Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

The terminology is English.

It may well be to you.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

Since conscious interpretation of data is clearly an advantage for survival and reproduction, the obvious conclusion is that it evolved, like all other abilities.

But in order to evolve from natural selection, it needs to be definable in physical terms.  We take conscious perception so much for granted because all humans have it, but we still have no feasible physical model of how it works.

[Nearly Sane]

But in order to evolve from natural selection, it needs to be definable in physical terms.  We take conscious perception so much for granted because all humans have it, but we still have no feasible physical model of how it works.

assertion and incredulity, again. It's almost like you're programmed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But in order to evolve from natural selection, it needs to be definable in physical terms.  We take conscious perception so much for granted because all humans have it, but we still have no feasible physical model of how it works.

So before people arrived at, say, the Galapagos Islands, had nothing evolved there because there was no-one around to "define" the creatures there "in physical terms"?

Doesn't really work Alan does it?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

assertion and incredulity, again. It's almost like you're programmed.

"almost"?

[Gordon]

But in order to evolve from natural selection, it needs to be definable in physical terms.  We take conscious perception so much for granted because all humans have it, but we still have no feasible physical model of how it works.

You don't have to go all that far back in history to get to times when people realised that blood flowed without them having defined and understood the details of the human circulatory system; which is roughly our current position as regard consciousness.

We await further knowledge.

[Shaker]

But in order to evolve from natural selection, it needs to be definable in physical terms.  We take conscious perception so much for granted because all humans have it, but we still have no feasible physical model of how it works.

Correct. So we have two main options:

(1) Throw up your hands in the air and start drafting in gods, souls and the like - in essence saying "It's magic, innit";

or

(2) Continue looking into the matter with the appropriate tool(s), gathering such evidence as there is, framing and testing hypotheses until we may get to a point where we have a working model that fits the observed facts.

I know which I prefer. How about you, Alan?

[Alan Burns]

If you know programming then you should be comfortable with the notion that information is independent of its storage medium. A digital file can be stored in RAM, on a hard drive,  in the cloud, on tape, it can exist in serialised form on the wire, it is still the same information.  Life is essentially an information encoding system that uses organic matter as its underlying substrate, but there is no conceptual reason to suppose that some other medium could not support life, hence the endeavour to create machine consciousness. It is not the particles of matter that really define us, rather it is the information encoding that matter supports. There is no reason to think this principal is unique to humans, there is nothing unique about us at this level of analysis.

If you are interested, there is an introduction to the oft counterintuitive world of neuroscience on TV tonight by scientist David Eagleman, 9pm BBC 4.

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/dyp6b9/the-brain-with-david-eagleman--series-1---1-what-is-reality

I have set my TV box to record the series.  I am hoping it will be a bit more informative than some recent, rather disapointing,  BBC science programs.

I agree that information can be stored in many different formats, but I know of no other way of attaching any meaning to data other than in human perception.

Which leads to the mystery of what comprises meaning in the human brain.  Data will exist in the state of many brain cells, but can we define meaning in any physical sense?

[Leonard James]

Which earlier ancestor? From the very basic finds we have it wouldn't be classified as any of the species that currently are classed in the family of great apes. None of the species we have stood still and didn't evolve, nor did we evolve 'faster'. It's ape like because it was the common ancestor but we really don't know that much about it because it isn't here anymore.

Are there no fossils of it?  If not, how do we know it is an ancestor?

[Alan Burns]

I've no idea, but I'm sure he favours the creation story over evolution.

I do believe the process of evolution took place, with a little guidance from God.

[Nearly Sane]

Are there no fossils of it?  If not, how do we know it is an ancestor?

There are a couple of candidates but there isn't very much of them. You are falling into to the trap that creationists do in terms of looking at missing links. Fossilization is incredibly rare and the easy separation into species isn't simple, see bluehillside's post.

[Nearly Sane]

I do believe the process of evolution took place, with a little guidance from God.

why did 99% of species have to go extinct?

[torridon]

But that still doesn't mean any deity is behind the fact humans have evolved faster than other species.

I'm not sure it is valid to claim humans have evolved 'faster'.  In fact there are studies that suggest the opposite, by comparing the chimp genome with the human genome at least one analysis has claimed that chimps have been evolving faster than humans since our last common ancestor. And as of today, I would imagine that human evolution has slowed considerably since we devised universal healthcare systems.

