There is not such thing as a common consciousness....how can there be when consciousness is a product of the brain! No such nonsense as intelligent direction absolutely....it is all natural selection! 'Why' need not have an answer! People are just different because of their genetic make up!
I just don't agree with all these ready and off hand answers. For microscopic thinkers these questions will seem meaningless...
1. Why does life arise and why does it evolve? Not 'how' ...why? Merely asking 'why' does not self-validate it as a reasonable question to ask.
2. What is death? Is it a final elimination or is there an after-life? Death is the end of the road for an organism. The matter and energy wrapped up in the organism are released to become incorporated into new organisms. Were this not the case, then nothing new would ever be born. Death is a prerequisite for life.
3. What is right and wrong? Is it just based on social norms or is there an absolute morality? Absolute morality makes no sense. Could there be an absolute red, or an absolute quick ?
4. We find a great amount of coordination and connection between organisms? Is there a common consciousness? We'd expect to observe a degree of commonality given a shared ancestry model of life on Earth
5. Why are some people good and saintly and why are others evil and selfish? Look for answers in nature and nurture. We can identify potential psychopaths from brain scans
6. There is great order and pattern in life. Is it directed intelligently? If there is an intelligence directing things, that only shifts the goal posts. What is directing the intelligence, where does it come from ?
-
I told ya...!! You know it all! :D :D
-
I told ya...!! You know it all! :D :D
Ironic. No, we don't know it all, but if you ask a bunch of questions that have obvious, evidence (or lack of evidence) based answers, you're likely to get similar answers from rational people.
I just don't agree with all these ready and off hand answers.
We know. It's because you prefer wishful thinking and superstition, regardless of actual evidence.
For microscopic thinkers these questions will seem meaningless...
Valuing evidence and reasoning above superstition and wishful thinking is not "microscopic" thinking, it's just thinking.
-
I told ya...!! You know it all! :D :D
"Off hand" suggests that the answers are going to be casual, without previous thought or consideration.
The answers you have been given do not show such attitudes at all. If anything, they show rational thought which emphasises the value of evidence.
The insinuation is that your own answers in contrast are going to be deeply thought out and carefully considered.
It seems that your arrogance knows no bounds. The pity of it is, and I am sure that you won't agree, but by your inability to openly consider anything that goes against your own ideas, your own vision becomes necessarily limited.
-
1. Why does life arise and why does it evolve? Not 'how' ...why? Merely asking 'why' does not self-validate it as a reasonable question to ask.
2. What is death? Is it a final elimination or is there an after-life? Death is the end of the road for an organism. The matter and energy wrapped up in the organism are released to become incorporated into new organisms. Were this not the case, then nothing new would ever be born. Death is a prerequisite for life.
3. What is right and wrong? Is it just based on social norms or is there an absolute morality? Absolute morality makes no sense. Could there be an absolute red, or an absolute quick ?
4. We find a great amount of coordination and connection between organisms? Is there a common consciousness? We'd expect to observe a degree of commonality given a shared ancestry model of life on Earth
5. Why are some people good and saintly and why are others evil and selfish? Look for answers in nature and nurture. We can identify potential psychopaths from brain scans
6. There is great order and pattern in life. Is it directed intelligently? If there is an intelligence directing things, that only shifts the goal posts. What is directing the intelligence, where does it come from ?
These are merely assertions and beliefs. You don't really 'know' any of these things. I agree that I also believe that Life has a purpose and that evolution has a direction, after-life and so on...
You may however think that your beliefs are based on evidence.....but we have already discussed many times evidence and its ambiguities (blind person, gravity etc.). There is plenty of evidence for my beliefs too...except that it cannot be shown to you physically or registered on any instrument. If you insist only on physical measurable evidence it becomes scientism...
-
These are merely assertions and beliefs. You don't really 'know' any of these things. I agree that I also believe that Life has a purpose and that evolution has a direction, after-life and so on...
You may however think that your beliefs are based on evidence.....but we have already discussed many times evidence and its ambiguities (blind person, gravity etc.). There is plenty of evidence for my beliefs too...except that it cannot be shown to you physically or registered on any instrument. If you insist only on physical measurable evidence it becomes scientism...
I don't think that is scientism, it is more about being diligent and rigorous in your approach and it is that approach that has given us the modern world with its prescription medicines, global communications and interplanetary spacecraft. If a claimed phenomenon is not detectable and not measurable then how could it be investigated ? Lacking any objective verification, it probably does not exist.
-
I don't think that is scientism, it is more about being diligent and rigorous in your approach and it is that approach that has given us the modern world with its prescription medicines, global communications and interplanetary spacecraft. If a claimed phenomenon is not detectable and not measurable then how could it be investigated ? Lacking any objective verification, it probably does not exist.
Of course it is detectable...maybe not measurable.
-
Of course it is detectable...maybe not measurable.
How can something be detected but not measurable?
-
These are merely assertions and beliefs.
False. They are the obvious conclusions from the currently available evidence.
You may however think that your beliefs are based on evidence.....but we have already discussed many times evidence and its ambiguities (blind person, gravity etc.).
Yes. You have made a lot of assertions about evidence, that show that you don't understand it, and other people have explained why you are wrong (your blind person analogy has to be one of the most absurd 'arguments' I've ever seen).
There is plenty of evidence for my beliefs too...
False.
...except that it cannot be shown to you physically or registered on any instrument. If you insist only on physical measurable evidence it becomes scientism...
If your evidence is not objective (intersubjectively verifiable), then you really have nothing left but guessing; you open the door to anybody's bias, wishful thinking, and superstitions, not just yours.
-
1. Why does life arise and why does it evolve? Not 'how' ...why?
What makes you think 'why' is a meaningful question in that context? Why implies a rationale, if you make it distinct from how - on what basis do you think something has 'planned' life?
2. What is death? Is it a final elimination or is there an after-life?
In the absence of any evidence for anything about an individual persisting after cessation of brain function, I'd have to conclude on the available evidence that there's no afterlife.
3. What is right and wrong? Is it just based on social norms or is there an absolute morality?
A quick look around the world at different cultures shows that morality is based upon social norms.
4. We find a great amount of coordination and connection between organisms? Is there a common consciousness?
Interdependency, parasitism, symbiosis and other balances within ecosystems provide all the explanation we need to account for the coordiation and connection between organisms' activities; there's no requirement for, and no evidence for, some sort of overarching interconnected consciousness.
5. Why are some people good and saintly and why are others evil and selfish?
Because the human psyche is complex and variable, and with the myriad physical, social, hormonal, nutritional and environmental inputs that all contribute to shaping it from conception there is a range of outputs; given, of course, the understanding (from question 3, above) that what's considered 'saintly' in one culture may not be in another.
6. There is great order and pattern in life. Is it directed intelligently?
Given that life on Earth depends on replication, the existence of patterns is not a surprise. Given that it's well-established that gross variations in replication are rarely successful in surviving, the iteration of minor changes explains the hierarchic, orderly structure of the tree of life. A directed intelligence fits the overall pattern in the same way, but doesn't account for the detail in the same way, and has no direct supporting evidence, so the conclusion is that it probably isn't directed.
Just off the cuff ....these are some of the basic questions that interest most people in the world.
Seems like the answers are fairly well understood, these days.
I know that many of you will have ready answers to all these questions....random variation and Natural Selection.. Death is the end...no such drivel as an after-life! Morality is just of social importance! There is not such thing as a common consciousness....how can there be when consciousness is a product of the brain! No such nonsense as intelligent direction absolutely....it is all natural selection! 'Why' need not have an answer! People are just different because of their genetic make up!
I just don't agree with all these ready and off hand answers. For microscopic thinkers these questions will seem meaningless...
Well if you're not going to bother accepting the answers to the question unless they're answer that you like, you're probably asking the wrong questions. I'd start with 'what do I need to be convinced', and it would appear that, for you, the answer is 'confirmation of what I already want to believe'.
O.
-
How can something be detected but not measurable?
He's probably talking about subjective experience, which is detectable, in that it is all that we have individually, without it we could not know anything at all. But is it hard to measure, as measurement implies objectivity. I know what salt tastes like, you know what salt tastes like, but can we say that my experience of saltiness is identical to your experience of saltiness ? We kind of assume it is the same or very similar but we cannot directly measure subjective experience.
-
He's probably talking about subjective experience, which is detectable, in that it is all that we have individually, without it we could not know anything at all. But is it hard to measure, as measurement implies objectivity. I know what salt tastes like, you know what salt tastes like, but can we say that my experience of saltiness is identical to your experience of saltiness ? We kind of assume it is the same or very similar but we cannot directly measure subjective experience.
He does seem to be trying to objectify subjective experiences. From, let's call it, a mystic's or guru's perspective, consciousness is the subject and the word is just a place marker rather than an object for analysis which only agitates the mind at a time when inner stillness is the requirement. He states that 'Why' is an important question for him, rather then 'How'. 'Why' can be important in subjectivity as it implies motive e.g.for some, it would be more important to know why somebody has committed a murder rather than how they did it.
-
He's probably talking about subjective experience, which is detectable, in that it is all that we have individually, without it we could not know anything at all. But is it hard to measure, as measurement implies objectivity. I know what salt tastes like, you know what salt tastes like, but can we say that my experience of saltiness is identical to your experience of saltiness ? We kind of assume it is the same or very similar but we cannot directly measure subjective experience.
Yes...our experience of life and the universe is subjective. What 'real' objectivity is we will never know...if there is any such thing. Merely because most humans have similar experiences and we seem to agree on what we perceive...we think that is objective reality. Its all in the mind....or consciousness.
-
Yes...our experience of life and the universe is subjective. What 'real' objectivity is we will never know...if there is any such thing. Merely because most humans have similar experiences and we seem to agree on what we perceive...we think that is objective reality. Its all in the mind....or consciousness.
So if you jump off of a high building, and in your mind you think you will float down gently, is that what will happen?
I STRONGLY suspect not, and I think you know that as well.
-
So if you jump off of a high building, and in your mind you think you will float down gently, is that what will happen?
I STRONGLY suspect not, and I think you know that as well.
