Consciousness & evolution

[Outrider]

1. Why does life arise and why does it evolve?  Not 'how' ...why?

What makes you think 'why' is a meaningful question in that context? Why implies a rationale, if you make it distinct from how - on what basis do you think something has 'planned' life?

2. What is death? Is it a final elimination or is there an after-life?

In the absence of any evidence for anything about an individual persisting after cessation of brain function, I'd have to conclude on the available evidence that there's no afterlife.

3. What is right and wrong? Is it just based on social norms or is there an absolute morality?

A quick look around the world at different cultures shows that morality is based upon social norms.

4. We find a great amount of coordination and connection between organisms? Is there a common consciousness?

Interdependency, parasitism, symbiosis and other balances within ecosystems provide all the explanation we need to account for the coordiation and connection between organisms' activities; there's no requirement for, and no evidence for, some sort of overarching interconnected consciousness.

5. Why are some people good and saintly and why are others evil and selfish?

Because the human psyche is complex and variable, and with the myriad physical, social, hormonal, nutritional and environmental inputs that all contribute to shaping it from conception there is a range of outputs; given, of course, the understanding (from question 3, above) that what's considered 'saintly' in one culture may not be in another.

6. There is great order and pattern in life. Is it directed intelligently?

Given that life on Earth depends on replication, the existence of patterns is not a surprise. Given that it's well-established that gross variations in replication are rarely successful in surviving, the iteration of minor changes explains the hierarchic, orderly structure of the tree of life. A directed intelligence fits the overall pattern in the same way, but doesn't account for the detail in the same way, and has no direct supporting evidence, so the conclusion is that it probably isn't directed.

Just off the cuff ....these are some of the basic questions that interest most people in the world.

Seems like the answers are fairly well understood, these days.

I

know that many of you will have ready answers to all these questions....random variation and Natural Selection..  Death is the end...no such drivel as an after-life!  Morality is just of social importance!   There is not such thing as a common consciousness....how can there be when consciousness is a product of the brain!  No such nonsense as intelligent direction absolutely....it is all natural selection! 'Why' need not have an answer!   People are just different because of their genetic make up!

I just don't agree with all these ready and off hand answers.  For microscopic thinkers these questions will seem meaningless...

Well if you're not going to bother accepting the answers to the question unless they're answer that you like, you're probably asking the wrong questions. I'd start with 'what do I need to be convinced', and it would appear that, for you, the answer is 'confirmation of what I already want to believe'.

O.

[torridon]

How can something be detected but not measurable?

He's probably talking about subjective experience, which is detectable, in that it is all that we have individually, without it we could not know anything at all.  But is it hard to measure, as measurement implies objectivity.  I know what salt tastes like, you know what salt tastes like, but can we say that my experience of saltiness is identical to your experience of saltiness ? We kind of assume it is the same or very similar but we cannot directly measure subjective experience.

[ekim]

He's probably talking about subjective experience, which is detectable, in that it is all that we have individually, without it we could not know anything at all.  But is it hard to measure, as measurement implies objectivity.  I know what salt tastes like, you know what salt tastes like, but can we say that my experience of saltiness is identical to your experience of saltiness ? We kind of assume it is the same or very similar but we cannot directly measure subjective experience.

He does seem to be trying to objectify subjective experiences.  From, let's call it, a mystic's or guru's perspective, consciousness is the subject and the word is just a place marker rather than an object for analysis which only agitates the mind at a time when inner stillness is the requirement.  He states that 'Why' is an important question for him, rather then 'How'.  'Why' can be important in subjectivity as it implies motive e.g.for some, it would be more important to know why somebody has committed a murder rather than how they did it.

[Sriram]

He's probably talking about subjective experience, which is detectable, in that it is all that we have individually, without it we could not know anything at all.  But is it hard to measure, as measurement implies objectivity.  I know what salt tastes like, you know what salt tastes like, but can we say that my experience of saltiness is identical to your experience of saltiness ? We kind of assume it is the same or very similar but we cannot directly measure subjective experience.

Yes...our experience of life and the universe is subjective. What 'real' objectivity is we will never know...if there is any such thing.  Merely because most humans have similar experiences and we seem to agree on what we perceive...we think that is objective reality. Its all in the mind....or consciousness.

