Consciousness & evolution

[Sriram]

It's obviously nonsense. The mechanics of replication can't produce an 'instinct', you need natural selection for anything remotely like that.

More reasoning- and evidence-free assertion.   

Replication is the fundamental source of the basic instincts. Why replication? You have no answer...except 'emergence'.   

Rather....consciousness is the cause of replication. It is not just a chance happening. It is like the first diode or transistor or valve....that later evolved into very complex silicon chips.  Electronic products have also evolved...but there is always consciousness and intelligence (human) behind it.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

There’s no “just” about it, but essentially yes – the ToE explains very powerfully how speciation occurs. Your why question though is only valid if you can show first that evolution is purposive - for which claim there's no evidence at all.

And that’s just a repetition of your mindless faith claim. A “consciousness behind it” is something the ToE doesn’t require, that has no evidence for its existence at all, and that you can only conclude if you rely on false arguments (or, more often in your case, on no argument at all).

You can of course believe any unqualified faith claim to be true if you want to, as can I. If you expect anyone to take the claim seriously though then you must justify it with something other than bad reasoning and wishful thinking. And that’s your problem.     

ToE only explains the mechanisms....not the cause. Like saying....'I understand how the computer works...but I don't know what it is for'.  That is silly.

Increasingly consciousness is being seen as fundamental both by scientists and philosophers and I am sure the basic role of consciousness behind evolution as  all creation, will soon be acknowledged.

[Sriram]

There is overwhelming evidence that conscious intent is the result of evolution. It's also worth pointing out that even if we were to accept some of the speculations you've posted, like Orch OR or IIT, they wouldn't actually change that conclusion.

Conscious intent is the source of evolution. This is very clear in phenotypic plasticity.

Survival, reproduction, parenting, changing ones phenotypes to suit the environment etc. are clear indicators of direction and purpose behind evolution. 

Some form of consciousness and intent is obvious. 

[Stranger]

Replication is the fundamental source of the basic instincts.

Drivel. Simple replication cannot produce anything except more of the same, you need variation and, most importantly, selection to produce anything that is useful for survival (like instincts).

You have no answer...except 'emergence'.   

I never mentioned emergence - it's not directly relevant to the basic point. Replication is the starting point. Relatively simple molecules can replicate but obviously can't have any instincts. Instinct arise from natural selection. I explained you again exactly how instincts arise via natural selection (#165) and, yet again, you've just ignored it. That is an actual explanation, not a superstition driven assertion.

Rather....consciousness is the cause of replication.

Conscious intent is the source of evolution.

Just more empty foot-stamping.

This is very clear in phenotypic plasticity.

Survival, reproduction, parenting, changing ones phenotypes to suit the environment etc. are clear indicators of direction and purpose behind evolution. 

Just repeating the same baseless, scientifically illiterate drivel over and over again, isn't going to change the answers. Phenotypic plasticity is not evolution. It is the result of evolution (the first replicators couldn't possible have had phenotypic plasticity) and it doesn't change the genome so cannot possibly explain the diversity of life.

Why do you always run away from addressing the actual points being made? You seem to be too afraid to actually think about the subject.

Some form of consciousness and intent is obvious.

"It's obvious, innit?" is such a convincing argument. Doubly so coming from somebody who has repeatedly shown they don't understand even the basics of the science, totally ignores the reasoning presented to them, and obviously desperately wants there assertions to be true.

As long as you don't understand evolution (think natural selection is a metaphor), your posts about it are going to be based on false assumptions, so, at the very least, and if you have any interest at all in reality, you need to grasp the theory of evolution as it stands.

[torridon]

Conscious intent is the source of evolution. This is very clear in phenotypic plasticity.

Survival, reproduction, parenting, changing ones phenotypes to suit the environment etc. are clear indicators of direction and purpose behind evolution. 

Some form of consciousness and intent is obvious.