It shows how difficult it is for 'rational thinkers' to get their head around such concepts. It requires a philosophical bent of mind.
I am not saying anything that contradicts science....and yet I cannot provide 'objective' measurable evidence of this simple fact of subjectivity.
-
It shows how difficult it is for 'rational thinkers' to get their head around such concepts. It requires a philosophical bent of mind.
Philosophy requires logic, and I see no more understanding of logic in your posts than science.
I am not saying anything that contradicts science...
You've said quite a lot that contradicts science, actually. Natural selection being a metaphor is the most obvious example.
-
It shows how difficult it is for 'rational thinkers' to get their head around such concepts.
I struggle with four-sided triangles, too...
It requires a philosophical bent of mind.
It verges on arrogance when you presume that our lack of acceptance of your claims is a result of our failure to understand them. We get what you're saying, we just don't buy it, because you've manifestly failed to support it on multiple occasions.
I am not saying anything that contradicts science...
No, you're trying to suggest that it's 'immune' to science, that it requires some other methodology, which is also currently absent.
...and yet I cannot provide 'objective' measurable evidence of this simple fact of subjectivity.
And yet, you agreed, that we all understand all of our experience is subjective. We therefore use systems and methodologies to mitigate that subjectivity - what system have you used to do that with this claim? If you haven't then, by your own description, at best your account is as equally useless as the scientific account, and if not then it's significantly less reliable.
You don't lack an account of your mechanism so much as you lack any credibility for your claim of it; it's not that you're definitively wrong, it's that you give no-one any reason to think that you might be right. Your claim has exactly as much justification as the idea that my wife's dog is immortal and has been strategically killing off just the right mutations throughout history to ensure someone is available to feed him dog-chews. It's logically feasible, I can't actively disprove it...
O.
-
Philosophy requires logic, and I see no more understanding of logic in your posts than science.
You've said quite a lot that contradicts science, actually. Natural selection being a metaphor is the most obvious example.
Natural Selection being a metaphor is obvious. And...i am not the only person who thinks so...
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-011-0360-3
***********
Natural selection, Darwin’s most novel metaphor, was the key concept in distinguishing Darwinian selectionism from Lamarckian adaptationism. Darwin therefore devoted the bulk of Origin of Species to elaborating the concept.
As Darwinism became widely accepted, the language of evolution changed from metaphor to nomenclature, with a narrowing of perspective. Neo-Darwinism, or the synthetic theory of evolution, is currently the primary normative framework for evolutionary biology. I have suggested that neo-Darwinism is not a refined and upgraded version of Darwinism, a narrowing of vision with almost exclusive focus on only one of Darwin’s metaphors, natural selection.
....natural selection was the concept most amenable to normalizing language and became the primary focus of neo-Darwinism.
***********
-
Natural Selection being a metaphor is obvious. And...i am not the only person who thinks so...
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-011-0360-3
***********
Natural selection, Darwin’s most novel metaphor, was the key concept in distinguishing Darwinian selectionism from Lamarckian adaptationism. Darwin therefore devoted the bulk of Origin of Species to elaborating the concept.
As Darwinism became widely accepted, the language of evolution changed from metaphor to nomenclature, with a narrowing of perspective. Neo-Darwinism, or the synthetic theory of evolution, is currently the primary normative framework for evolutionary biology. I have suggested that neo-Darwinism is not a refined and upgraded version of Darwinism, a narrowing of vision with almost exclusive focus on only one of Darwin’s metaphors, natural selection.
....natural selection was the concept most amenable to normalizing language and became the primary focus of neo-Darwinism.
***********
That is just about the fact that the world 'selection' as it is used in the phrase 'natural selection', is being used metaphorically. Clearly nature does not literally 'select' species for evolution in the same way a shopper selects items from a supermarket shelf. Darwin was good with language, capable of creative writing, and this is an instance of that. It does not mean that the real world biological phenomenon of natural selection is a metaphor; just that Darwin dipped into a metaphorical use of language to describe it, and the phrase stuck.
-
Natural Selection being a metaphor is obvious.
Whereas you might describe the language as metaphorical, that doesn't change the fact that 'natural selection' now has an exact scientific meaning that refers to a real, physical phenomena. You can't dismiss the phenomenon as "just a metaphor" as you've so often tried to do.
When people have to describe something new in science, they either have to make up entirely new words or use existing language in a new way, which you could describe as metaphorical. The theory of the 'big bang' isn't a metaphor because it wasn't literally a loud or extensive noise, 'colour charge' isn't metaphorical because it has nothing to do with colours, 'string theory' isn't a metaphor because it isn't about actual string. Natural selection is a more literal description than any of those examples.
-
Of course...Natural Selection is a metaphor! There is no 'selection' going on. Whatever survives ..survives. It is like saying that people who dies in road accidents or in floods are all part of natural selection. If they knew how to drive properly or how to swim then would have survived.
Survival depends on how an organism adapts to its environment. That depends on plasticity. It is an intelligent and responsive process of survival in different environments because survival is an instinctive need and the goal of life.
-
Of course...Natural Selection is a metaphor! There is no 'selection' going on. Whatever survives ..survives. It is like saying that people who dies in road accidents or in floods are all part of natural selection. If they knew how to drive properly or how to swim then would have survived.
Natural selection is one of the most important and profound concepts in science, it is also one of the simplest. How you manage to remain stubbornly ignorant of it, is quite beyond me but you must have some deep mental block about it, probably because you sense it might threaten your cherished superstitions.
Ho hum, here we go again....
If the ability to swim and drive were heritable traits and if the environment of humans was such that people who were able to drive and swim were more likely to have children (or have more children), then it would indeed be a case of natural selection. We would, under those circumstances, eventually get a population dominated by those that were able to drive and swim.
It really is that simple. If some trait means that individuals with it generally leave more offspring, then the genes or alleles responsible for the trait will come to dominate the population. That's how allele frequency changes and how beneficial mutations become 'fixed' in populations.
Survival depends on how an organism adapts to its environment. That depends on plasticity.
You're still getting this back to front. An individual organism's ability to adapt is itself a trait that has come to dominate the population (by natural selection) because it is a survival advantage. Plasticity isn't evolution, it's the result of evolution.
Evolution is not something that happens to individual organisms, it happens to populations over generations.
It is an intelligent and responsive process of survival in different environments because survival is an instinctive need and the goal of life.
Arse about face again. A survival instinct is a survival advantage, so individuals with it (or more of it) are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation, so we end up with populations in which individuals all have a survival instinct.
Evolution doesn't happen because of a survival instinct, a survival instinct is something that evolves.
This is all really simple and blindingly obvious. You must really, really want it to be wrong for some reason.
-
Evolution is not something that happens to individual organisms, it happens to populations over generations.
Arse about face again. A survival instinct is a survival advantage, so individuals with it (or more of it) are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation, so we end up with populations in which individuals all have a survival instinct.
Evolution doesn't happen because of a survival instinct, a survival instinct is something that evolves.
This is all really simple and blindingly obvious. You must really, really want it to be wrong for some reason.
Perhaps Sriram's survival instinct has evolved differently to yours and because of being associated with a community which has long believed in karma and reincarnation there is an instinct to survive beyond physical death. Hence near death experiences and out of body experiences become important.
-
Natural selection is one of the most important and profound concepts in science, it is also one of the simplest. How you manage to remain stubbornly ignorant of it, is quite beyond me but you must have some deep mental block about it, probably because you sense it might threaten your cherished superstitions.
Ho hum, here we go again....
If the ability to swim and drive were heritable traits and if the environment of humans was such that people who were able to drive and swim were more likely to have children (or have more children), then it would indeed be a case of natural selection. We would, under those circumstances, eventually get a population dominated by those that were able to drive and swim.
It really is that simple. If some trait means that individuals with it generally leave more offspring, then the genes or alleles responsible for the trait will come to dominate the population. That's how allele frequency changes and how beneficial mutations become 'fixed' in populations.
You're still getting this back to front. An individual organism's ability to adapt is itself a trait that has come to dominate the population (by natural selection) because it is a survival advantage. Plasticity isn't evolution, it's the result of evolution.
Evolution is not something that happens to individual organisms, it happens to populations over generations.
Arse about face again. A survival instinct is a survival advantage, so individuals with it (or more of it) are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation, so we end up with populations in which individuals all have a survival instinct.
Evolution doesn't happen because of a survival instinct, a survival instinct is something that evolves.
This is all really simple and blindingly obvious. You must really, really want it to be wrong for some reason.
What is 'survival advantage' without the purpose of surviving? If the purpose is to die out (say)...surviving would be a disadvantage. Because survival is the objective...any trait that enables survival is an advantage.
I agree that any trait that enables survival is an advantage....and also if it gets passed on to the progeny. But this cannot happen through happenstance. It has to be (and actually is!) built into the system. That is all I am saying. Traits arising through random variation and some how turning out to be advantageous, is absurd.
-
Of course...Natural Selection is a metaphor! There is no 'selection' going on. Whatever survives ..survives. It is like saying that people who dies in road accidents or in floods are all part of natural selection. If they knew how to drive properly or how to swim then would have survived.
Survival depends on how an organism adapts to its environment. That depends on plasticity. It is an intelligent and responsive process of survival in different environments because survival is an instinctive need and the goal of life.
The rise of the Delta strain of Sars-Cov-2 is a classic case of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, but it has nothing to do with phenotypic plasticity or intelligence or instincts.
-
What is 'survival advantage' without the purpose of surviving?
I'm really running out of ways to make this simpler. A survival 'advantage' is just something that makes it more likely that an organism will survive and reproduce. There is no purpose or need for one.
If the purpose is to die out (say)...surviving would be a disadvantage.
Okay, let's imagine there is a purpose and it's to die out. Now all the traits that have a dying out advantage have successfully died out, and we are left with all the failures that survived. Hence we'd still see populations dominated by those with dying out disadvantages, i.e. those with survival advantages. The purpose has made no difference at all.
A there is no purpose - survival advantages / dying out disadvantages dominate regardless, just because they reproduce more.
Because survival is the objective...any trait that enables survival is an advantage.
There is no objective. You seem to be hung up on the word 'advantage'. It's entirely relative, you can call it a dying out disadvantage and it doesn't change anything that would happen.