[BeRational]

Yes...our experience of life and the universe is subjective. What 'real' objectivity is we will never know...if there is any such thing.  Merely because most humans have similar experiences and we seem to agree on what we perceive...we think that is objective reality. Its all in the mind....or consciousness.

So if you jump off of a high building, and in your mind you think you will float down gently, is that what will happen?

I STRONGLY suspect not, and I think you know that as well.

[Sriram]

So if you jump off of a high building, and in your mind you think you will float down gently, is that what will happen?

I STRONGLY suspect not, and I think you know that as well.

It shows how difficult it is for 'rational thinkers' to get their head around such concepts. It requires a philosophical bent of mind.

I am not saying anything that contradicts science....and yet I cannot provide 'objective' measurable evidence of this simple fact of subjectivity.

[Stranger]

It shows how difficult it is for 'rational thinkers' to get their head around such concepts. It requires a philosophical bent of mind.

Philosophy requires logic, and I see no more understanding of logic in your posts than science.

I am not saying anything that contradicts science...

You've said quite a lot that contradicts science, actually. Natural selection being a metaphor is the most obvious example.

[Outrider]

It shows how difficult it is for 'rational thinkers' to get their head around such concepts.

I struggle with four-sided triangles, too...

It requires a philosophical bent of mind.

It verges on arrogance when you presume that our lack of acceptance of your claims is a result of our failure to understand them. We get what you're saying, we just don't buy it, because you've manifestly failed to support it on multiple occasions.

I am not saying anything that contradicts science...

No, you're trying to suggest that it's 'immune' to science, that it requires some other methodology, which is also currently absent.

...and yet I cannot provide 'objective' measurable evidence of this simple fact of subjectivity.

And yet, you agreed, that we all understand all of our experience is subjective. We therefore use systems and methodologies to mitigate that subjectivity - what system have you used to do that with this claim? If you haven't then, by your own description, at best your account is as equally useless as the scientific account, and if not then it's significantly less reliable.

You don't lack an account of your mechanism so much as you lack any credibility for your claim of it; it's not that you're definitively wrong, it's that you give no-one any reason to think that you might be right. Your claim has exactly as much justification as the idea that my wife's dog is immortal and has been strategically killing off just the right mutations throughout history to ensure someone is available to feed him dog-chews. It's logically feasible, I can't actively disprove it...

O.

[Sriram]

Philosophy requires logic, and I see no more understanding of logic in your posts than science.

You've said quite a lot that contradicts science, actually. Natural selection being a metaphor is the most obvious example.

Natural Selection being a metaphor is obvious. And...i am not the only person who thinks so...

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-011-0360-3


***********

Natural selection, Darwin’s most novel metaphor, was the key concept in distinguishing Darwinian selectionism from Lamarckian adaptationism. Darwin therefore devoted the bulk of Origin of Species to elaborating the concept.

As Darwinism became widely accepted, the language of evolution changed from metaphor to nomenclature, with a narrowing of perspective. Neo-Darwinism, or the synthetic theory of evolution, is currently the primary normative framework for evolutionary biology. I have suggested that neo-Darwinism is not a refined and upgraded version of Darwinism, a narrowing of vision with almost exclusive focus on only one of Darwin’s metaphors, natural selection.

....natural selection was the concept most amenable to normalizing language and became the primary focus of neo-Darwinism.

***********

[torridon]

Natural Selection being a metaphor is obvious. And...i am not the only person who thinks so...

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-011-0360-3


***********

Natural selection, Darwin’s most novel metaphor, was the key concept in distinguishing Darwinian selectionism from Lamarckian adaptationism. Darwin therefore devoted the bulk of Origin of Species to elaborating the concept.

As Darwinism became widely accepted, the language of evolution changed from metaphor to nomenclature, with a narrowing of perspective. Neo-Darwinism, or the synthetic theory of evolution, is currently the primary normative framework for evolutionary biology. I have suggested that neo-Darwinism is not a refined and upgraded version of Darwinism, a narrowing of vision with almost exclusive focus on only one of Darwin’s metaphors, natural selection.

....natural selection was the concept most amenable to normalizing language and became the primary focus of neo-Darwinism.

