Consciousness & evolution

[Alan Burns]

AB,

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?   

The reason why I am unable to accept any of your reasoned arguments is because they deny the reality of God's love.

I have quoted this incident before, but I feel it is worth recalling:

Our son was acting as an alter server during a school Mass.  After the distribution of Holy Communion, a girl pupil sang Bob Dylan's "To Make You Feel My Love".  The inspired words of the song brought tears to the eyes of most who were there - including teachers.  It was a truly amazing experience.  Those who know God's love would recognise that Dylan's song was more than just a trite love story between two people.  Those who do not yet know God's love should take heed of what they are missing out on.

[Roses]

The god of the Bible has a very weird take on love, if the deeds attributed to it are true.

[jeremyp]

The reason why I am unable to accept any of your reasoned arguments is because they deny the reality of God's love.

I don't know how you can look at the reality of this Universe and conclude God loves you.

[Stranger]

The reason why I am unable to accept any of your reasoned arguments is because they deny the reality of God's love.

So you're simply refusing to accept reasoning and logic because it would upset your cherished preconceptions and superstitions. If you can't face the reality exposed by logic, I guess that's up to you, but, if that is the real reason, then pretending that you have logic or evidence yourself is dishonest.

Oh, and an omnipotent, omniscient, just and fair, creator god, who actually loves us and has an important message for us is completely inconsistent with reality regardless of any arguments about free will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The reason why I am unable to accept any of your reasoned arguments is because they deny the reality of God's love.

Unless you can justify a claim like “the reality of God’s love” all you have is unqualified assertion.

I have quoted this incident before, but I feel it is worth recalling:

Our son was acting as an alter server during a school Mass.  After the distribution of Holy Communion, a girl pupil sang Bob Dylan's "To Make You Feel My Love".  The inspired words of the song brought tears to the eyes of most who were there - including teachers.  It was a truly amazing experience.  Those who know God's love would recognise that Dylan's song was more than just a trite love story between two people.  Those who do not yet know God's love should take heed of what they are missing out on.

And that’s it? A song well performed brought tears to your eyes and so that’s enough evidence for you dismiss any “reasoned arguments” at all? Seriously though?

And by the way it troubles you not that people with no religious beliefs or with different religious beliefs to your own can have just as powerful emotional reactions to songs, that this supposed god occupies his time making your cry at Dylan songs while permitting babies to die of brain cancer, that there’s no means to deduce from “I cried at a song” the conclusion “therefore a loving god” other than by blind faith? 

Seriously though Alan, this is embarrassing.       

[torridon]

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. 
 

Think about it this way : a phenotypic response may be an example of defacto intelligence, but that doesn't mean that there was an intelligence 'behind it'. The response itself is something we might describe as intelligent, a phenomenon we can observe just like we can describe the sky as blue or water as wet. 'Intelligent' may be a word we can use to describe the brilliance of Paul Dirac, or it could be the emergent behaviour of an insect swarm, it is an observed phenomenon of complexity.  But to say there is something 'behind it' adds nothing of value.  It is the phenomenon itself that merits the description 'intelligent'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Those who know God's love would recognise that Dylan's song was more than just a trite love story between two people.

So the love that may exist between two people is 'trite' is it AB.

Well you know what, the love between two people is hugely more profound and significant than the love between a single person and a man-made god.

[Outrider]

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

Nature is a lethal competition - if you fail to survive, you fail to pass on traits to your offspring. The benefit of survival, in this scenario, is not to the individual...

O.

[Outrider]

The reason why I am unable to accept any of your reasoned arguments is because they deny the reality of God's love.

I have quoted this incident before, but I feel it is worth recalling:

Our son was acting as an alter server during a school Mass.  After the distribution of Holy Communion, a girl pupil sang Bob Dylan's "To Make You Feel My Love".  The inspired words of the song brought tears to the eyes of most who were there - including teachers.  It was a truly amazing experience.  Those who know God's love would recognise that Dylan's song was more than just a trite love story between two people.  Those who do not yet know God's love should take heed of what they are missing out on.