I agree that any trait that enables survival is an advantage....and also if it gets passed on to the progeny. But this cannot happen through happenstance. It has to be (and actually is!) built into the system.
What system? The only 'system' is that things that are good at surviving in their environment survive more than those that aren't as good. That's not a system, it's almost a truism.
That is all I am saying. Traits arising through random variation and some how turning out to be advantageous, is absurd.
Of course it's not absurd, we have overwhelming evidence that it happens. If variations are random, some of them will increase survival prospects and some will harm them (most actually do neither). Those that harm survival (successfully!) die out and those that aid it, fail to die out and, because they aid it, spread through the population.
-
The rise of the Delta strain of Sars-Cov-2 is a classic case of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, but it has nothing to do with phenotypic plasticity or intelligence or instincts.
You are just asserting that it has nothing to do with phenotypic plasticity, intelligence etc. How do you know that?
Fundamentally there are two belief systems......materialism and non-materiaism. Materialism (or physicalism) asserts that all phenomena are generated from and by physical means (physical laws). Non-materialism asserts that there are other influences and means by which the physical world (and our lives) are affected. This could include religious or secular ideas.
Both are just beliefs. Saying that you have evidence but we don't is quite a silly argument.
Influences from outside the physical (quasi physical) cannot have evidence in physical measurable terms. They can be felt and detected but cannot be recorded on any instrument.
I don't know why many of you have such emotional reactions to suggestions of influence from quasi-physical origins. These influences actually should be obvious given the complex nature of the world. Asserting again and again that physical laws are enough to explain everything is merely an assertion which also smacks of prejudice. The two boxes syndrome.
-
You are just asserting that it has nothing to do with phenotypic plasticity, intelligence etc. How do you know that?
Oh, do stop being absurd! It's a genetic mutation (well, about 13 of them, actually), we know this because the entire genome has be sequenced.
Both are just beliefs. Saying that you have evidence but we don't is quite a silly argument.
It's not silly, it's a simple statement of fact.
I don't know why many of you have such emotional reactions to suggestions of influence from quasi-physical origins.
Irony.
These influences actually should be obvious given the complex nature of the world.
"It's obvious, innit?" really isn't a good argument.
Asserting again and again that physical laws are enough to explain everything is merely an assertion which also smacks of prejudice. The two boxes syndrome.
Are you trying to create an irony singularity?
We certainly know that the known physical laws aren't enough to explain everything and we obviously don't know what we don't know. However, the specific problem here is that you are (rather comically) trying to insert some sort of "intelligent influence" where there is a very clear, well evidenced, and extensively tested theory that already beautifully and simply explains what is going on perfectly well without any such influence.
The prejudice is all yours. You're trying to explain something that has already been explained with something that you have no evidence for, and you seem so desperate to do so that you won't even acknowledge the simple explanation that exists.
-
What is 'survival advantage' without the purpose of surviving?
A trait that will more successfully reproduce than other traits. Just as it would be if there were a purpose of surviving, but without the purpose.
If the purpose is to die out (say)...surviving would be a disadvantage. Because survival is the objective...any trait that enables survival is an advantage.
No, survival is not the objective, there is no objective. Survival is just a trait that has consequences, one of which is evolutionary success.
I agree that any trait that enables survival is an advantage....and also if it gets passed on to the progeny. But this cannot happen through happenstance.
Why not?
It has to be (and actually is!) built into the system. That is all I am saying. Traits arising through random variation and some how turning out to be advantageous, is absurd.
Your inability to accept it is not any sort of argument against it.
O.
-
You are just asserting that [Sars-Cov-2] has nothing to do with phenotypic plasticity, intelligence etc. How do you know that?
..
There is no evidence to support it, that's all. We don't believe things without reason to do so. If we observed that virus particles were somehow intelligently seeking out better hosts to infect then you'd have a point, but there is no evidence for that. Airborne virus particles that happen to be drawn into people with no specific immunological defence to them will tend to have better reproductive success, that's all. It's simply logical.
-
A trait that will more successfully reproduce than other traits. Just as it would be if there were a purpose of surviving, but without the purpose.
No, survival is not the objective, there is no objective. Survival is just a trait that has consequences, one of which is evolutionary success.
Why not?
Your inability to accept it is not any sort of argument against it.
O.
But these are just assumptions. No one KNOWS that there is no objective.
Once we connect evolution and its responsive adaptations with Consciousness and the idea of panpsychism.... and see it together with an after-life of which we have evidence in terms of NDE's.......an objective for life and evolution becomes obvious.
-
There is no evidence to support it, that's all. We don't believe things without reason to do so. If we observed that virus particles were somehow intelligently seeking out better hosts to infect then you'd have a point, but there is no evidence for that. Airborne virus particles that happen to be drawn into people with no specific immunological defence to them will tend to have better reproductive success, that's all. It's simply logical.
But...we know that true randomness does not exist. Everything is tied up with everything else. Claiming randomness and happenstance for complex phenomena is a cop-out.
-
But...we know that true randomness does not exist. Everything is tied up with everything else. Claiming randomness and happenstance for complex phenomena is a cop-out.
Umm, I don't think we can say that true randomness does not exist. But that's irrelevant to biological mutations; the fact is they are effectively or apparently random as far as evolution is concerned.
-
Umm, I don't think we can say that true randomness does not exist. But that's irrelevant to biological mutations; the fact is they are effectively or apparently random as far as evolution is concerned.
You see why it is a cop-out....?! :D 'Apparently' random....is what exactly..?
-
But these are just assumptions. No one KNOWS that there is no objective.
It's not an assumption at all. The explanation we have is complete without any objective. There is no need for one and not the slightest shred of evidence for it.
Once we connect evolution and its responsive adaptations with Consciousness...
Evolutionary adaptations are fully explained without any consciousness.
...and the idea of panpsychism.... and see it together with an after-life of which we have evidence in terms of NDE's.......an objective for life and evolution becomes obvious.
And you accuse other people of making assumptions! This appears to be nothing but a fantasy. It seems to be based on nothing at all but your own wishful thinking and superstition. The panpsychism speculations (IIT, Orch OR) you've come up with would not give you an afterlife or affect evolution, even if they were true.
-
But...we know that true randomness does not exist.
No, we do not.
You see why it is a cop-out....?! :D 'Apparently' random....is what exactly..?
You really are getting more and more absurd. Of course it isn't a cop-out. It means there is no pattern to something. If you flip a coin or shuffle cards, the results are effectively random. Mutations are largely due to copying errors which are also effectively random.
-
We need a certain integrative faculty to be able to perceive different ideas and out them together. A microscopic mind, while useful in scientific work, is not the right faculty for integration.
-
We need a certain integrative faculty to be able to perceive different ideas and out them together.
Where "integrative faculty" means "totally ignoring what the different ideas actually say and making up a fantasy about them", I presume. ::)
A microscopic mind, while useful in scientific work, is not the right faculty for integration.
Meaningless.
-
But these are just assumptions. No one KNOWS that there is no objective.
No-one 'KNOWS' that there is, and the system works without the presumption that there is one, and there's no evidence of one, and no evidence of anything to impart the system with that objective. It's superfluous to the process, and unfounded, and therefore probably not there at all.
Once we connect evolution and its responsive adaptations with Consciousness and the idea of panpsychism.... and see it together with an after-life of which we have evidence in terms of NDE's.......an objective for life and evolution becomes obvious.
You can link it to Gandalf if you want, but unless you can show a reason to - something that can't happen in the current paradigm but is happening, something that isn't happening that should be in the current paradigm - then all your connections are doing is offering paths of research to sociologists who want to study the desperate attempts to keep religion relevant.
O.
-
You see why it is a cop-out....?! :D 'Apparently' random....is what exactly..?
Just means there is no discernible pattern. A virus particle will just go along with whatever air flows it happens to be in and may infect an individual when those airflows happen to lead into a person with no immunological defence against it.
-
No-one 'KNOWS' that there is, and the system works without the presumption that there is one, and there's no evidence of one, and no evidence of anything to impart the system with that objective. It's superfluous to the process, and unfounded, and therefore probably not there at all.
You can link it to Gandalf if you want, but unless you can show a reason to - something that can't happen in the current paradigm but is happening, something that isn't happening that should be in the current paradigm - then all your connections are doing is offering paths of research to sociologists who want to study the desperate attempts to keep religion relevant.
O.
How can intent and intelligence be superfluous to a process? Any process can form and operate only with intent and intelligent design.
-
How can intent and intelligence be superfluous to a process? Any process can form and operate only with intent and intelligent design.
Rubbish.
Do you think the process by which the Grand Canyon was formed involves intelligence? What about the process by which galaxies form or stars work?
What was the intent behind ebola and smallpox?
-
How can intent and intelligence be superfluous to a process? Any process can form and operate only with intent and intelligent design.
Was there Conciouness before there was any life?
-
How can intent and intelligence be superfluous to a process? Any process can form and operate only with intent and intelligent design.
Yet another utterly baseless assertion. ::)
-
How can intent and intelligence be superfluous to a process?
The water cycle is a process; water evaporates, is transported by the wind, condenses and falls as precipitation, flows through rivers and aquifers and lakes and then evaporates again. Nothing in that cycle requires an intelligence; it's not precluded, but it's not required. Any suggestion of intelligence is, therefore, introducing a superfluous element, because it's unnecessary. It's exactly the same with evolution, you don't need a pre-existing intelligence to impart any sort of intent or purpose to the process for it to behave as it does.
Any process can form and operate only with intent and intelligent design.
The above example shows that this statement is simply not true.
O.
-
The water cycle is a process; water evaporates, is transported by the wind, condenses and falls as precipitation, flows through rivers and aquifers and lakes and then evaporates again. Nothing in that cycle requires an intelligence; it's not precluded, but it's not required. Any suggestion of intelligence is, therefore, introducing a superfluous element, because it's unnecessary. It's exactly the same with evolution, you don't need a pre-existing intelligence to impart any sort of intent or purpose to the process for it to behave as it does.
The above example shows that this statement is simply not true.
O.
