Consciousness & evolution

[Outrider]

What do you think of the issue connected to the question....'If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there, does it make a sound?'

It follows from the principle of the conservation of energy - the tree has potential energy which is converted into kinetic energy during the fall, which is converted to a variety of energies upon impact with the floor, one of which is noise. Given the overwhelming consistency with which this can be demonstrated during observable interactions, and the consistency with which the principle can be applied to deduce the sequence  of events which were not directly observed, why would anyone question it?

O.

[Enki]

There is enough evidence (NDE's) of the Self or soul being different from the body.

I don't intend to dwell on the anecdotal evidence of your interpretation of NDEs when verifiable evidence is so sadly lacking. We have dealt with this in some detail before. Suffice it to say that while you may find your interpretation convincing, I do not, and for reasons that I have already explained.

There is also enough evidence of consciousness and mind being present even after brain injury or even in the near absence of a brain.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125

I didn't suggest that brain injury would automatically lead to lack of consciousness and lack of mind, but that there is plenty of evidence that it can if the damage is extensive enough. You really should read what I wrote before responding.

However the instance(and the link) that you referred to doesn't back up your ideas at all, if you bother to read it. Cleeremans makes the point that "It is so stunning a case of the brain's ability to adapt" a statement with which I agree. There is no mention here of your pet theory of Self/Soul at all. That's you selecting bits of science in order to put your own gloss on it.
And, if you are going to do that, perhaps it might just be a good idea to keep abreast of any updated information which questions whether he actually lost 90% of his brain at all.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

Look at the last paragraph in particular and then notice the heading talks about damage to 90% of his brain, rather than the original study which talks about 'missing 90% of his brain.

So, no Sriram, you'd have to come up with hard evidence to convince me and so far it seems to be completely lacking.

[Sriram]

Of course it does ... and it is pretty easy to demonstrate this, for example by using sound monitoring equipment.

And in a similar context, but more relevant to the discussion in cosmic terms, how about the birth and death of stars. Well we can see this happening with the technology we have to hand. Yet we know that the information takes millions of years to reach us so this happened when no human was watching and indeed in many cases before humans even existed. But we can be pretty confident that these things happened regardless of the fact that no-one was around at the time to see it.

The tree in the forest is an example to show that sound is not a real external phenomenon. It is an experience. Our ears and brain and mind create the experience. Extending it further, all other senses that we have including touch....create the experience of physical objects with a certain appearance, color, shape etc and with a certain taste and smell. These don't actually exist in the real world.

It is said that every second considerable dark matter passes through us....but we are not even aware of it. If dark matter interacted with us how the world would be we cannot say.

The physical external world gets created only due to our interactions with it. Without interactions, it does not exist at all as far as we are concerned.   It is not as if the world actually exists as we see it and our senses only pass on the information like cameras or microphones. No.

In what form the physical world actually exits depends on the scale we use. Our senses and mind create the world as we experience it. In that sense, if there was no one to experience the world at our scale, it really will not exist in that scale.

[Sriram]

I don't intend to dwell on the anecdotal evidence of your interpretation of NDEs when verifiable evidence is so sadly lacking. We have dealt with this in some detail before. Suffice it to say that while you may find your interpretation convincing, I do not, and for reasons that I have already explained.

I didn't suggest that brain injury would automatically lead to lack of consciousness and lack of mind, but that there is plenty of evidence that it can if the damage is extensive enough. You really should read what I wrote before responding.

However the instance(and the link) that you referred to doesn't back up your ideas at all, if you bother to read it. Cleeremans makes the point that "It is so stunning a case of the brain's ability to adapt" a statement with which I agree. There is no mention here of your pet theory of Self/Soul at all. That's you selecting bits of science in order to put your own gloss on it.
And, if you are going to do that, perhaps it might just be a good idea to keep abreast of any updated information which questions whether he actually lost 90% of his brain at all.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

Look at the last paragraph in particular and then notice the heading talks about damage to 90% of his brain, rather than the original study which talks about 'missing 90% of his brain.

So, no Sriram, you'd have to come up with hard evidence to convince me and so far it seems to be completely lacking.

You are clutching at straws Enki. You are seeing what you want to see.