Up until at least the 1800s 1 in 3 children died before their 5th birthday... but God loves us, right?

Entire species lifecycle is dependent upon burying into various human organs... but God loves us, right?

The reality of, well, reality, does not support the contention that the universe was produced for our benefit by a loving God, but it is entirely in keeping with an amoral universe in which beneficial survival traits are inherited by descendants leading to variation amongst species.

O.

[Sriram]

Think about it this way : a phenotypic response may be an example of defacto intelligence, but that doesn't mean that there was an intelligence 'behind it'. The response itself is something we might describe as intelligent, a phenomenon we can observe just like we can describe the sky as blue or water as wet. 'Intelligent' may be a word we can use to describe the brilliance of Paul Dirac, or it could be the emergent behaviour of an insect swarm, it is an observed phenomenon of complexity.  But to say there is something 'behind it' adds nothing of value.  It is the phenomenon itself that merits the description 'intelligent'.

Finally you accept that many of the processes in evolution and in nature are intelligent. They are not just random. That is fine.

Intelligence has to be a product of consciousness because the response cannot be just a blind response. It has to be a considered response taking into account the overall scenario. Considerable coordination is required. Otherwise it will not be intelligent. 

[Sriram]

Nature is a lethal competition - if you fail to survive, you fail to pass on traits to your offspring. The benefit of survival, in this scenario, is not to the individual...

O.

You talk of the benefit of survival but you are still not telling me why survival is important or beneficial. Why is living important?

Why would something fight to survive without a need to survive?

[torridon]

Finally you accept that many of the processes in evolution and in nature are intelligent. They are not just random. That is fine.

Intelligence has to be a product of consciousness because the response cannot be just a blind response. It has to be a considered response taking into account the overall scenario. Considerable coordination is required. Otherwise it will not be intelligent.

We might say that intellligence emerges in an insect swarm.  A swarm of bees can make intelligent choices that an individual bee cannot.  So what this means is that intelligence is an emergent phenomenon arising out of complex systems. It doesn't mean there is something 'behind' it.  If intelligence were something that requires another intelligence to be behind it, then from what would the 'behind' intelligence arise from ? This implies an infinite regress of intelligences, and so cannot be the right way to understand these things.  Likewise, the wetness of water arises from the interaction of water molecules, it does not need some 'wetness' to be behind it. The blueness of the sky does not need some blueness to be behind it.  The garden can be seen to be quite beautiful without there having to be fairies behind it.

[Sriram]

We might say that intellligence emerges in an insect swarm.  A swarm of bees can make intelligent choices that an individual bee cannot.  So what this means is that intelligence is an emergent phenomenon arising out of complex systems. It doesn't mean there is something 'behind' it.  If intelligence were something that requires another intelligence to be behind it, then from what would the 'behind' intelligence arise from ? This implies an infinite regress of intelligences, and so cannot be the right way to understand these things.  Likewise, the wetness of water arises from the interaction of water molecules, it does not need some 'wetness' to be behind it. The blueness of the sky does not need some blueness to be behind it.  The garden can be seen to be quite beautiful without there having to be fairies behind it.

In fact, the swarm of bees behaving in an intelligent manner is sufficient evidence that there is a common coordinating consciousness behind it. 

The infinite regress argument is meaningless in a situation where we cannot see beyond a certain level of reality.  What is behind the big bang, what causes the singularity, what is behind the multiverse, what causes virtual particles to arise........ ad infinitum...!   These questions are anyway endless.

When you say something 'emerges' from something...you are advocating 'magic'. Emergence of such complex properties is nothing short of magic.

[torridon]

In fact, the swarm of bees behaving in an intelligent manner is sufficient evidence that there is a common coordinating consciousness behind it. 

