Consciousness & evolution

[Stranger]

You don't get it.

Oh, the irony!

You have evidence for mechanisms that take place in the process of evolution. I am not disputing that.

You don't seem to have any comprehension of it at all, otherwise you wouldn't be asking such daft questions and making such silly assertions.

I am talking about causes that are behind the mechanisms.

The only cause needed is for things that replicate with inheritance and variation, in an environment which means that not every replicator survives. That's it.

Explaining a car in terms of its mechanisms is not enough. Its purpose and driving force (driver) also need to be understood.

The 'mechanism' of evolution is not something that even suggests a need for further explanation. It is the explanation. It is absolutely nothing like car. The very fact that you are trying to compare the two, even as an analogy, is conclusive evidence that you simply don't understand.

You guys will claim that there is no reason to assume an purpose or driving force for evolution and that evolutionary mechanisms just happen with no reason at all.

The theory of evolution is the reason. The reasons why it happens really couldn't be more obvious. It's one of the simplest explanations in all of science and we have a plain as day example of it playing out in the world news as we speak.

We cannot see evolution in isolation. It has to be seen as just a part of our lives. Other aspects such as the nature of the mind, role of consciousness, understanding death and after-life, ESP, reincarnation and so on all are important.  Understanding all these aspects will obviously affect our understanding of evolution.

Baseless nonsense.

[Sriram]

You (and Blue) always react very angrily and with great deal of agitation at any of my posts.  Shows you are insecure.......I think! 

[ProfessorDavey]

You (and Blue) always react very angrily and with great deal of agitation at any of my posts.  Shows you are insecure.......I think! 

Not sure whether you are aiming that comment at me, but I think the term is exasperated - it is incredibly frustrating discussing a matter with someone who steadfastly refuses to engage with the evidence and the facts.

As someone else pointed out you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. Realistically you need to get out of the achingly anthropocentric mind-set you have and actually engage with the evidence.

[Sebastian Toe]

You don't get it. You have evidence for mechanisms that take place in the process of evolution. I am not disputing that.

I am talking about causes that are behind the mechanisms. Explaining a car in terms of its mechanisms is not enough. Its purpose and driving force (driver) also need to be understood.

You guys will claim that there is no reason to assume an purpose or driving force for evolution and that evolutionary mechanisms just happen with no reason at all. I don't agree with that.

We cannot see evolution in isolation. It has to be seen as just a part of our lives. Other aspects such as the nature of the mind, role of consciousness, understanding death and after-life, ESP, reincarnation and so on all are important.  Understanding all these aspects will obviously affect our understanding of evolution.

What came first, conciousness or life?

[Outrider]

'There is no 'need', there is no 'purpose', there is no 'intent', there is no 'survival instinct'.

That is what you guys like to believe....  Fine!    But tying it up with other hypotheses on consciousness, nature of mind and NDE's....I believe otherwise!

People 'believe' Trump won the election... people 'believe' the Tories' immigration policy is based on economics and lack of space... people 'believe' Jesus is coming back soon... people 'believe' that Bill Gates has put tracking microchips in the COVID vaccine...

People believe all sorts of nonsense; unless you can support your belief with some sort of logic or evidentiary basis then all you have is an opinion - to which you are, of course, entitled, but no-one has any obligation to treat it seriously.

O.

[Sriram]

Not sure whether you are aiming that comment at me, but I think the term is exasperated - it is incredibly frustrating discussing a matter with someone who steadfastly refuses to engage with the evidence and the facts.

As someone else pointed out you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. Realistically you need to get out of the achingly anthropocentric mind-set you have and actually engage with the evidence.

  You have no idea how exasperating it is for me to keep explaining the importance of other aspects of life (nature of mind, consciousness, after-life) and you people keep repeating the same old  science perceptions of mechanisms  as causes.  Your assertions that ....'there are no causes.....only mechanisms' are as tiresome as they get. 