[torridon]

But in order to evolve from natural selection, it needs to be definable in physical terms.  We take conscious perception so much for granted because all humans creatures have it, but we still have no feasible physical model of how it works.

FIFY

[torridon]

Are there no fossils of it?  If not, how do we know it is an ancestor?

An approximate date for an LCA is derived from genomic analysis.

[torridon]

I have set my TV box to record the series.  I am hoping it will be a bit more informative than some recent, rather disapointing,  BBC science programs.

I agree that information can be stored in many different formats, but I know of no other way of attaching any meaning to data other than in human perception.

Which leads to the mystery of what comprises meaning in the human brain.  Data will exist in the state of many brain cells, but can we define meaning in any physical sense?

Meaning is not something unique to the human brain.  All mammalian brains do the business of aggregating and refining  and interpreting sensory data into something that is meaningful to the individual.  Thus an antelope's sense organs capture raw incoming data and that data is processed  into something massively more rich and complex - emotions - like fear, terror.  This is the attribution of meaning, of pattern recognition, and it happens in all mammals, including humans.

[Shaker]

I do believe the process of evolution took place, with a little guidance from God.

How would you know this to be the case?

[Leonard James]

Len,

This may help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor

It's about the human/chimp common ancestor, but it's good enough. You'll see that there's no clear cut answer - you can't say, "it was species A on a Monday, but species B by Tuesday - and extensive hybridization, interbreeding etc occurred over countless generations in any case, but that's as good an answer as you'll get.

As for evolution, NS is right - if you think of it as a bush with tons of twigs, each branching into smaller twigs, each branching into even smaller twigs etc with a species at the end of each one, you cannot say that the species at this end of this twig over on the top left is any "more" evolved than the species way down here on the bottom right. At most you could count the branching junctions to obtain the number of predecessor species to get you back the the common ancestor for all of life, but I'm not sure that that would help you much.

You can't even look at the complexity DNA to help you by the way - ferns have much more of it than we do, as do onions - probably because they've been around much longer than we have so have had more opportunity to add genetic complexity along the way.   

Thank you, Blue. I see now where I have been mistaken, and I apologise if I have misled anybody.

I had wrongly assumed that there was a known species from which apes/humans had descended, and that it was more like a modern ape than like a human ... hence my assumption that the human had changed more radically than the ape.

I will have to adjust my understanding! 

[Leonard James]

Enjoy your bath/shower, Len 

 

I was referring to my soap operas on TV. My day is ruined if I don't see them. 

[Gordon]

I will have to adjust my understanding! 

Well done, Len: if only certain others were prepared to do the same.

[Leonard James]

But in order to evolve from natural selection, it needs to be definable in physical terms.  We take conscious perception so much for granted because all humans have it, but we still have no feasible physical model of how it works.

Many other animals have it, Alan, and use it for the same purpose as we do ... to survive.  As far a I am concerned it is the part of the brain which coordinates the input to the senses and reacts accordingly.

[Leonard James]

I do believe the process of evolution took place, with a little guidance from God.

What part of evolution do you feel couldn't have taken place without God?

[Alan Burns]

What part of evolution do you feel couldn't have taken place without God?

Conscious awareness and free will.

[Leonard James]

Conscious awareness and free will.

I see no problem in attributing them to natural selection, since they are both survival/reproduction advantages.

[Alan Burns]

Meaning is not something unique to the human brain.  All mammalian brains do the business of aggregating and refining  and interpreting sensory data into something that is meaningful to the individual.  Thus an antelope's sense organs capture raw incoming data and that data is processed  into something massively more rich and complex - emotions - like fear, terror.  This is the attribution of meaning, of pattern recognition, and it happens in all mammals, including humans.

What we interpret as fear and terror in animals could easily be just a programmed reaction to the data received from their sensory organs.  Animals may react to patterns and sounds, but do they really attach meaning to them?

Most humans can demonstrate their ability to perceive meaning by their ability to, for instance, interpret meaning from a written word, rather than just react to its pattern.  Also our ability to attach meaning to the spoken word, rather than just react to a sound.