Consciousness & evolution

[Stranger]

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.

[Stranger]

But...we know that true randomness does not exist.

No, we do not.

You see why it is a cop-out....?!     '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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[torridon]

You see why it is a cop-out....?!     '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.

[Sriram]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

[Stranger]

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.   

[Outrider]

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.

[Sriram]

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.....

[torridon]

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.

[Sriram]

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!

[torridon]

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.

[Sriram]

 
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....?   

[Outrider]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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'.

[Sriram]

'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!   

[ProfessorDavey]

'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.

[Enki]

'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.

[Stranger]

'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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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.