Consciousness & evolution

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

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.

[torridon]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[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.

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.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?   

[Stranger]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Unfortunately it does not yield any truth that supports your last statement.

What doesn’t? What are you trying to say here?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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. 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?)       

[Outrider]

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]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[torridon]

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.