Evolution involves intelligent adaptation and increasing complexity. It has objectives...survival, reproduction and complexity. Not the same as the water cycle or rock erosion or volcano eruption.....
-
Evolution involves intelligent adaptation and increasing complexity. It has objectives...survival, reproduction and complexity. Not the same as the water cycle or rock erosion or volcano eruption.....
That doesn't mean evolution has 'objectives'. it's just a non-sequitur. That the Delta strain is outcompeting earlier strains is not because it has an objective to do so, any more than water in a stream has an 'objective' to get from the top of the mountain to the bottom.
-
That doesn't mean evolution has 'objectives'. it's just a non-sequitur. That the Delta strain is outcompeting earlier strains is not because it has an objective to do so, any more than water in a stream has an 'objective' to get from the top of the mountain to the bottom.
Without the need to survive and adapt better to its changed circumstances...why would the Delta strain form? It is meant for continued survival. You believe in absolute predetermination and nevertheless keep attributing everything to random variations!
-
Without the need to survive and adapt better to its changed circumstances...why would the Delta strain form? It is meant for continued survival. You believe in absolute predetermination and nevertheless keep attributing everything to random variations!
There is no evidence that particles of virus have 'needs', any more than molecules of H2O at the top of a mountain have a 'need' to get to the bottom.
-
There is no evidence that particles of virus have 'needs', any more than molecules of H2O at the top of a mountain have a 'need' to get to the bottom.
What is a need but a compulsion from within the system....?
-
Evolution involves intelligent adaptation and increasing complexity.
No, and sometimes. Evolution involves adaptation, but there is no evidence that it's intelligently guided. Evolution sometimes results in increased complexity, and other times in reduced complexity.
It has objectives...survival, reproduction and complexity.
There is no evidence that there are any obectives to evolution. There are phenomena, there are immediate and long-term consequences, but there is no evidence of any overarching plan.
Not the same as the water cycle or rock erosion or volcano eruption.....
Exactly the same.
O.
-
Without the need to survive and adapt better to its changed circumstances...why would the Delta strain form?
It's a simple set of mutations that are (at least for all practical purposes) random. The virus mutates all the time and most don't affect its survival but when one comes along that does help with survival, it survives more and takes over.
This is really, really, really, simple.
-
Without the need to survive and adapt better to its changed circumstances...why would the Delta strain form?
How many times do we have to explain it to you - there is no need, there is simply a whole array of mutations which occur randomly when the viral genetic material is being replicated in a host. The data suggest there have been probably upwards of half a million random mutations in the viral genome over the past 18 months (probably far more as mutations that render the virus unable to be non-functional/transmissible will probably never be seen in lab sequencing data). Very occasionally a mutation occurs which renders the virus more able to be transmitted from one host to another and in those circumstance the virus survives better than earlier variants and becomes dominant.
That's it, there is nothing more. There is no 'need', there is no 'purpose', there is no 'intent', there is no 'survival instinct'.
-
'There is no 'need', there is no 'purpose', there is no 'intent', there is no 'survival instinct'.
That is what you guys like to believe.... Fine! ::) But tying it up with other hypotheses on consciousness, nature of mind and NDE's....I believe otherwise!
-
'There is no 'need', there is no 'purpose', there is no 'intent', there is no 'survival instinct'.
That is what you guys like to believe.... Fine! ::)
But it isn't a 'belief' it is based on overwhelming evidence amassed over 150 years.
But tying it up with other hypotheses on consciousness, nature of mind and NDE's....I believe otherwise!
For which you have no credible evidence.
This isn't a matter of belief, but one of evidence.
-
'There is no 'need', there is no 'purpose', there is no 'intent', there is no 'survival instinct'.
That is what you guys like to believe.... Fine! ::) But tying it up with other hypotheses on consciousness, nature of mind and NDE's....I believe otherwise!
You are quite entitled to your beliefs of course. For my own part, I don't have such beliefs, I simply rely on hard evidence/lack of evidence to come to a decision of probability, which can change of course if the evidence demands it. As you have never produced anything approaching such evidence I see no reason to change.
-
'There is no 'need', there is no 'purpose', there is no 'intent', there is no 'survival instinct'.
That is what you guys like to believe.... Fine! ::)
Nobody said there was no survival instinct, it's just that the survival instinct is the result of evolution, not the cause. Evolution does not need a purpose or an intent, it is a beautifully simple explanation that works perfectly well without those things and is backed up by evidence. It is not a belief, it's a well tested scientific theory.
But tying it up with other hypotheses on consciousness, nature of mind and NDE's....I believe otherwise!
But it simply doesn't tie up with the conjecture you've posted about consciousness. None of them would make the slightest difference to evolution, nor would they have anything to do with NDEs.
-
Nobody said there was no survival instinct, it's just that the survival instinct is the result of evolution, not the cause.
Absolutely and that, of course, does not apply to very simple entities such as a virus, which isn't really an organism in its strict sense.
-
But it isn't a 'belief' it is based on overwhelming evidence amassed over 150 years.
For which you have no credible evidence.
This isn't a matter of belief, but one of evidence.
You don't get it. You have evidence for mechanisms that take place in the process of evolution. I am not disputing that.
I am talking about causes that are behind the mechanisms. Explaining a car in terms of its mechanisms is not enough. Its purpose and driving force (driver) also need to be understood.
You guys will claim that there is no reason to assume an purpose or driving force for evolution and that evolutionary mechanisms just happen with no reason at all. I don't agree with that.
We cannot see evolution in isolation. It has to be seen as just a part of our lives. Other aspects such as the nature of the mind, role of consciousness, understanding death and after-life, ESP, reincarnation and so on all are important. Understanding all these aspects will obviously affect our understanding of evolution.
-
You don't get it.
Oh, the irony!
You have evidence for mechanisms that take place in the process of evolution. I am not disputing that.
You don't seem to have any comprehension of it at all, otherwise you wouldn't be asking such daft questions and making such silly assertions.
I am talking about causes that are behind the mechanisms.
The only cause needed is for things that replicate with inheritance and variation, in an environment which means that not every replicator survives. That's it.
Explaining a car in terms of its mechanisms is not enough. Its purpose and driving force (driver) also need to be understood.
The 'mechanism' of evolution is not something that even suggests a need for further explanation. It is the explanation. It is absolutely nothing like car. The very fact that you are trying to compare the two, even as an analogy, is conclusive evidence that you simply don't understand.
You guys will claim that there is no reason to assume an purpose or driving force for evolution and that evolutionary mechanisms just happen with no reason at all.
The theory of evolution is the reason. The reasons why it happens really couldn't be more obvious. It's one of the simplest explanations in all of science and we have a plain as day example of it playing out in the world news as we speak.
We cannot see evolution in isolation. It has to be seen as just a part of our lives. Other aspects such as the nature of the mind, role of consciousness, understanding death and after-life, ESP, reincarnation and so on all are important. Understanding all these aspects will obviously affect our understanding of evolution.
Baseless nonsense.
-
You (and Blue) always react very angrily and with great deal of agitation at any of my posts. Shows you are insecure.......I think! ;)
-
You (and Blue) always react very angrily and with great deal of agitation at any of my posts. Shows you are insecure.......I think! ;)
Not sure whether you are aiming that comment at me, but I think the term is exasperated - it is incredibly frustrating discussing a matter with someone who steadfastly refuses to engage with the evidence and the facts.
As someone else pointed out you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. Realistically you need to get out of the achingly anthropocentric mind-set you have and actually engage with the evidence.
-
You don't get it. You have evidence for mechanisms that take place in the process of evolution. I am not disputing that.
I am talking about causes that are behind the mechanisms. Explaining a car in terms of its mechanisms is not enough. Its purpose and driving force (driver) also need to be understood.
You guys will claim that there is no reason to assume an purpose or driving force for evolution and that evolutionary mechanisms just happen with no reason at all. I don't agree with that.
We cannot see evolution in isolation. It has to be seen as just a part of our lives. Other aspects such as the nature of the mind, role of consciousness, understanding death and after-life, ESP, reincarnation and so on all are important. Understanding all these aspects will obviously affect our understanding of evolution.
What came first, conciousness or life?
-
'There is no 'need', there is no 'purpose', there is no 'intent', there is no 'survival instinct'.
That is what you guys like to believe.... Fine! ::) But tying it up with other hypotheses on consciousness, nature of mind and NDE's....I believe otherwise!
People 'believe' Trump won the election... people 'believe' the Tories' immigration policy is based on economics and lack of space... people 'believe' Jesus is coming back soon... people 'believe' that Bill Gates has put tracking microchips in the COVID vaccine...
People believe all sorts of nonsense; unless you can support your belief with some sort of logic or evidentiary basis then all you have is an opinion - to which you are, of course, entitled, but no-one has any obligation to treat it seriously.
O.
-
Not sure whether you are aiming that comment at me, but I think the term is exasperated - it is incredibly frustrating discussing a matter with someone who steadfastly refuses to engage with the evidence and the facts.
As someone else pointed out you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. Realistically you need to get out of the achingly anthropocentric mind-set you have and actually engage with the evidence.
:D You have no idea how exasperating it is for me to keep explaining the importance of other aspects of life (nature of mind, consciousness, after-life) and you people keep repeating the same old science perceptions of mechanisms as causes. Your assertions that ....'there are no causes.....only mechanisms' are as tiresome as they get.
-
People 'believe' Trump won the election... people 'believe' the Tories' immigration policy is based on economics and lack of space... people 'believe' Jesus is coming back soon... people 'believe' that Bill Gates has put tracking microchips in the COVID vaccine...
People believe all sorts of nonsense; unless you can support your belief with some sort of logic or evidentiary basis then all you have is an opinion - to which you are, of course, entitled, but no-one has any obligation to treat it seriously.
O.
Beliefs can be based on many real phenomena that one experiences. These may not be measurable but that does not mean they can be ignored and brushed off.
The issue of Consciousness is very important as also the issue of an after-life. There is ample evidence for an after-life and ample evidence that consciousness is fundamental. Belief in such matters cannot be brushed off. How you people can ignore such important and fundamental matters is beyond me.
Luckily many young scientists seem to be free of the old science biases (two boxes syndrome) and seem to be looking beyond physical explanations. That is a welcome trend.
