Consciousness & evolution

[Sriram]

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

[Stranger]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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'.

[Outrider]

........ 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.

[Sriram]

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. 

[Stranger]

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.   

[Outrider]

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.

[Sriram]

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. 

[SusanDoris]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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?

[Enki]

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?

[Sriram]

What is this? Some kind of a relay 'boxing'....??!

One guy goes away and someone else takes over.....then he goes away and someone else takes over...

[Enki]

What is this? Some kind of a relay 'boxing'....??!

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.

[Stranger]

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'....??!

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 and those that follow), which is exactly what you asked about.

[Sriram]

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

[Outrider]

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.

[Stranger]

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). You might at least pay some attention.

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[Stranger]

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.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Sriram]

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.