The infinite regress argument is meaningless in a situation where we cannot see beyond a certain level of reality.  What is behind the big bang, what causes the singularity, what is behind the multiverse, what causes virtual particles to arise........ ad infinitum...!   These questions are anyway endless.

When you say something 'emerges' from something...you are advocating 'magic'. Emergence of such complex properties is nothing short of magic.

No, I am saying you are mistaking emergence for something spooky.  The fact that intelligence emerges in an insect swarm helps us to understand what intelligence actually is.  The idea that intelligence arises because of the intelligence behind it goes nowhere useful. So, the intelligence behind intelligence must derive from the intellligence behind the intelligence and the intelligence behind the intelligence behind the intelligence ....   This is a nonsense way to understand complex phenomena.  Complexity arises from the bottom up, from simplicity, not the other way round, that is a fundamentally irrational way to conceptualise things.

[Sriram]

Ok....thanks guys....! 

[Stranger]

You talk of the benefit of survival but you are still not telling me why survival is important or beneficial. Why is living important?

It's not important in any absolute sense - it's just what happens.

Why would something fight to survive without a need to survive?

This isn't a difficult question: fighting for survival is a survival advantage. Amazing, isn't it?   

Given a two organisms, one that fights (or fights better) for survival and one that doesn't (or is less good at it), which do you think is more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on its genes?

Everything alive today comes from a long line of ancestors who were better at surviving than their peers. It couldn't be less surprising or mysterious that we observe 'survival instincts' and organisms that fight for their survival. No further explanation is needed. No intelligence, no basic need to survive, no absolute importance to survival, just the really, really simple process of variation and selection.

[Outrider]

You talk of the benefit of survival but you are still not telling me why survival is important or beneficial. Why is living important?

To the first ones, it wasn't - and they died in equal measure. To their offspring, some of them had a trait for survival, others didn't, and the ones with the trait survived and passed that trait on. It became important because of environmental pressures, it wasn't designed as important, it's not important in some overarching metaphorical sense.

Why would something fight to survive without a need to survive?

Initially they wouldn't - over time, because the instinct to survive proves effective at replication.

O.

[Enki]

When I was very young my mother told me that I tripped on a stone step and immediately tried to hit the step because I blamed it for me stumbling. I saw the step as having some sort of magical personality and therefore, in my mind, it was responsible for me tripping. This is not an uncommon feature in small children of course.

The way Sriram insists that there has always been some form of survival instinct induced by some sort of consciousness, seems to be an extension of such childish thinking. It would also explain his complete misunderstanding of the basic idea that if A is more likely to survive and reproduce than B then its progeny will be more likely to flourish,  no survival instinct needed.. I don't think that he appreciates that any random changes which aid that effect will necessarily lead to greater chances of survival. So, just as I anthropormophised the step by making it responsible for my stumbling, Sriram is inclined to imprint some sort of non material 'consciousness' to explain evolutionary processes.

For Sriram it all ties in with his celestial worlds, universal consciousness, reincarnation ideas etc. He isn't going to deviate from this, I suspect, because it makes sense to him, just as hitting the step made sense to me when I was young. 
 

[Alan Burns]

When I was very young my mother told me that I tripped on a stone step and immediately tried to hit the step because I blamed it for me stumbling. I saw the step as having some sort of magical personality and therefore, in my mind, it was responsible for me tripping. This is not an uncommon feature in small children of course.

The way Sriram insists that there has always been some form of survival instinct induced by some sort of consciousness, seems to be an extension of such childish thinking. It would also explain his complete misunderstanding of the basic idea that if A is more likely to survive and reproduce than B then its progeny will be more likely to flourish,  no survival instinct needed.. I don't think that he appreciates that any random changes which aid that effect will necessarily lead to greater chances of survival. So, just as I anthropormophised the step by making it responsible for my stumbling, Sriram is inclined to imprint some sort of non material 'consciousness' to explain evolutionary processes.