-
Beliefs can be based on many real phenomena that one experiences. These may not be measurable but that does not mean they can be ignored and brushed off.
The issue of Consciousness is very important as also the issue of an after-life. There is ample evidence for an after-life and ample evidence that consciousness is fundamental. Belief in such matters cannot be brushed off. How you people can ignore such important and fundamental matters is beyond me.
Luckily many young scientists seem to be free of the old science biases (two boxes syndrome) and seem to be looking beyond physical explanations. That is a welcome trend.
Tucker and Stevenson are 'young scientists' ? Don't think so.
-
Tucker and Stevenson are 'young scientists' ? Don't think so.
Jim Tucker is not old ....about 61. Sam Parnia is fairly young. But Ian Stevenson, Raymond Moody are exceptions who thought outside the box in the 1960's and 70's itself. Great guys....pioneers and path breakers...!
-
You (and Blue) always react very angrily and with great deal of agitation at any of my posts. Shows you are insecure.......I think! ;)
Frustration at your total lack of ability or inclination to engage with the logic and evidence of what is a remarkably simple phenomenon (at least in terms of significant scientific theories) is not a sign of insecurity.
I've lost count of how many times I've explained natural selection to you (not to mention the other people who've also tried), how it doesn't need a purpose or goal, and how it would lead to the existence of 'survival instinct', rather than need it. You have never once directly addressed those explanations. You've quibbled about the word 'advantage', repeated the same questions, and shown no sign that you've even tried to consider the explanations you've been given.
You seem to want to avoid thinking about the actual issue at all costs, yet you accuse others of insecurity. ::)
-
...and you people keep repeating the same old science perceptions of mechanisms as causes. Your assertions that ....'there are no causes.....only mechanisms' are as tiresome as they get.
And this emphasises again that you appear to just be ignoring the explanations. Nobody is making assertions, the causes and mechanism of natural selection are well understood, backed up by evidence, and remarkably simple.
-
Beliefs can be based on many real phenomena that one experiences.
But they can also just be pulled out of nothing.
These may not be measurable but that does not mean they can be ignored and brushed off.
Given the sheer number of claims, in the absence of anything more than 'belief', that's exactly what should be done.
The issue of Consciousness is very important as also the issue of an after-life.
Now there's a false equivalence and a half... consciousness is an observed phenomenon, for which we are still searching precise explanations. The idea of an afterlife isn't even close to being demonstrated as anything more than a hang-over from bronze-age superstitions. These two are not the same.
There is ample evidence for an after-life and ample evidence that consciousness is fundamental.
No. There's lots of evidence that people believe in an afterlife. There're lots of accounts of experiences that people try to tie to the idea of an afterlife, but that are equally as applicable to well-understood biochemistry. There is not 'ample evidence for an after-life' unless you aren't particularly critical about what you accept as evidence.
Belief in such matters cannot be brushed off. How you people can ignore such important and fundamental matters is beyond me.
Because it's not been shown in any way to be fundamental. The implications if it were true would, I agree, be important, but that's equally the case for Scientology's bullshit about Thetan brainwaves and the return of the Galactic Warlord, Xenu, but I'm not going to advocate pumping money into tin-foil hats and space lasers, either. You need more than a profound belief to justify your claim; it can motivate you to look for evidence, certainly, crack on, but come back when you have it, not when you have just the claims.
Luckily many young scientists seem to be free of the old science biases (two boxes syndrome) and seem to be looking beyond physical explanations. That is a welcome trend.
Scientists can study, that's what they do. Good science can be used to study ridiculous claims, and it will still be good science, but that they are studying it doesn't validate the claim at all, only the evidence arising from the study will do that. When these young scientists have something credible, that's when this discussion can move somewhere.
O.
-
Evolution involves intelligent adaptation and increasing complexity. It has objectives...survival, reproduction and complexity.
About the only thing you got right there is the spelling of all those long words. Literally everything you say in that sentence is false.
-
But they can also just be pulled out of nothing.
Given the sheer number of claims, in the absence of anything more than 'belief', that's exactly what should be done.
Now there's a false equivalence and a half... consciousness is an observed phenomenon, for which we are still searching precise explanations. The idea of an afterlife isn't even close to being demonstrated as anything more than a hang-over from bronze-age superstitions. These two are not the same.
No. There's lots of evidence that people believe in an afterlife. There're lots of accounts of experiences that people try to tie to the idea of an afterlife, but that are equally as applicable to well-understood biochemistry. There is not 'ample evidence for an after-life' unless you aren't particularly critical about what you accept as evidence.
Because it's not been shown in any way to be fundamental. The implications if it were true would, I agree, be important, but that's equally the case for Scientology's bullshit about Thetan brainwaves and the return of the Galactic Warlord, Xenu, but I'm not going to advocate pumping money into tin-foil hats and space lasers, either. You need more than a profound belief to justify your claim; it can motivate you to look for evidence, certainly, crack on, but come back when you have it, not when you have just the claims.
Scientists can study, that's what they do. Good science can be used to study ridiculous claims, and it will still be good science, but that they are studying it doesn't validate the claim at all, only the evidence arising from the study will do that. When these young scientists have something credible, that's when this discussion can move somewhere.
O.
'If they were true, the implications would be important'. Ok....but how do we know if they are true...if we keep brushing them off as 'woo' or whatever...?
We still don't know what Life is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'just a process by which bodily activities happen'. We don't know what death is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'the cessation of all bodily processes'. We don't know why the universe exists. This is normally dismissed off as....'due to the laws of physics'. We don't know why Life exists and evolves. This is normally dismissed off as....'an emergent property of certain molecules and evolution is due to random variation and natural selection'.
All fundamental questions. But what kind of answers are these....?! As naive as they get with no depth of vision whatsoever.
-
'If they were true, the implications would be important'. Ok....but how do we know if they are true...if we keep brushing them off as 'woo' or whatever...?
We still don't know what Life is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'just a process by which bodily activities happen'. We don't know what death is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'the cessation of all bodily processes'. We don't know why the universe exists. This is normally dismissed off as....'due to the laws of physics'. We don't know why Life exists and evolves. This is normally dismissed off as....'an emergent property of certain molecules and evolution is due to random variation and natural selection'.
All fundamental questions. But what kind of answers are these....?! As naive as they get with no depth of vision whatsoever.
it is not naïve to be diligent in your thinking, to respect the value of evidence and observation. If your ideas are not constrained by evidence then you risk ending up believing all manner of baseless nonsense, such as dead people with no ears being able to hear quite well, and people that don't exist with no eyes being able to experience eyesight really quite well. It's a good idea to remain grounded by evidence lest you end up living in a fantasy world of magic.
-
it is not naïve to be diligent in your thinking, to respect the value of evidence and observation. If your ideas are not constrained by evidence then you risk ending up believing all manner of baseless nonsense, such as dead people with no ears being able to hear quite well, and people that don't exist with no eyes being able to experience eyesight really quite well. It's a good idea to remain grounded by evidence lest you end up living in a fantasy world of magic.
This is the type of microscopic thinking that leads to naive conclusions. How caught up with physicality people are......
The idea is simple. Seeing and hearing are experiences. They are merely enabled by eyes and ears. A person sitting within a robot for example, needs cameras and microphones to see and hear but can see and hear perfectly well when he is outside the robot.
Consciousness is what sees and hears....not the eyes and ears. Nothing magical about it.
-
This is the type of microscopic thinking that leads to naive conclusions. How caught up with physicality people are......
The idea is simple. Seeing and hearing are experiences. They are merely enabled by eyes and ears. A person sitting within a robot for example, needs cameras and microphones to see and hear but can see and hear perfectly well when he is outside the robot.
Consciousness is what sees and hears....not the eyes and ears. Nothing magical about it.
This is exactly the sort of baseless nonsense that arises if you sever the link between evidence and concept. It is fantasy thinking. The evidence shows quite clearly that consciousness is a phenomenology of brains and that hearing is a phenomenology of auditory systems. We don't have any evidence whatsoever of inanimate objects lacking complex auditory arrangements being able to hear quite well. Hearing is a complex transduction of external phenomena, remember the tree falling in the forest ? the sound of the falling tree is an interpretive construction that happens uniquely in brains with auditory cortex. If you think you can get from a speculative claim of universal consciousness to dead people having good hearing, you've lost the plot somewhere along the way.
-
This is exactly the sort of baseless nonsense that arises if you sever the link between evidence and concept. It is fantasy thinking. The evidence shows quite clearly that consciousness is a phenomenology of brains and that hearing is a phenomenology of auditory systems. We don't have any evidence whatsoever of inanimate objects lacking complex auditory arrangements being able to hear quite well. Hearing is a complex transduction of external phenomena, remember the tree falling in the forest ? the sound of the falling tree is an interpretive construction that happens uniquely in brains with auditory cortex. If you think you can get from a speculative claim of universal consciousness to dead people having good hearing, you've lost the plot somewhere along the way.
Auditory organs evolve to accommodate the faculty of hearing that is already present in Consciousness. Similarly with sight.
-
Auditory organs evolve to accommodate the faculty of hearing that is already present in Consciousness. Similarly with sight.
If hearing is already 'present in consciousness' why do we need auditory organs to construct it? it is already there.
-
'If they were true, the implications would be important'. Ok....but how do we know if they are true...if we keep brushing them off as 'woo' or whatever...?
Well, we develop a methodology for investigating observed phenomena, and then we apply that methodology rigorously, and then we open the account of that process to the general public to invite commentary and dissent, and if no-one can find any obvious flaws in the reasoning we provisionally accept that as a viable explanation for events, and if that doesn't happen then we leave that claim on the table as unverified.
We still don't know what Life is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'just a process by which bodily activities happen'.
No, we don't dismiss it, we conclude from the available evidence that's probably what it is. It's not a dismissal, it's a recognition of an extraordinary marvel of nature that doesn't need any supernatural garnish to make it wonderful.
We don't know what death is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'the cessation of all bodily processes'.
Again, that's not a 'dismissal'. It's a conclusion, based of that first conclusion.
We don't know why the universe exists. This is normally dismissed off as....'due to the laws of physics'.