[Sriram]

People 'believe' Trump won the election... people 'believe' the Tories' immigration policy is based on economics and lack of space... people 'believe' Jesus is coming back soon... people 'believe' that Bill Gates has put tracking microchips in the COVID vaccine...

People believe all sorts of nonsense; unless you can support your belief with some sort of logic or evidentiary basis then all you have is an opinion - to which you are, of course, entitled, but no-one has any obligation to treat it seriously.

O.

Beliefs can be based on many real phenomena that one experiences. These may not be measurable but that does not mean they can be ignored and brushed off.

The issue of Consciousness is very important as also the issue of an after-life. There is ample evidence for an after-life and ample evidence that consciousness is fundamental. Belief in such matters cannot be brushed off. How you people can ignore such important and fundamental matters is beyond me.

Luckily many young scientists seem to be free of the old science biases (two boxes syndrome) and seem to be looking beyond physical explanations. That is a welcome trend.

[torridon]

Beliefs can be based on many real phenomena that one experiences. These may not be measurable but that does not mean they can be ignored and brushed off.

The issue of Consciousness is very important as also the issue of an after-life. There is ample evidence for an after-life and ample evidence that consciousness is fundamental. Belief in such matters cannot be brushed off. How you people can ignore such important and fundamental matters is beyond me.

Luckily many young scientists seem to be free of the old science biases (two boxes syndrome) and seem to be looking beyond physical explanations. That is a welcome trend.

Tucker and Stevenson are 'young scientists' ?  Don't think so.

[Sriram]

Tucker and Stevenson are 'young scientists' ?  Don't think so.

Jim Tucker is not old ....about 61. Sam Parnia is fairly young. But Ian Stevenson, Raymond Moody are exceptions who thought outside the box in the 1960's and 70's itself. Great guys....pioneers and path breakers...!

[Stranger]

You (and Blue) always react very angrily and with great deal of agitation at any of my posts.  Shows you are insecure.......I think! 

Frustration at your total lack of ability or inclination to engage with the logic and evidence of what is a remarkably simple phenomenon (at least in terms of significant scientific theories) is not a sign of insecurity.

I've lost count of how many times I've explained natural selection to you (not to mention the other people who've also tried), how it doesn't need a purpose or goal, and how it would lead to the existence of 'survival instinct', rather than need it. You have never once directly addressed those explanations. You've quibbled about the word 'advantage', repeated the same questions, and shown no sign that you've even tried to consider the explanations you've been given.

You seem to want to avoid thinking about the actual issue at all costs, yet you accuse others of insecurity.   

[Stranger]

...and you people keep repeating the same old  science perceptions of mechanisms  as causes.  Your assertions that ....'there are no causes.....only mechanisms' are as tiresome as they get.

And this emphasises again that you appear to just be ignoring the explanations. Nobody is making assertions, the causes and mechanism of natural selection are well understood, backed up by evidence, and remarkably simple.

[Outrider]

Beliefs can be based on many real phenomena that one experiences.

But they can also just be pulled out of nothing.

These may not be measurable but that does not mean they can be ignored and brushed off.

Given the sheer number of claims, in the absence of anything more than 'belief', that's exactly what should be done.

The issue of Consciousness is very important as also the issue of an after-life.

Now there's a false equivalence and a half... consciousness is an observed phenomenon, for which we are still searching precise explanations. The idea of an afterlife isn't even close to being demonstrated as anything more than a hang-over from bronze-age superstitions. These two are not the same.

There is ample evidence for an after-life and ample evidence that consciousness is fundamental.

No. There's lots of evidence that people believe in an afterlife. There're lots of accounts of experiences that people try to tie to the idea of an afterlife, but that are equally as applicable to well-understood biochemistry. There is not 'ample evidence for an after-life' unless you aren't particularly critical about what you accept as evidence.

Belief in such matters cannot be brushed off. How you people can ignore such important and fundamental matters is beyond me.