***********

That is just about the fact that the world 'selection' as it is used in the phrase 'natural selection', is being used metaphorically. Clearly nature does not literally 'select' species for evolution in the same way a shopper selects items from a supermarket shelf.  Darwin was good with language, capable of creative writing, and this is an instance of that.  It does not mean that the real world biological phenomenon of natural selection is a metaphor; just that Darwin dipped into a metaphorical use of language to describe it, and the phrase stuck.

[Stranger]

Natural Selection being a metaphor is obvious.

Whereas you might describe the language as metaphorical, that doesn't change the fact that 'natural selection' now has an exact scientific meaning that refers to a real, physical  phenomena. You can't dismiss the phenomenon as "just a metaphor" as you've so often tried to do.

When people have to describe something new in science, they either have to make up entirely new words or use existing language in a new way, which you could describe as metaphorical. The theory of the 'big bang' isn't a metaphor because it wasn't literally a loud or extensive noise, 'colour charge' isn't metaphorical because it has nothing to do with colours, 'string theory' isn't a metaphor because it isn't about actual string. Natural selection is a more literal description than any of those examples.

[Sriram]

Of course...Natural Selection is a metaphor!  There is no 'selection' going on.  Whatever survives ..survives. It is like saying that people who dies in road accidents or in floods are all part of natural selection.  If they knew how to drive properly or how to swim then would have survived.   

Survival depends on how an organism adapts to its environment. That depends on plasticity. It is an intelligent and responsive process of survival in different environments because survival is an instinctive need and the goal of life.   

[Stranger]

Of course...Natural Selection is a metaphor!  There is no 'selection' going on.  Whatever survives ..survives. It is like saying that people who dies in road accidents or in floods are all part of natural selection.  If they knew how to drive properly or how to swim then would have survived.

Natural selection is one of the most important and profound concepts in science, it is also one of the simplest. How you manage to remain stubbornly ignorant of it, is quite beyond me but you must have some deep mental block about it, probably because you sense it might threaten your cherished superstitions.

Ho hum, here we go again....

If the ability to swim and drive were heritable traits and if the environment of humans was such that people who were able to drive and swim were more likely to have children (or have more children), then it would indeed be a case of natural selection. We would, under those circumstances, eventually get a population dominated by those that were able to drive and swim.

It really is that simple. If some trait means that individuals with it generally leave more offspring, then the genes or alleles responsible for the trait will come to dominate the population. That's how allele frequency changes and how beneficial mutations become 'fixed' in populations.

Survival depends on how an organism adapts to its environment. That depends on plasticity.

You're still getting this back to front. An individual organism's ability to adapt is itself a trait that has come to dominate the population (by natural selection) because it is a survival advantage. Plasticity isn't evolution, it's the result of evolution.

Evolution is not something that happens to individual organisms, it happens to populations over generations.

It is an intelligent and responsive process of survival in different environments because survival is an instinctive need and the goal of life.

Arse about face again. A survival instinct is a survival advantage, so individuals with it (or more of it) are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation, so we end up with populations in which individuals all have a survival instinct.

Evolution doesn't happen because of a survival instinct, a survival instinct is something that evolves.

This is all really simple and blindingly obvious. You must really, really want it to be wrong for some reason.

[ekim]

Evolution is not something that happens to individual organisms, it happens to populations over generations.

Arse about face again. A survival instinct is a survival advantage, so individuals with it (or more of it) are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation, so we end up with populations in which individuals all have a survival instinct.

Evolution doesn't happen because of a survival instinct, a survival instinct is something that evolves.

This is all really simple and blindingly obvious. You must really, really want it to be wrong for some reason.

Perhaps Sriram's survival instinct has evolved differently to yours and because of being associated with a community which has long believed in karma and reincarnation there is an instinct to survive beyond physical death.  Hence near death experiences and out of body experiences become important.

[Sriram]

Natural selection is one of the most important and profound concepts in science, it is also one of the simplest. How you manage to remain stubbornly ignorant of it, is quite beyond me but you must have some deep mental block about it, probably because you sense it might threaten your cherished superstitions.

Ho hum, here we go again....