Actually, it's normally dismissed as a meaningless question; before you can ask 'why' you have to justify the idea that there might be a 'reason' at all.
We don't know why Life exists and evolves. This is normally dismissed off as....'an emergent property of certain molecules and evolution is due to random variation and natural selection'.
In what way are these 'dismissal's? Because they don't entertain the magic that we see no evidence for anywhere?
All fundamental questions. But what kind of answers are these....?!
Answers based upon the available evidence and a rigorous process of investigation. What answers do you have - ancient versions of Harry Potter and Gandalf...
As naive as they get with no depth of vision whatsoever.
Having at least a degree of credulity is not 'naivety'. Accepting any old claim just because you can find a copy of it that has dust on the jacket isn't wisdom, it's intellectual vacuity.
O.
-
If hearing is already 'present in consciousness' why do we need auditory organs to construct it? it is already there.
I told you it is like being inside a robot. Why should the robot have cameras and microphones when the inside person has eyes and ears? Why should a car have wheels when we have legs?
-
I told you it is like being inside a robot. Why should the robot have cameras and microphones when the inside person has eyes and ears?
If you're going to put a person inside a robot, then there'd be little point in giving it microphones and cameras. Much, much easier to give it windows and apertures that allow sound to pass through.
The idea that a disembodied consciousness can see and hear all by itself, yet has to have eyes and ears (not to mention to associated parts of the brain), is ludicrous.
-
Well, we develop a methodology for investigating observed phenomena, and then we apply that methodology rigorously, and then we open the account of that process to the general public to invite commentary and dissent, and if no-one can find any obvious flaws in the reasoning we provisionally accept that as a viable explanation for events, and if that doesn't happen then we leave that claim on the table as unverified.
No, we don't dismiss it, we conclude from the available evidence that's probably what it is. It's not a dismissal, it's a recognition of an extraordinary marvel of nature that doesn't need any supernatural garnish to make it wonderful.
Again, that's not a 'dismissal'. It's a conclusion, based of that first conclusion.
Actually, it's normally dismissed as a meaningless question; before you can ask 'why' you have to justify the idea that there might be a 'reason' at all.
In what way are these 'dismissal's? Because they don't entertain the magic that we see no evidence for anywhere?
Answers based upon the available evidence and a rigorous process of investigation. What answers do you have - ancient versions of Harry Potter and Gandalf...
Having at least a degree of credulity is not 'naivety'. Accepting any old claim just because you can find a copy of it that has dust on the jacket isn't wisdom, it's intellectual vacuity.
O.
It is a fact that in western societies there has not been much of a history of secular spirituality divorced from religion. Christianity and Islam have had a bad time due to scientific progress (Adam & Eve, six day creation etc.). The failure of religious mythology has made all suggestions of unseen causes or quasi physical forces seem dubious and delusional. This is a mistake. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater and overlooking real phenomena.
Many unseen and quasi physical forces do exist and they do influence our lives. Western minds are only now beginning to open out to such possibilities (outside religious myths). All suggestions of quasi or exotic or extra physical phenomena need not be delusional.
Once these possibilities are recognized, new ways of looking at the world and its origins will develop and this will bring about new methodologies and new ways of examining these phenomena. That is when a new science will develop. It is beginning to happen...slowly.
-
I told you it is like being inside a robot. Why should the robot have cameras and microphones when the inside person has eyes and ears? Why should a car have wheels when we have legs?
If there is 'something' inside that experiences vision then it would have no need to construct all the biological apparatus by which vision is constructed. It can just do it natively. Is there something inside a bat that can do echo-location natively ? Is there something inside a shark that does electroreception natively ? Is there something 'inside' a daffodil that is experiencing the Sun resulting in a heliotropic response ?
-
If there is 'something' inside that experiences vision then it would have no need to construct all the biological apparatus by which vision is constructed. It can just do it natively. Is there something inside a bat that can do echo-location natively ? Is there something inside a shark that does electroreception natively ? Is there something 'inside' a daffodil that is experiencing the Sun resulting in a heliotropic response ?
It is obviously not as simple as the analogy I have given. I agree to that.
-
It is a fact that in western societies there has not been much of a history of secular spirituality divorced from religion. Christianity and Islam have had a bad time due to scientific progress (Adam & Eve, six day creation etc.).
Whilst there is a logical, and perhaps sociological, exercise to conducted in separating 'religious' and 'spiritual', in practical terms they are both unevidenced assertions; so far as rational enquiry is concerned, they are both lacking in evidentiary bases.
The failure of religious mythology has made all suggestions of unseen causes or quasi physical forces seem dubious and delusional. This is a mistake. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater and overlooking real phenomena.
On the contrary, any number of unseen causes and 'quasi-physical' forces are well-established foundations of the modern scientific understanding of the world: strong and weak nuclear forces are literally considered to be foundational aspects of our current understanding. What you're trying to refer to aren't forces at all, they aren't effects, they are assertions about phenomena for which no causal evidence can be found. They are, functionally, not there. That's not to do with a 'Western dismissal of spirituality' in some throwing the baby out with the bath-water fit of intellectual pique, that's you recognising the Western distinction between rational enquiry and religious doctrine and mistaking which side of the divide spiritual claims falls into.
What you are suggesting are not phenomena, they are attempts at explanations for phenomena. People under extreme physical duress reporting sensory experiences is the phenomenon, no-one is disputing this happens. Your attempted explanation is 'spiritual', with nothing more than your assertion to back it. Rational science points to the measurements of ischemic damage and chemical breakdown of neurotransmitters in the brain triggering activity that would normally be the result of coordinated sensory and brain activity. Your phenomena are our phenomena; your explanations are lacking.
Many unseen and quasi physical forces do exist and they do influence our lives.
I know.
Western minds are only now beginning to open out to such possibilities (outside religious myths).
Western people are as entitled to believe without evidence as anyone else; it doesn't make it right. Millions of white people can be wrong, just like millions of people of any other ethnic persuasion.
All suggestions of quasi or exotic or extra physical phenomena need not be delusional.
No, they need not be. In order for maintaining the belief in them not to be delusional, however, you either need support for them, or to be unaware of better explanations that do have a basis. You can claim neither of these.
Once these possibilities are recognized, new ways of looking at the world and its origins will develop and this will bring about new methodologies and new ways of examining these phenomena.
Fine, bring that new methodology. But you don't have a methodology, you just have 'don't look at the evidence, listen to waffle'... that's not a methodology, that's the abrogation of integrity.
That is when a new science will develop.
You keep using that word, science - I don't think it means what you think it means. Science is not the understanding we have, and it's not the theories that explain phenomena - they are the product of science. Science is a rigorous method, and that's what you don't have - you have no method, you have no means of eliminating personal bias, no means of reducing the effects of subjectivity, no ability to isolate claimed effects and test them, you just have old claims wrapped in shiny new packaging hoping to hang on the coat-tails of actual science.
It is beginning to happen...slowly.
No, there are a few fringe thinkers who want to be deep, and a few charlatans who want to be Deepak, but underneath it all at the moment is nothing of merit.
O.
-
Whilst there is a logical, and perhaps sociological, exercise to conducted in separating 'religious' and 'spiritual', in practical terms they are both unevidenced assertions; so far as rational enquiry is concerned, they are both lacking in evidentiary bases.
On the contrary, any number of unseen causes and 'quasi-physical' forces are well-established foundations of the modern scientific understanding of the world: strong and weak nuclear forces are literally considered to be foundational aspects of our current understanding. What you're trying to refer to aren't forces at all, they aren't effects, they are assertions about phenomena for which no causal evidence can be found. They are, functionally, not there. That's not to do with a 'Western dismissal of spirituality' in some throwing the baby out with the bath-water fit of intellectual pique, that's you recognising the Western distinction between rational enquiry and religious doctrine and mistaking which side of the divide spiritual claims falls into.
What you are suggesting are not phenomena, they are attempts at explanations for phenomena. People under extreme physical duress reporting sensory experiences is the phenomenon, no-one is disputing this happens. Your attempted explanation is 'spiritual', with nothing more than your assertion to back it. Rational science points to the measurements of ischemic damage and chemical breakdown of neurotransmitters in the brain triggering activity that would normally be the result of coordinated sensory and brain activity. Your phenomena are our phenomena; your explanations are lacking.
I know.
Western people are as entitled to believe without evidence as anyone else; it doesn't make it right. Millions of white people can be wrong, just like millions of people of any other ethnic persuasion.
No, they need not be. In order for maintaining the belief in them not to be delusional, however, you either need support for them, or to be unaware of better explanations that do have a basis. You can claim neither of these.
Fine, bring that new methodology. But you don't have a methodology, you just have 'don't look at the evidence, listen to waffle'... that's not a methodology, that's the abrogation of integrity.
You keep using that word, science - I don't think it means what you think it means. Science is not the understanding we have, and it's not the theories that explain phenomena - they are the product of science. Science is a rigorous method, and that's what you don't have - you have no method, you have no means of eliminating personal bias, no means of reducing the effects of subjectivity, no ability to isolate claimed effects and test them, you just have old claims wrapped in shiny new packaging hoping to hang on the coat-tails of actual science.
No, there are a few fringe thinkers who want to be deep, and a few charlatans who want to be Deepak, but underneath it all at the moment is nothing of merit.
O.
Yes....I am attempting to explain phenomena and why they exist. There may not be any answer to 'why'....is a cop-out!
The scientific method is fine for certain phenomena.....just as a microscope is useful to examine certain phenomena. But it cannot be used everywhere. That becomes scientism. We need different methodologies to examine different types of phenomena. These have to be developed in line with the nature of the phenomenon.
-
Yes....I am attempting to explain phenomena and why they exist.
But you aren't supporting your explanations with anything more compelling than 'but I like the idea.'
There may not be any answer to 'why'....is a cop-out!
That's the most fundamental error that you're making - in presupposing the existence of a reason, you are begging the question 'what's the reason'. You have to establish a basis for thinking there is one.
The scientific method is fine for certain phenomena.....
