Consciousness & evolution

[Outrider]

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.

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

[Sriram]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[Sriram]

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. 

[Stranger]

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.

[Stranger]

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....   

[Outrider]

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.

[torridon]

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

[Sriram]

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...

[Gordon]

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.

[torridon]

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 ?

[Sriram]

I told ya...!! You know it all!    

[Stranger]

I told ya...!! You know it all!

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.

[Enki]

I told ya...!! You know it all!

"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.

[Sriram]

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...

[torridon]

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.

[Sriram]

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. 

[BeRational]

Of course it is detectable...maybe not measurable.

How can something be detected but not measurable?

[Stranger]

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.