If the ability to swim and drive were heritable traits and if the environment of humans was such that people who were able to drive and swim were more likely to have children (or have more children), then it would indeed be a case of natural selection. We would, under those circumstances, eventually get a population dominated by those that were able to drive and swim.

It really is that simple. If some trait means that individuals with it generally leave more offspring, then the genes or alleles responsible for the trait will come to dominate the population. That's how allele frequency changes and how beneficial mutations become 'fixed' in populations.

You're still getting this back to front. An individual organism's ability to adapt is itself a trait that has come to dominate the population (by natural selection) because it is a survival advantage. Plasticity isn't evolution, it's the result of evolution.

Evolution is not something that happens to individual organisms, it happens to populations over generations.

Arse about face again. A survival instinct is a survival advantage, so individuals with it (or more of it) are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation, so we end up with populations in which individuals all have a survival instinct.

Evolution doesn't happen because of a survival instinct, a survival instinct is something that evolves.

This is all really simple and blindingly obvious. You must really, really want it to be wrong for some reason.

What is 'survival advantage' without the purpose of surviving? If the purpose is to die out (say)...surviving would be a disadvantage.  Because survival is the objective...any trait that enables survival is an advantage.

I agree that any trait that enables survival is an advantage....and also if it gets passed on to the progeny. But this cannot happen through happenstance. It has to be (and actually is!) built into the system. That is all I am saying. Traits arising through random variation and some how turning out to be advantageous, is absurd.

[torridon]

Of course...Natural Selection is a metaphor!  There is no 'selection' going on.  Whatever survives ..survives. It is like saying that people who dies in road accidents or in floods are all part of natural selection.  If they knew how to drive properly or how to swim then would have survived.   

Survival depends on how an organism adapts to its environment. That depends on plasticity. It is an intelligent and responsive process of survival in different environments because survival is an instinctive need and the goal of life.

The rise of the Delta strain of Sars-Cov-2 is a classic case of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, but it has nothing to do with phenotypic plasticity or intelligence or instincts.

[Stranger]

What is 'survival advantage' without the purpose of surviving?

I'm really running out of ways to make this simpler. A survival 'advantage' is just something that makes it more likely that an organism will survive and reproduce. There is no purpose or need for one.

If the purpose is to die out (say)...surviving would be a disadvantage.

Okay, let's imagine there is a purpose and it's to die out. Now all the traits that have a dying out advantage have successfully died out, and we are left with all the failures that survived. Hence we'd still see populations dominated by those with dying out disadvantages, i.e. those with survival advantages. The purpose has made no difference at all.

A there is no purpose - survival advantages / dying out disadvantages dominate regardless, just because they reproduce more.

Because survival is the objective...any trait that enables survival is an advantage.

There is no objective. You seem to be hung up on the word 'advantage'. It's entirely relative, you can call it a dying out disadvantage and it doesn't change anything that would happen.

I agree that any trait that enables survival is an advantage....and also if it gets passed on to the progeny. But this cannot happen through happenstance. It has to be (and actually is!) built into the system.

What system? The only 'system' is that things that are good at surviving in their environment survive more than those that aren't as good. That's not a system, it's almost a truism.

That is all I am saying. Traits arising through random variation and some how turning out to be advantageous, is absurd.

Of course it's not absurd, we have overwhelming evidence that it happens. If variations are random, some of them will increase survival prospects and some will harm them (most actually do neither). Those that harm survival (successfully!) die out and those that aid it, fail to die out and, because they aid it, spread through the population.

[Sriram]

The rise of the Delta strain of Sars-Cov-2 is a classic case of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, but it has nothing to do with phenotypic plasticity or intelligence or instincts.

You are just asserting that it has nothing to do with phenotypic plasticity, intelligence etc. How do you know that? 

Fundamentally there are two belief systems......materialism and non-materiaism.  Materialism (or physicalism) asserts that all phenomena are generated from and  by  physical means (physical laws). Non-materialism asserts that there are other influences and means by which the physical world (and our lives) are affected. This could include religious or secular ideas.

Both are just beliefs. Saying that you have evidence but we don't is quite a silly argument.

Influences from outside the physical (quasi physical) cannot have evidence in physical measurable terms. They can be felt and detected but cannot be recorded on any instrument.