No, the scientific method is fine for ALL phenomena. You devise possible explanations for those phenomena, identify the implications of those explanations and then identify tests that could confirm or refute those implications as a way to validate or repudiate those initial explanations. There is no restriction on what the explanation could be, no limitation on what the tests could be... there is no phenomenon that is beyond science's theoretical application.
just as a microscope is useful to examine certain phenomena.
You are conflating a tool - the microscope - with a methodology - scientific enquiry.
But it cannot be used everywhere.
If you can detect it, if you can measure it, you can use the scientific method to investigate it. If you can't detect, and can't measure it... it's not a phenomenon, it's a rumour.
That becomes scientism.
No, scientism is the suggestion that science is the only way to conduct such an investigation; if you want to suggest an alternative, crack on.
We need different methodologies to examine different types of phenomena.
I'm all ears.
These have to be developed in line with the nature of the phenomenon.
Arguable. You develop tools to suit the nature of the phenomenon in question, perhaps, but to select a particular methodology for a particular phenomenon runs the risk of confirmation bias. Better, if you have an alternative methodology, is to run both and see if they concur.
O.
-
It is a fact that in western societies there has not been much of a history of secular spirituality divorced from religion. Christianity and Islam have had a bad time due to scientific progress (Adam & Eve, six day creation etc.).
No they have had a bad time because of fundamentalism. Early 20th century american christians were not nearly as fundamentalist (which chiefly expressed itself in literalism), and that is an own goal which antitheists have capitalised by categorising religion not so fundamental as inauthentic christianity.
The fact that a lot of scientists are atheists I think is down to the all too human propensity of elevating one's job to the status of ultimate reality.
-
No they have had a bad time because of fundamentalism.
It's not clear, I'd say, if the fundamentalism is a response to the decline or a cause. Certainly when fundamentalism expresses itself in situations like Pakistan (Islam), India (Hinduism), Iran (Islam) or sub-Saharan Africa (Christianity and Islam) it's difficult to tie it to a decline in religiosity, so it seems difficult to make the claim for the West. Perhaps the fundamentalism has always been there, and the decline in religiosity has been focussed in the moderate voices, leading to an increase in the proportion of fundamentalism rather than an increase in the number?
Early 20th century american christians were not nearly as fundamentalist (which chiefly expressed itself in literalism), and that is an own goal which antitheists have capitalised by categorising religion not so fundamental as inauthentic christianity.
In what way is it an 'inauthentic' Christianity? It's believed as profoundly (arguably moreso) as the moderate forms. Christianity is the accumulation of beliefs of Christians, their input is as (in)valid as anyone else's.
The fact that a lot of scientists are atheists I think is down to the all too human propensity of elevating one's job to the status of ultimate reality.
The fact that a lot of scientists are atheists is a mixture of the fact that, in the modern world, a lot of people are atheists, and amongst people higher levels of logical processing-type intelligence and longer time spent in further education both correlate with atheism and scientific achievement. Whether one could be intrinsically said to lead to another or not is, I think, difficult to establish.
O.
-
It's not clear, I'd say, if the fundamentalism is a response to the decline or a cause. Certainly when fundamentalism expresses itself in situations like Pakistan (Islam), India (Hinduism), Iran (Islam) or sub-Saharan Africa (Christianity and Islam) it's difficult to tie it to a decline in religiosity, so it seems difficult to make the claim for the West. Perhaps the fundamentalism has always been there, and the decline in religiosity has been focussed in the moderate voices, leading to an increase in the proportion of fundamentalism rather than an increase in the number?
In America the failure of science education as opposed to the success of Biblical literalism is an interesting phenomenon due in great part to economic systems in regional America which deprived a scientific education....or any education to many.
In what way is it an 'inauthentic' Christianity? It's believed as profoundly (arguably moreso) as the moderate forms.
I think i've either not made myself clear or you are reading what you want to see. The point I am making is that it is antitheism which sees Fundamentalist Christianity as the authentic form and antitheism which considers the moderate forms as inauthentic Christianity is the accumulation of beliefs of Christians, their input is as (in)valid as anyone else's.
I would certainly like to see you expand on that.
The fact that a lot of scientists are atheists is a mixture of the fact that, in the modern world, a lot of people are atheists, and amongst people higher levels of logical processing-type intelligence and longer time spent in further education both correlate with atheism and scientific achievement. Whether one could be intrinsically said to lead to another or not is, I think, difficult to establish.
Or like almost every job that is consuming, Scientists just want to veg out with a budweiser rather than philosophise, or meditate and pray.
One might ask why scientists are usually dismissive of philosophy and subsequently notably piss poor at it.
-
In America the failure of science education as opposed to the success of Biblical literalism is an interesting phenomenon due in great part to economic systems in regional America which deprived a scientific education....or any education to many.
And yet Biblical literalism is prevalent amongst the apparently educated as much as the uneducated, and indeed is part of the ongoing struggle to get the state to pay for the private (religious) schooling rather than restricting state funding to the secular state education system. The mainstay of religious literalism isn't in the uneducated of the US, it's in the celebrity theologians and the well-funded private schools and universities.
I think i've either not made myself clear or you are reading what you want to see. The point I am making is that it is antitheism which sees Fundamentalist Christianity as the authentic form and antitheism which considers the moderate forms as inauthentic.
I see. I can't speak for everyone, but I think you've misunderstood; I see no basis by which you could determine that one was more or less 'authentic' than the other.
I would certainly like to see you expand on that.
Regardless of whether you think you, or anyone else, has the definitive idea of what Christian behaviour 'should' be, the reality is that there is a range of behaviours manifested by Christians ostensibly as a manifestation of their faith; if their belief is leading them to that behaviour, it is Christianity. Therefore Christianity is just the accumulation of the behaviour of all the Christians.
Or like almost every job that is consuming, Scientists just want to veg out with a budweiser rather than philosophise, or meditate and pray. One might ask why scientists are usually dismissive of philosophy and subsequently notably piss poor at it.
Scientists are people, and people in general tend to view philosophy as navel-gazing with a thesaurus. I'm not sure you can presume something about scientists particularly from that, unless you've something that says they're more prone to that attitude than the general populace.
O.
-
And yet Biblical literalism is prevalent amongst the apparently educated as much as the uneducated, and indeed is part of the ongoing struggle to get the state to pay for the private (religious) schooling rather than restricting state funding to the secular state education system. The mainstay of religious literalism isn't in the uneducated of the US, it's in the celebrity theologians and the well-funded private schools and universities. It's doubtful that a lot of these universities are so. There is a case to be said that these are vanity projects. I'm afraid the uneducted are the mainstay of religious literalism since they are ultimately the poor suckers paying the celebrity theologians.
I see. I can't speak for everyone, but I think you've misunderstood; I see no basis by which you could determine that one was more or less 'authentic' than the other.
It's not rocket science to know that someone like yourself thinks it's all crap but unfortunately for you Biblical literalism has been an easy target and New and celebrity Atheism has made it their focus. Indeed one of your chiefs Sam Harris has suggested that inside every moderate there is an evil fundamentalist christian waiting to be unleashed
Regardless of whether you think you, or anyone else, has the definitive idea of what Christian behaviour 'should' be, the reality is that there is a range of behaviours manifested by Christians ostensibly as a manifestation of their faith; if their belief is leading them to that behaviour, it is Christianity. Therefore Christianity is just the accumulation of the behaviour of all the Christians.
unfortunately following your logic any behaviour could be categorised as Christian and of course there is the danger of ending up with the type of cartoon caricature christianity Sam Harris suffers from opposing.
Scientists are people, and people in general tend to view philosophy as navel-gazing with a thesaurus.
But acting as if such philistinism is a virtue isn't the way to be for a reasonable person is it?
-
It's doubtful that a lot of these universities are so. There is a case to be said that these are vanity projects. I'm afraid the uneducted are the mainstay of religious literalism since they are ultimately the poor suckers paying the celebrity theologians.
Doubtful a lot of universities do what? Teach hard-core literalist Christianity? A lot of them probably don't, but enough of them do that it's noticably different from the higher education establishments of other western nations. The uneducated are the cash-cow, certainly, but in a world where reality is regularly taught and reinforced you need an alternative media apparatus to push the fairy tale lest it disappear the way of Thor and Zeus.
It's not rocket science to know that someone like yourself thinks it's all crap
It's not rocket science for anyone. You just need to look at the myriad different sects and cults you get of each religious belief system to realise that there is no definitive 'correct' interpretation, even if you presume one of those belief systems has somehow managed to glom onto the 'real' god(s).
but unfortunately for you Biblical literalism has been an easy target and New and celebrity Atheism has made it their focus.
I fail to see how the easy target presented by one subgroup of Christians is an unfortunate system for me; it shows that somehow the divine message of an all-knowing, all-powerful timeless genius can't explain what he really wants in terms that the common man can understand.
Indeed one of your chiefs Sam Harris has suggested that inside every moderate there is an evil fundamentalist christian waiting to be unleashed
Sam Harris is a man with opinions, which stand or fall on their own merits. We aren't a 'church', we aren't some monolith failing to sing from an appropriately concordant hymn sheet. Atheism does not have a doctrine; I agree with Sam Harris on some things, I disagree with him on others, and that's fine because neither of us is pretending there is some immutable creed that we're supposed to be following.
unfortunately following your logic any behaviour could be categorised as Christian
Yep.
and of course there is the danger of ending up with the type of cartoon caricature christianity Sam Harris suffers from opposing.
No, we all suffer because not enough people are opposing it. You might not like to think that it's 'your' brand Christianity, but it's a politically, socially and economically powerful movement that is fundamentally undermining people's rights, freedoms and happiness in real terms on a daily basis, both in their own country and overseas. It is the evil of Christianity, washed out 'moderate' Anglicanism is only a significant problem to the extent that it offers a veil of respectability for other more harmful nonsense.
But acting as if such philistinism is a virtue isn't the way to be for a reasonable person is it?
If anyone was doing that, you'd have a point, but no-one was. I was merely pointing out that trying to single out scientists on that is something of a straw-man - as we've noted above, there are enough seriously motivated Christians that don't think all the way through the philosophy, and who come to far more worrisome conclusions because of it.
O.