Not clear at all.  There is no evidence that plants evolved phenotypic plasticity because they intended to; rather, it was an inevitable development in plant biology given the laws of nature.  Likewise, the Earth does not revolve around the Sun because it planned it that way; rather it is an inevitable outcome of the law of gravity.

[Stranger]

ToE only explains the mechanisms....not the cause. Like saying....'I understand how the computer works...but I don't know what it is for'.  That is silly.

You have yet to provide the first hint of evidence or the merest suggestion of a logical argument that would tell us that evolution is for anything.

Increasingly consciousness is being seen as fundamental both by scientists and philosophers...

By some philosophers and a few scientists. I'm not aware of any serious scientific conjecture that would take you where you want to go with evolution, though. Certainly not Orch OR or IIT. As far as I can see, you're very much out in your own little fantasy world on that one.

...and I am sure the basic role of consciousness behind evolution as  all creation, will soon be acknowledged.

Surety from a position of ignorance and superstition.... 

[Sriram]

Drivel. Simple replication cannot produce anything except more of the same, you need variation and, most importantly, selection to produce anything that is useful for survival (like instincts).

I never mentioned emergence - it's not directly relevant to the basic point. Replication is the starting point. Relatively simple molecules can replicate but obviously can't have any instincts. Instinct arise from natural selection. I explained you again exactly how instincts arise via natural selection (#165) and, yet again, you've just ignored it. That is an actual explanation, not a superstition driven assertion.

Just more empty foot-stamping.

Just repeating the same baseless, scientifically illiterate drivel over and over again, isn't going to change the answers. Phenotypic plasticity is not evolution. It is the result of evolution (the first replicators couldn't possible have had phenotypic plasticity) and it doesn't change the genome so cannot possibly explain the diversity of life.

Why do you always run away from addressing the actual points being made? You seem to be too afraid to actually think about the subject.

"It's obvious, innit?" is such a convincing argument. Doubly so coming from somebody who has repeatedly shown they don't understand even the basics of the science, totally ignores the reasoning presented to them, and obviously desperately wants there assertions to be true.

As long as you don't understand evolution (think natural selection is a metaphor), your posts about it are going to be based on false assumptions, so, at the very least, and if you have any interest at all in reality, you need to grasp the theory of evolution as it stands.

'useful for survival'....you are again taking the need to survive for granted.  And NS is a metaphor because environmental changes are largely chance.  Deliberate adaptation however,  is not chance because  it is an intelligent response to changes in the environment. 

[Sriram]

Not clear at all.  There is no evidence that plants evolved phenotypic plasticity because they intended to; rather, it was an inevitable development in plant biology given the laws of nature.  Likewise, the Earth does not revolve around the Sun because it planned it that way; rather it is an inevitable outcome of the law of gravity.

Phenotypic plasticity is an intelligent response to changes in the environment. If normal biology allows for these types of adaptation....there is obviously a conscious intent behind it. 

Dead bodies do not adapt. Clearly biology by itself does nothing. It is Life and its accompanying consciousness that make these things happen. 

[Outrider]

If consciousness (mental phenomenon) is integrated with the physical world....there is no reason to assume that everything else will continue as usual (randomness etc).

If strawberry jam is integrated into the fundamental rules there is no reason to think that everything else will continue as usual, either, but the important step being missed there is a reason to think that consciousness is both extrinsic to the current model and in need of being integrated into it. 

The very fact that organisms (even the simplest) have a survival and reproductive instinct shows a direction with consciousness behind the evolutionary process.

No, it doesn't, it show that historically there has been a penalty to not having those instincts which meant they were less successful in replicating themselves at a particular point in evolutionary history.

Quite clearly, Neo Darwinism is not the way forward.

It really isn't clear at all why you think that might be the case - don't presume everyone sees things from your perspective, if you have support for that contention then put it forward.

We need a bigger picture with more subtle elements influencing the process.

So far all I see is that you need a better understanding of what the process actually entails.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I don't think the basic principle is, but you still seem not to really grasp it.