I don't know why many of you have such emotional reactions to suggestions of influence from quasi-physical  origins. These influences actually should be obvious given the complex nature of the world.  Asserting again and again that physical laws are enough to explain everything is merely an assertion which also  smacks of prejudice. The two boxes syndrome.

[Stranger]

You are just asserting that it has nothing to do with phenotypic plasticity, intelligence etc. How do you know that? 

Oh, do stop being absurd! It's a genetic mutation (well, about 13 of them, actually), we know this because the entire genome has be sequenced.

Both are just beliefs. Saying that you have evidence but we don't is quite a silly argument.

It's not silly, it's a simple statement of fact.

I don't know why many of you have such emotional reactions to suggestions of influence from quasi-physical  origins.

Irony.

These influences actually should be obvious given the complex nature of the world.

"It's obvious, innit?" really isn't a good argument.

Asserting again and again that physical laws are enough to explain everything is merely an assertion which also  smacks of prejudice. The two boxes syndrome.

Are you trying to create an irony singularity?

We certainly know that the known physical laws aren't enough to explain everything and we obviously don't know what we don't know. However, the specific problem here is that you are (rather comically) trying to insert some sort of "intelligent influence" where there is a very clear, well evidenced, and extensively tested theory that already beautifully and simply explains what is going on perfectly well without any such influence.

The prejudice is all yours. You're trying to explain something that has already been explained with something that you have no evidence for, and you seem so desperate to do so that you won't even acknowledge the simple explanation that exists.

[Outrider]

What is 'survival advantage' without the purpose of surviving?

A trait that will more successfully reproduce than other traits. Just as it would be if there were a purpose of surviving, but without the purpose.

If the purpose is to die out (say)...surviving would be a disadvantage.  Because survival is the objective...any trait that enables survival is an advantage.

No, survival is not the objective, there is no objective. Survival is just a trait that has consequences, one of which is evolutionary success.

I agree that any trait that enables survival is an advantage....and also if it gets passed on to the progeny. But this cannot happen through happenstance.

Why not?

It has to be (and actually is!) built into the system. That is all I am saying. Traits arising through random variation and some how turning out to be advantageous, is absurd.

Your inability to accept it is not any sort of argument against it.

O.

[torridon]

You are just asserting that [Sars-Cov-2] has nothing to do with phenotypic plasticity, intelligence etc. How do you know that? 
..

There is no evidence to support it, that's all. We don't believe things without reason to do so.  If we observed that virus particles were somehow intelligently seeking out better hosts to infect then you'd have a point, but there is no evidence for that.  Airborne virus particles that happen to be drawn into people with no specific immunological defence to them will tend to have better reproductive success, that's all.  It's simply logical.

[Sriram]

A trait that will more successfully reproduce than other traits. Just as it would be if there were a purpose of surviving, but without the purpose.

No, survival is not the objective, there is no objective. Survival is just a trait that has consequences, one of which is evolutionary success.

Why not?

Your inability to accept it is not any sort of argument against it.

O.

But these are just assumptions. No one KNOWS that there is no objective. 

Once we connect evolution and its responsive adaptations with Consciousness and the idea of panpsychism.... and see it together with an after-life of which we have evidence in terms of NDE's.......an objective for life and evolution becomes obvious.

[Sriram]

There is no evidence to support it, that's all. We don't believe things without reason to do so.  If we observed that virus particles were somehow intelligently seeking out better hosts to infect then you'd have a point, but there is no evidence for that.  Airborne virus particles that happen to be drawn into people with no specific immunological defence to them will tend to have better reproductive success, that's all.  It's simply logical.

But...we know that true randomness does not exist. Everything is tied up with everything else. Claiming randomness and happenstance for complex phenomena is a cop-out. 

[torridon]

But...we know that true randomness does not exist. Everything is tied up with everything else. Claiming randomness and happenstance for complex phenomena is a cop-out.

Umm, I don't think we can say that true randomness does not exist.  But that's irrelevant to biological mutations; the fact is they are effectively or apparently random as far as evolution is concerned.

[Sriram]

Umm, I don't think we can say that true randomness does not exist.  But that's irrelevant to biological mutations; the fact is they are effectively or apparently random as far as evolution is concerned.

You see why it is a cop-out....?!     'Apparently' random....is what exactly..?