If a person can be near normal without 90% of his brain or with a 90% damaged brain, it tells us that the brain is not the main factor in the generation and working of our mind.   

[torridon]

If a person can be near normal without 90% of his brain or with a 90% damaged brain, it tells us that the brain is not the main factor in the generation and working of our mind.

That is your addiction to woo robbing you of the real and reasonable interpretation of such cases.  What those those figures really point to is a crude way to quantify the neural plasticity that brains are capable of.  Brains quickly re-organise themselves to make best use of whatever cortex is available and they always prioritise the most important functionality. We don't see any cases of a zero brained person behaving normally, or in fact, behaving at all.

[Stranger]

The tree in the forest is an example to show that sound is not a real external phenomenon.

The tree in the forest is a childish play on words that depends entirely on which meaning of the word 'sound' you use (the vibrations in the air or the experience). As has already been pointed out, we can record sounds without anybody being present.

It is an experience. Our ears and brain and mind create the experience. Extending it further, all other senses that we have including touch....create the experience of physical objects with a certain appearance, color, shape etc and with a certain taste and smell. These don't actually exist in the real world.

Actually all our senses correspond to aspects of the world. Colour (as we see it) doesn't exactly exist in the world but we know exactly how it corresponds to frequencies of electromagnetic radiation and can record and reproduce any colour we want.

It is said that every second considerable dark matter passes through us....but we are not even aware of it. If dark matter interacted with us how the world would be we cannot say.

Irrelevant.

The physical external world gets created only due to our interactions with it.

Utterly baseless assertion that has nothing to do with any of your previous waffle.

In what form the physical world actually exits depends on the scale we use.

Irrelevant.

Our senses and mind create the world as we experience it.

Our senses create a 'rough sketch' of the world we interact with at the scale we need. We now know how to go way beyond that.

In that sense, if there was no one to experience the world at our scale, it really will not exist in that scale.

Just silly. 

[Enki]

You are clutching at straws Enki. You are seeing what you want to see.

If a person can be near normal without 90% of his brain or with a 90% damaged brain, it tells us that the brain is not the main factor in the generation and working of our mind.

On the contrary it is you that is clutching at straws, Sriram. What this case seems to show is the malleability and plasticity of the brain in its ability to reroute neural pathways. There is no evidence whatever for your pet theories.

[ProfessorDavey]

On the contrary it is you that is clutching at straws, Sriram. What this case seems to show is the malleability and plasticity of the brain in its ability to reroute neural pathways. There is no evidence whatever for your pet theories.

Indeed - and in addition the most recent understanding is that the brain is compacted (which would potentially result in damage) not destroyed. So the numbers of neurones and their connectivity may be much closer to normal than the headline '90%' suggests.

But the broader point is it is, and will continue to be, science that provides an understanding of this phenomenon and how it relates to neurophysiology and consciousness. The unevidenced woo and god-of-the-gaps that Sriram spouts provides nothing of value to advance our understanding.

[Sriram]

Indeed - and in addition the most recent understanding is that the brain is compacted (which would potentially result in damage) not destroyed. So the numbers of neurones and their connectivity may be much closer to normal than the headline '90%' suggests.

But the broader point is it is, and will continue to be, science that provides an understanding of this phenomenon and how it relates to neurophysiology and consciousness. The unevidenced woo and god-of-the-gaps that Sriram spouts provides nothing of value to advance our understanding.

Where does God come into all this?!  Your God phobia is showing.

The 'brain did it' that most of you keep repeating....is no better than 'God did it'.

 

[Sriram]

That is your addiction to woo robbing you of the real and reasonable interpretation of such cases.  What those those figures really point to is a crude way to quantify the neural plasticity that brains are capable of.  Brains quickly re-organise themselves to make best use of whatever cortex is available and they always prioritise the most important functionality. We don't see any cases of a zero brained person behaving normally, or in fact, behaving at all.

What woo? 'Brains reorganize themselves'......you know how silly that sounds. No different from 'the eye reorganizes itself' or the 'hand reorganizes itself' or 'the stomach reorganizes itself'. 

The brain is just a piece of flesh. just check the brain of a dead person.

Of course, it is plastic...not in itself but because of Consciousness that works through it.