-
Doubtful a lot of universities do what? Teach hard-core literalist Christianity? A lot of them probably don't, but enough of them do that it's noticably different from the higher education establishments of other western nations. The uneducated are the cash-cow, certainly, but in a world where reality is regularly taught and reinforced you need an alternative media apparatus to push the fairy tale lest it disappear the way of Thor and Zeus.
It's not rocket science for anyone. You just need to look at the myriad different sects and cults you get of each religious belief system to realise that there is no definitive 'correct' interpretation, even if you presume one of those belief systems has somehow managed to glom onto the 'real' god(s).
I fail to see how the easy target presented by one subgroup of Christians is an unfortunate system for me; it shows that somehow the divine message of an all-knowing, all-powerful timeless genius can't explain what he really wants in terms that the common man can understand.
Sam Harris is a man with opinions, which stand or fall on their own merits. We aren't a 'church', we aren't some monolith failing to sing from an appropriately concordant hymn sheet. Atheism does not have a doctrine; I agree with Sam Harris on some things, I disagree with him on others, and that's fine because neither of us is pretending there is some immutable creed that we're supposed to be following.
Yep.
No, we all suffer because not enough people are opposing it. You might not like to think that it's 'your' brand Christianity, but it's a politically, socially and economically powerful movement that is fundamentally undermining people's rights, freedoms and happiness in real terms on a daily basis, both in their own country and overseas. It is the evil of Christianity, washed out 'moderate' Anglicanism is only a significant problem to the extent that it offers a veil of respectability for other more harmful nonsense.
If anyone was doing that, you'd have a point, but no-one was. I was merely pointing out that trying to single out scientists on that is something of a straw-man - as we've noted above, there are enough seriously motivated Christians that don't think all the way through the philosophy, and who come to far more worrisome conclusions because of it.
O.
Doubtful a lot of these universities can rightly be called universities. Doubtful that the celebrity theologians behind it actually aren't fully conscious of what sells.
My problem isn't with scientists but New atheists who happen to be scientists.
I also have a problem with anglicanism at the moment but these are probably different from the problems you have with it. Mine will probably be justified but yours in all probability won't.
-
It's not rocket science for anyone. You just need to look at the myriad different sects and cults you get of each religious belief system to realise that there is no definitive 'correct' interpretation, even if you presume one of those belief systems has somehow managed to glom onto the 'real' god(s).
But that is non sequitur to my point which is that it is the antitheists who ignore the contributions of the non literalist church almost entirely and focus on the contribution to christianity of a certain type......motivated by the ease of the target.
This avoidance of the contribution of the more philosophically abled end of the church and indeed philosophy itself is at best intellectual laziness but IMV more likely fear that a challenge to your scientism might ensue. That's why the likes of Harris contemplate that the 'moderate' christian is really a fundamentalist in disguise, because it is a soothing little fairy tale and being a neurologist he probably ought to know it too.
-
But that is non sequitur to my point which is that it is the antitheists who ignore the contributions of the non literalist church almost entirely and focus on the contribution to christianity of a certain type......motivated by the ease of the target.
No. We've had any number of people point out here that there remain issues with the inherent privilege of the Anglican church's tax arrangements, with the institutional homophobia of most of Christianity, of the Roman Catholic Church's instutional cover-up of paedophile activity... yes, there are people making the case (mainly in the US, it seems to me) about the more fundamentalist Christianity's problematic stances, but they are the more pressing threat over there.
This avoidance of the contribution of the more philosophically abled end of the church and indeed philosophy itself is at best intellectual laziness but IMV more likely fear that a challenge to your scientism might ensue.
No, it's more a case that anyone who's tried to theologise their way through Christianity has had to remove so much of the nonsense to try to make sense of anything that it's become philosophically harmless; the remaining problems with the Anglican community are institutional and political, not much (with the possible exception of the homophobia) appear to be theological.
That's why the likes of Harris contemplate that the 'moderate' christian is really a fundamentalist in disguise, because it is a soothing little fairy tale and being a neurologist he probably ought to know it too.
No. Sam Harris is living in America, and talking about American Christianity, which is significantly more fundamentalist than here in the UK. He's talking about the very real threat that he sees around him, in his politics, on his TV, in his towns and cities. We've managed to civilise Christianity in the UK, that's still a work in progress over there.
O.
-
Here is something more on evolution and consciousness...
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01537/full
*********
the question of how the mind emerged in evolution (the mind-evolution problem) is tightly linked with the question of how the mind emerges from the brain (the mind-body problem). It seems that the evolution of consciousness cannot be resolved without first solving the “hard problem” (Chalmers, 1995). Until then, I argue that strong claims about the evolution of consciousness based on the evolution of cognition are premature and unfalsifiable.
*********
-
Here is something more on evolution and consciousness...
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01537/full
*********
the question of how the mind emerged in evolution (the mind-evolution problem) is tightly linked with the question of how the mind emerges from the brain (the mind-body problem). It seems that the evolution of consciousness cannot be resolved without first solving the “hard problem” (Chalmers, 1995). Until then, I argue that strong claims about the evolution of consciousness based on the evolution of cognition are premature and unfalsifiable.
*********
All of the possible valid or invalid arguments against consciousness being an emergent property of the brain's activity are in no way any sort of support for your claim of 'quasi-physical' outside influences 'pushing' consciousness into people from outside.
If you want to support your contention, go ahead and support it. We're still waiting... still...
O.
-
No. We've had any number of people point out here that there remain issues with the inherent privilege of the Anglican church's tax arrangements, with the institutional homophobia of most of Christianity,
But these people have failed to recognise their own religiophobia.IMO.
-
But these people have failed to recognise their own religiophobia.IMO.
Ad hominem responses just suggest that you don't actually have an argument against the case put forward, you know that right?
O.
-
Interesting article: worth a read.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/21/neuroscientist-anil-seth-we-risk-not-understanding-the-central-mystery-of-life
-
Interesting article: worth a read.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/21/neuroscientist-anil-seth-we-risk-not-understanding-the-central-mystery-of-life
Came across this bit......''Daniel Dennett’s definition of consciousness as a “trillion mindless robots dancing”.............anybody care to explain why this inspires them?
-
Came across this bit......''Daniel Dennett’s definition of consciousness as a “trillion mindless robots dancing”.............anybody care to explain why this inspires them?
I'll be happy enough if they keep on dancing for as long as possible.
-
I'll be happy enough if they keep on dancing for as long as possible.
:)Long May your robots dance, Gordon.
-
:)Long May your robots dance, Gordon.
Thank you, Vlad.
-
Came across this bit......''Daniel Dennett’s definition of consciousness as a “trillion mindless robots dancing”.............anybody care to explain why this inspires them?
...because they are big fans of "Strictly" and they might then go on to solve the even bigger mystery...how the fuck did Bill Bailey win?!!
-
.how the fuck did Bill Bailey win?!!
Cos the public gets what the public wants.....
-
An interesting video interview about Consciousness with Dr. Sam Parnia (about 12 minutes).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcCDlxFkAcY
-
This one is probably more interesting, just science, no woo.
https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality#t-172764 (https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality#t-172764)
-
This one is probably more interesting, just science, no woo.
https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality#t-172764 (https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality#t-172764)
'The brain hallucinates our conscious reality'....Yeah Right! :D
-
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/07/world/animals-climate-change-shape-shift-scn/index.html
**********
Some warm-blooded animals are experiencing shifts in their body shapes, likely as a response to the pressures of climate change, according to a new review of existing research.
Animals are getting larger beaks, legs and ears that allow them to better regulate their body temperatures as the planet gets hotter, with birds particularly affected, said Sara Ryding, a researcher at Deakin University in Australia and one of the authors of the research that published on Tuesday in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution.
The biggest shifts in appendage size in the more than 30 animals they looked at in the review were among some Australian parrot species, which saw their beak size increase by 4% to 10% on average since 1871.
This phenomenon of shape-shifting shouldn't be seen as a positive, but rather it is alarming that climate change is pushing animals to evolve like this, under such a relatively short timeframe."
**********
-
'The brain hallucinates our conscious reality'....Yeah Right! :D
This understanding is pretty much widely accepted in neuroscience. Our experience is something generated from within rather than constructed entirely from sensory data from outside. Sensory data acts acts as constraints and calibration on the experience generated from within. This is why our dreams are so unhinged. Dreams are what happens when there is no sensory data available to constrain the flow of conscious experience.
-
This understanding is pretty much widely accepted in neuroscience. Our experience is something generated from within rather than constructed entirely from sensory data from outside. Sensory data acts acts as constraints and calibration on the experience generated from within. This is why our dreams are so unhinged. Dreams are what happens when there is no sensory data available to constrain the flow of conscious experience.
Analyzing how the brain works is one thing...which is fine....but believing that the brain IS the person is quite another. ::)
-
Analyzing how the brain works is one thing...which is fine....but believing that the brain IS the person is quite another. ::)
In the sense you seem to mean person, I don't think it exists at all.
-
In the sense you seem to mean person, I don't think it exists at all.
I'm not sure quite how Hinduism (or Sriram's beliefs within it) regards 'person' at all. As I understand it, the human soul is referred to as 'Atman'. But according to Advaita Vedanta - and no doubt other philosophies within Hinduism - 'Atman' is 'Brahman', the godhead itself. Where is a 'person' in all this?
-
I'm not sure quite how Hinduism (or Sriram's beliefs within it) regards 'person' at all. As I understand it, the human soul is referred to as 'Atman'. But according to Advaita Vedanta - and no doubt other philosophies within Hinduism - 'Atman' is 'Brahman', the godhead itself. Where is a 'person' in all this?
According to String theory the String vibrates in 11 dimensions and transforms itself into different elementary particles...which them combine to form heavier particles, which form atoms. These atoms bond together and create the world. One exotic 'thing' transforms itself to create this whole universe.
The idea of Brahman or the Universal Consciousness is similar. According to Hindu beliefs, the Brahman, through its vibrations.....creates many celestial worlds and beings and also the earth and humans. According to this idea...we are emanations from the One...and are in the process of flowing back into the One.
A 'Person' is composed of many mental and physical features that are generated during his lifetime. At the core however, he is essentially a spark of the One Consciousness.