For Sriram it all ties in with his celestial worlds, universal consciousness, reincarnation ideas etc. He isn't going to deviate from this, I suspect, because it makes sense to him, just as hitting the step made sense to me when I was young.

Your ability to allocate blame for such an incident would indicate a unique form of consciousness not found in other species whose instinctive behaviour would be restricted to overcoming the negative consequences.  Your ability to consciously allocate blame appears to go beyond what is needed for mere survival.

[jeremyp]

Finally you accept that many of the processes in evolution and in nature are intelligent. They are not just random. That is fine.

Random and intelligent are not the only two options.

Intelligence has to be a product of consciousness because the response cannot be just a blind response. It has to be a considered response taking into account the overall scenario. Considerable coordination is required. Otherwise it will not be intelligent.

I think we've got a problem here with both the definition of intelligence and consciousness.

[Gordon]

Your ability to allocate blame for such an incident would indicate a unique form of consciousness not found in other species whose instinctive behaviour would be restricted to overcoming the negative consequences.

One tends not to find the human brain in other species, so your comparison (such as it is) is vacuous: just as it would be vacuous to point out that some species have wings, but we don't.

Your ability to consciously allocate blame appears to go beyond what is needed for mere survival.

Our species has acquired the capacity to learn from experience, which is a useful survival trait, such as in learning to be careful when negotiating stone steps. 

[torridon]

Your ability to allocate blame for such an incident would indicate a unique form of consciousness not found in other species whose instinctive behaviour would be restricted to overcoming the negative consequences.  Your ability to consciously allocate blame appears to go beyond what is needed for mere survival.

The tendency to allocate blame where none is due (as in the case of Enki's step) is a cognitive bias, agent detection, and it features in other animals too, not just humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection

And, yes, there clearly is survival value in it, why otherwise would it become so widespread ?

[Outrider]

Your ability to allocate blame for such an incident would indicate a unique form of consciousness not found in other species whose instinctive behaviour would be restricted to overcoming the negative consequences.

Possibly - our ability to ascertain the exact level of understanding elsewhere in the animal kingdom is limited, however, your implicit assertion that this behaviour on our part is somehow not an 'instinctive behaviour... [for]... overcoming the negative consequences' is not warranted. We don't know exactly what environmental pressures led to this trait being selected for.

Your ability to consciously allocate blame appears to go beyond what is needed for mere survival.

Perhaps - it may be a byproduct of some other facet which provides an advantage but which doesn't, itself, pose either a benefit or a penalty to passing on genes. On the other hand, the idea that Type I errors when reacting to potentially deliberate threats (i.e. a predator) give an evolutionary benefit over Type II errors is a reasonably clear evidence that mischaracterising intent on the part of inanimate objects could simply be a byproduct of our having evolved from the forebears who presumed a threat and reacted.

O.

[Sriram]

The tendency to allocate blame where none is due (as in the case of Enki's step) is a cognitive bias, agent detection, and it features in other animals too, not just humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection

And, yes, there clearly is survival value in it, why otherwise would it become so widespread ?

Yes...it is an intelligent response to a situation that could potentially be dangerous. It also helps in watching out in the future.

I would say that....it is an intelligent 'program' built into the system to meet the objective of survival.

You will tell me that....it is a random response that just happened to get perpetuated through 'chance' natural selection because it happened to be useful.

That is the difference between our way of thinking.

[torridon]

Yes...it is an intelligent response to a situation that could potentially be dangerous. It also helps in watching out in the future.

I would say that....it is an intelligent 'program' built into the system to meet the objective of survival.

You will tell me that....it is a random response that just happened to get perpetuated through 'chance' natural selection because it happened to be useful.

That is the difference between our way of thinking.

Yes, genetic mutations are random, or effectively random, at least.  We have no evidence to the contrary.  Seeing design where there is no designer in actual fact is just another example of the agent detection bias at work, writ large through millennia of human thinking.