[ProfessorDavey]

What woo? 'Brains reorganize themselves'......you know how silly that sounds. No different from 'the eye reorganizes itself' or the 'hand reorganizes itself' or 'the stomach reorganizes itself'.

Biological systems are often astonishingly good at remodelling and repair - in effect reorganising. In most cases they do this continually - so in the case of two of the three examples you give the tissues are constantly remodelling themselves, for example the skin and bone within the hand and also the cells of the lining of the stomach.

So it isn't silly, it is completely established within biology - the only thing that is silly is the person who doesn't understand those very basic aspects of human physiology.

Now neuronal systems aren't terribly good at basic remodelling and repair (hence the challenge for people with spinal cord injuries), but the brain has built in 'redundancy' - effectively multiple routes that can be reconnected under circumstances where an original network becomes compromised. So to put it in simple terms - if you want to travel from A-B via C and there is a road block or the road is damaged at C you can reroute yourself to travel from A-B via D, or F etc etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

The 'brain did it' that most of you keep repeating....is no better than 'God did it'.

Wrong - because firstly we have evidence that the brain exists, while there is no evident that god exists. And we also have growing evidence on how the brain does it. The difference, Sriram, is evidence.

[Sriram]

Biological systems are often astonishingly good at remodelling and repair - in effect reorganising. In most cases they do this continually - so in the case of two of the three examples you give the tissues are constantly remodelling themselves, for example the skin and bone within the hand and also the cells of the lining of the stomach.

So it isn't silly, it is completely established within biology - the only thing that is silly is the person who doesn't understand those very basic aspects of human physiology.

Now neuronal systems aren't terribly good at basic remodelling and repair (hence the challenge for people with spinal cord injuries), but the brain has built in 'redundancy' - effectively multiple routes that can be reconnected under circumstances where an original network becomes compromised. So to put it in simple terms - if you want to travel from A-B via C and there is a road block or the road is damaged at C you can reroute yourself to travel from A-B via D, or F etc etc.

Yes....I have no doubt that the body has an inbuilt intelligence that enables remodeling and plasticity.  I also keep citing the example of phenotypic plasticity in evolution.  But a dead body doesn't do it.

It is consciousness present within the body/mind that does it.
 

[torridon]

Yes....I have no doubt that the body has an inbuilt intelligence that enables remodeling and plasticity.  I also keep citing the example of phenotypic plasticity in evolution.  But a dead body doesn't do it.

It is consciousness present within the body/mind that does it.

Would just point out, that the brain's housekeeping work, strengthening / paring connections for instance, is not done consciously; it all goes on without our conscious knowledge all the time, even when we are fast asleep etc.  Consciousness is not involved in such subliminal processes

[Sriram]

Would just point out, that the brain's housekeeping work, strengthening / paring connections for instance, is not done consciously; it all goes on without our conscious knowledge all the time, even when we are fast asleep etc.  Consciousness is not involved in such subliminal processes

Never heard of the unconscious mind and Libet's ideas?   

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes....I have no doubt that the body has an inbuilt intelligence that enables remodeling and plasticity.

Intelligence is a loaded term - the word you are looking for is physiology.

It is consciousness present within the body/mind that does it.

No it isn't as the physiological processes we are describing exist across all sorts of species, regardless of their levels of 'conciousness' - indeed they exist in plants as well as animal species, and in animals some of the most remarkable examples of remodelling, plasticity and regeneration are in species with very low levels of consciousness. Humans tend to be pretty 'fixed' by comparison.

[Sriram]

Intelligence is a loaded term - the word you are looking for is physiology.
No it isn't as the physiological processes we are describing exist across all sorts of species, regardless of their levels of 'conciousness' - indeed they exist in plants as well as animal species, and in animals some of the most remarkable examples of remodelling, plasticity and regeneration are in species with very low levels of consciousness. Humans tend to be pretty 'fixed' by comparison.

Exactly the point. Consciousness (of different levels) exists in all living organisms. What is the problem with that?

 

[torridon]

Never heard of the unconscious mind and Libet's ideas?

Yes.  It is therefore not the case that "It is consciousness present within the body/mind that does it". Most brain function is non-conscious.