You guys are allowing your God phobia and distrust of religions to color your thinking.

If you're resorting to ad hominems (and, to note, you're usually better than that, Sriram) then you're kind of admitting that you've run out of argument.

O.

[Stranger]

'useful for survival'....you are again taking the need to survive for granted.

No, I am not. Those variations (traits) that are useful for survival are the ones that survive more - that is mind-numbingly obvious! There is no need - that's just what inevitably happens.

What would you expect if a variation occurred in an individual that just happened to be useful for survival?

And NS is a metaphor because environmental changes are largely chance

That doesn't make it a metaphor. It's relative to the environment, just like actual design would have to be. What it does is change populations to suit their environment. That is all that it needs to do. When the environment changes, sometimes populations can't change fast enough and they go extinct, sometimes they survive long enough for variation and selection to work and they change and adapt. That's exactly what we see.

Deliberate adaptation however,  is not chance because  it is an intelligent response to changes in the environment.

And variation and natural selection explains that apparent intelligence (e.g. phenotypic plasticity). If the environment is volatile, obviously any trait that aids adaptation to the changes would have a survival advantage - and we're back at natural selection.

[Sriram]

No, I am not. Those variations (traits) that are useful for survival are the ones that survive more - that is mind-numbingly obvious! There is no need - that's just what inevitably happens.

What would you expect if a variation occurred in an individual that just happened to be useful for survival?

That doesn't make it a metaphor. It's relative to the environment, just like actual design would have to be. What it does is change populations to suit their environment. That is all that it needs to do. When the environment changes, sometimes populations can't change fast enough and they go extinct, sometimes they survive long enough for variation and selection to work and they change and adapt. That's exactly what we see.

And variation and natural selection explains that apparent intelligence (e.g. phenotypic plasticity). If the environment is volatile, obviously any trait that aids adaptation to the changes would have a survival advantage - and we're back at natural selection.

'What would you expect if a variation occurred in an individual that just happened to be useful for survival?'

You are still taking 'survival' for granted. Unless there is a need to survive why would any organism adapt and survive?

[Stranger]

Phenotypic plasticity is an intelligent response to changes in the environment. If normal biology allows for these types of adaptation....there is obviously a conscious intent behind it. 

This is evolution 101. It explains apparent intelligence without the need for an actual intelligence. Your 'thinking' is stuck in pre-Darwin times.

Dead bodies do not adapt. Clearly biology by itself does nothing.

Non sequitur. Dead things don't have functioning biology.

It is Life and its accompanying consciousness that make these things happen.

There is no evidence that life always involves consciousness - quite the reverse.

[Stranger]

'What would you expect if a variation occurred in an individual that just happened to be useful for survival?'

You are still taking 'survival' for granted. Unless there is a need to survive why would any organism adapt and survive?

You didn't answer the question. No organism needs to 'deliberately' adapt to anything - that's the whole point. Individual organisms don't evolve, populations do.

Random variation will sometimes produce a trait that makes an individual better at surviving in its environment. Given that the trait is heritable, what do you think will happen then?

[Sriram]

    'apparent intelligence'...eh?!   Really?! What is that?! 

You are clutching at straws again.....

Organisms do deliberately adapt and change their phenotype to suit the environment.  You can't deny that. Even a straight forward example of the chameleon is enough for that.  You will immediately explain the mechanism by which the chameleon changes its color...which is irrelevant....

[ProfessorDavey]

Organisms do deliberately adapt and change their phenotype to suit the environment.  You can't deny that. Even a straight forward example of the chameleon is enough for that.  You will immediately explain the mechanism by which the chameleon changes its color...which is irrelevant....

Of course they do - but only when that particular trait has arisen via random mutations in the heritable genome and selected for via natural selection.

The ability of an organism (or cell) to change its phenotype to be better adapted to a particular environment is a product of evolutionary change, not the cause of evolutionary change.