[ProfessorDavey]

Exactly the point. Consciousness (of different levels) exists in all living organisms. What is the problem with that?

I think that is stretching a point - and you are stretching it because consciousness is important to your unevidenced argument.

There is very little evidence that the ability for organisms to exhibit plasticity, regeneration and remodelling is somehow aligned to consciousness or its level. Indeed there is greater argument that the ability of an organism to exhibit plasticity, regeneration and remodelling is inversely related to its level of consciousness and certainly higher consciousness. We as humans, for all are higher consciousness, are pretty crap in this regard compared to organisms that go though multiple forms over a lifecycle (e.g. many insects and corals) or phenomenal regeneration ability (e.g. salamanders, star fish, nematodes).

And that is just animals - many plants have even more phenomenal levels plasticity, regeneration and remodelling, yet is is hard to argue that they are conscious in the manner that we mean in relation to humans.

[Sriram]

Life is consciousness. Without some form of consciousness there is no life.  By consciousness is meant the ability to experience and respond.

Consciousness is not just wakefulness and self awareness. That is just one form of consciousness.  A large part of our consciousness is unconscious. Our instincts and intuitions are all unconscious....which is why animals birds and other organisms function and respond to their environment.

It is this form of response to the environment that results in evolution and complexity. 

[Outrider]

Life is consciousness. Without some form of consciousness there is no life.  By consciousness is meant the ability to experience and respond.

So are you suggesting that bacteria are conscious, or that bacteria aren't alive, because I don't recognise either of those suggestions as valid.

Consciousness is not just wakefulness and self awareness. That is just one form of consciousness.  A large part of our consciousness is unconscious. Our instincts and intuitions are all unconscious....which is why animals birds and other organisms function and respond to their environment.

Whereas I would have said that consciousness is an attempt to classify those parts of the mental processes that aren't instinctive... that's why it's difficult to determine if some of the more capable other members of the animal kingdom have crossed the threshold.

t is this form of response to the environment that results in evolution and complexity.

No, it isn't. Evolution isn't a 'response' to the environment, it's the effect of the environmental pressures on otherwise random variation.

O.

[Stranger]

Life is consciousness. Without some form of consciousness there is no life.

Baseless assertion.

By consciousness is meant the ability to experience and respond.

Consciousness is not just wakefulness and self awareness. That is just one form of consciousness.  A large part of our consciousness is unconscious. Our instincts and intuitions are all unconscious....which is why animals birds and other organisms function and respond to their environment.

Not only is the phrase "a large part of our consciousness is unconscious" self-contradictory, it also contradicts the definition you gave in the previous paragraph; we obviously don't experience our subconscious mind, only its effects.

It is this form of response to the environment that results in evolution and complexity.

Yet again emphasising your total lack of understanding of how evolution works. It's one thing to disagree with evolution (although it requires an incredible amount of reality denial) but by declaring that natural selection is a "metaphor" and making statements like this, it's quite clear that you simply don't understand it and, apparently, don't care and refuse to learn.

Until you get what natural selection actually means, everything you say about evolution is going to be a joke.

[ProfessorDavey]

Life is consciousness.

Non-sense, 'life' and 'consciousness' are not synonymous. There are plenty of things that are living but lack consciousness.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is this form of response to the environment that results in evolution and complexity.

Again non-sense with stilts on.

Evolution involves random changes some of which convey an evolutionary advantage (normally involving making the organisms with that trait better adapted to their environment such that they are more likely to pass on that trait through reproduction). That being the case, the trait is selected for by natural selection.

It is of course the case that a random mutation may allow an organism to detect and respond to changes in its environment (for example a cell receptor where a mutation makes it change its conformation/function in response to changes in salinity). If this is the case then the evolutionary advantage may be an organism that is able to adapt to changes in salinity in its environment. However the basic evolutionary paradigm remains - in other words that the ability to adapt is determined through random changes/mutations in the genome of that organism.

[Sriram]

This sort of to and fro could go on forever.

I am convinced (and perhaps even some scientists and philosophers are beginning to think that way) that life is essentially about consciousness. It is consciousness that makes organisms adapt and evolve.

The old school ...random variation, natural selection and other chance factors....are so archaic now!  New ways of thinking are called for.

I am optimistic...