So a colour changing chameleon species will have evolved from an earlier species (quite likely one that isn't around any more) that did not have that ability. Clearly the ability to change ones colour to camouflage itself is likely to improve survival and once that trait has arisen through genetic mutation then it is likely to be retained as the individual animals with that trait are more likely to survive and reproduce.

[ProfessorDavey]

Organisms do deliberately adapt and change their phenotype to suit the environment.  You can't deny that. Even a straight forward example of the chameleon is enough for that.  You will immediately explain the mechanism by which the chameleon changes its color...which is irrelevant....

Just think about it for a second Sriram.

If an organism can just develop adaptations to suit intent or desire, then why wouldn't all sorts of species simply develop the ability to change colour - it is clearly such a useful adaptation. That they haven't indicates very clearly that species cannot just adapt themselves as they wish, rather than they can only develop a trait if it occurs by chance.

[Outrider]

'What would you expect if a variation occurred in an individual that just happened to be useful for survival?'

You are still taking 'survival' for granted. Unless there is a need to survive why would any organism adapt and survive?

The instinct to survive is one that has proven beneficial in the past - it's not a deliberate attempt to improve, it's the result of prior events.

O.

[Stranger]

  'apparent intelligence'...eh?!   Really?! What is that?! 

You are clutching at straws again.....

You really don't have the first clue about this subject, do you? Honestly, even if you'd read the most basic pop-science introduction you'd get how evolution explains apparent 'design' (or intelligence). Again, this is evolution 101. Basic school level stuff.

The irony in you accusing me of clutching at straws is truly comical. I'm just explaining the basic, well tested and established science of the subject, while you are desperately trying to deny it to make space for your baseless superstitions.

We know what natural selection can do - it's directly observable and can easily be simulated.

Organisms do deliberately adapt and change their phenotype to suit the environment.  You can't deny that. Even a straight forward example of the chameleon is enough for that.

As Prof D has already explained, this is just another trait that has evolved in the usual way.

And I note that you're still running away from thinking about my question: if a random variation just happens to produce a trait that is useful for survival and reproduction in the environment, and that trait is heritable, what do you think will happen?

[Sriram]

Of course they do - but only when that particular trait has arisen via random mutations in the heritable genome and selected for via natural selection.

The ability of an organism (or cell) to change its phenotype to be better adapted to a particular environment is a product of evolutionary change, not the cause of evolutionary change.

So a colour changing chameleon species will have evolved from an earlier species (quite likely one that isn't around any more) that did not have that ability. Clearly the ability to change ones colour to camouflage itself is likely to improve survival and once that trait has arisen through genetic mutation then it is likely to be retained as the individual animals with that trait are more likely to survive and reproduce.

You are again saying that something anthropomorphically called 'evolution' is responsible for plasticity. What is responsible for evolution?  Why should anything evolve at all? Obviously because of the innate need to survive and reproduce!

We come back to the fundamental need to survive and reproduce which is responsible for life evolving! This cannot be avoided.  This need is the objective and goal of life itself. Evolution is only the mechanism.

How can life have a goal and objective without consciousness and intelligence?

It is only in order to circumvent this obvious conclusion that  convoluted explanations of random variations and a chance driven NS are resorted to. 

[Sriram]

The instinct to survive is one that has proven beneficial in the past - it's not a deliberate attempt to improve, it's the result of prior events.

O.

What is the benefit of survival without the need to survive? 'Survival' is a meaningless 'benefit' without a need for it.

[Sriram]

You really don't have the first clue about this subject, do you? Honestly, even if you'd read the most basic pop-science introduction you'd get how evolution explains apparent 'design' (or intelligence). Again, this is evolution 101. Basic school level stuff.

The irony in you accusing me of clutching at straws is truly comical. I'm just explaining the basic, well tested and established science of the subject, while you are desperately trying to deny it to make space for your baseless superstitions.

We know what natural selection can do - it's directly observable and can easily be simulated.

As Prof D has already explained, this is just another trait that has evolved in the usual way.

And I note that you're still running away from thinking about my question: if a random variation just happens to produce a trait that is useful for survival and reproduction in the environment, and that trait is heritable, what do you think will happen?

Consciousness is not a superstitious concept. It is real and is increasingly being  regarded as fundamental.

If there is no need or instinct to survive...any variation cannot survive. Survival as a mere accidental happening is meaningless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are again saying that something anthropomorphically called 'evolution' is responsible for plasticity.

It’s just “called evolution”. And yes.

What is responsible for evolution?

Chemistry.

Why should anything evolve at all? Obviously because of the innate need to survive and reproduce!

Obviously not. The first life had no such “innate need” – it was just organic chemistry doing what organic chemistry does in the right circumstances. The “innate need” you have to eat or to keep warm to maximise your survival and reproductive success is just what’s at the current point in that process.   

We come back to the fundamental need to survive and reproduce which is responsible for life evolving! This cannot be avoided.  This need is the objective and goal of life itself. Evolution is only the mechanism.

No we don’t. Evolution isn’t directed or goal-orientated. Perhaps if you found out what the ToE actually says you’d find this out for yourself.

How can life have a goal and objective without consciousness and intelligence?

“Life” as you put it - or rather evolution itself - doesn’t have a goal and objectives. Your premise is wrong 

It is only in order to circumvent this obvious conclusion…

Obvious but wrong remember?

…that  convoluted explanations of random variations and a chance driven NS are resorted to.

One great advantage of the ToE is that’s the least convoluted explanation we have. Positing consciousness a priori that intended all along life to be as we observe it requires by magnitudes more convoluted reasoning than the “simple-to-complex” model does. How on earth would you begin with something a complex as purposive consciousness?

Short version: your poor (or non-) reasoning is letting you down again.
   

[Stranger]

Consciousness is not a superstitious concept.

I didn't say it was. Your view of it and, more specifically, your attempts to link it to phenomena where it's not needed and there is no evidence of its involvement, however, are.

It is real and is increasingly being  regarded as fundamental.

There are some speculations about that, none of which (that I'm aware of) would make a difference to evolutionary theory.

If there is no need or instinct to survive...any variation cannot survive.

Obviously false. Again you're looking at it arse about face. Think about the question! Some small random change makes an individual a bit better at survival and reproduction and it will, inevitably, increase from generation to generation exactly because it is an advantage.

A "survival instinct" is just a lot of traits that aid survival. In other words, it is the result of random variation and natural selection.

Look at the classic peppered moth example. It didn't adapt to its new environment because of phenotypic plasticity, because it consciously wanted to, or because of some survival instinct, it was a genetic mutation that just happened to be useful in the new conditions.

Survival as a mere accidental happening is meaningless.

Where is the first hit of any evidence that any of this has any absolute meaning?

[ProfessorDavey]

If there is no need or instinct to survive...any variation cannot survive. Survival as a mere accidental happening is meaningless.

Of course it can - all that is needed is a trait that improves the likelihood of survival and is heritable.

Just look at the Delta variant of the coronavirus - it has no instinct to survive, it has no need to survive, but it has become the dominant strain in the UK and elsewhere because a random mutation in the genome of a previous strain rendered the new variant more transmissible and therefore better able to survive and be replicated.

[Stranger]

What is the benefit of survival without the need to survive? 'Survival' is a meaningless 'benefit' without a need for it.

You're tying yourself in knots looking for things that aren't there. There is no absolute benefit or meaning. Things survive because they are good at survival and they got to be good at survival by accumulating lots of random changes, over multiple generations, that were better at surviving than their peers and hence passed on their survival traits to the next generation.

It is only in order to circumvent this obvious conclusion that  convoluted explanations of random variations and a chance driven NS are resorted to.

Thinking that random variation and selection is at all convoluted is just more evidence that you haven't grasped it. It's not at all convoluted, it's stunning, beautifully, amazingly simple.