Because it's not been shown in any way to be fundamental. The implications if it were true would, I agree, be important, but that's equally the case for Scientology's bullshit about Thetan brainwaves and the return of the Galactic Warlord, Xenu, but I'm not going to advocate pumping money into tin-foil hats and space lasers, either. You need more than a profound belief to justify your claim; it can motivate you to look for evidence, certainly, crack on, but come back when you have it, not when you have just the claims.

Luckily many young scientists seem to be free of the old science biases (two boxes syndrome) and seem to be looking beyond physical explanations. That is a welcome trend.

Scientists can study, that's what they do. Good science can be used to study ridiculous claims, and it will still be good science, but that they are studying it doesn't validate the claim at all, only the evidence arising from the study will do that. When these young scientists have something credible, that's when this discussion can move somewhere.

O.

[jeremyp]

Evolution involves intelligent adaptation and increasing complexity. It has objectives...survival, reproduction and complexity.

About the only thing you got right there is the spelling of all those long words. Literally everything you say in that sentence is false.

[Sriram]

But they can also just be pulled out of nothing.

Given the sheer number of claims, in the absence of anything more than 'belief', that's exactly what should be done.

Now there's a false equivalence and a half... consciousness is an observed phenomenon, for which we are still searching precise explanations. The idea of an afterlife isn't even close to being demonstrated as anything more than a hang-over from bronze-age superstitions. These two are not the same.

No. There's lots of evidence that people believe in an afterlife. There're lots of accounts of experiences that people try to tie to the idea of an afterlife, but that are equally as applicable to well-understood biochemistry. There is not 'ample evidence for an after-life' unless you aren't particularly critical about what you accept as evidence.

Because it's not been shown in any way to be fundamental. The implications if it were true would, I agree, be important, but that's equally the case for Scientology's bullshit about Thetan brainwaves and the return of the Galactic Warlord, Xenu, but I'm not going to advocate pumping money into tin-foil hats and space lasers, either. You need more than a profound belief to justify your claim; it can motivate you to look for evidence, certainly, crack on, but come back when you have it, not when you have just the claims.

Scientists can study, that's what they do. Good science can be used to study ridiculous claims, and it will still be good science, but that they are studying it doesn't validate the claim at all, only the evidence arising from the study will do that. When these young scientists have something credible, that's when this discussion can move somewhere.

O.

'If they were true, the implications would be important'. Ok....but how do we know if they are true...if we keep brushing them off as 'woo' or whatever...?

We still don't know what Life is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'just a process by which bodily activities happen'. We don't know what death is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'the cessation of all bodily processes'.  We don't know why the universe exists. This is normally dismissed off as....'due to the laws of physics'. We don't know why Life exists and evolves. This is normally dismissed off as....'an emergent property of certain molecules and evolution is due to random variation and natural selection'.

All fundamental questions. But what kind of answers are these....?! As naive as they get with no depth of vision whatsoever.   

[torridon]

'If they were true, the implications would be important'. Ok....but how do we know if they are true...if we keep brushing them off as 'woo' or whatever...?

We still don't know what Life is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'just a process by which bodily activities happen'. We don't know what death is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'the cessation of all bodily processes'.  We don't know why the universe exists. This is normally dismissed off as....'due to the laws of physics'. We don't know why Life exists and evolves. This is normally dismissed off as....'an emergent property of certain molecules and evolution is due to random variation and natural selection'.

All fundamental questions. But what kind of answers are these....?! As naive as they get with no depth of vision whatsoever.

it is not naïve to be diligent in your thinking, to respect the value of evidence and observation.  If your ideas are not constrained by evidence then you risk ending up believing all manner of baseless nonsense, such as dead people with no ears being able to hear quite well, and people that don't exist with no eyes being able to experience eyesight really quite well.  It's a good idea to remain grounded by evidence lest you end up living in a fantasy world of magic.

[Sriram]

it is not naïve to be diligent in your thinking, to respect the value of evidence and observation.  If your ideas are not constrained by evidence then you risk ending up believing all manner of baseless nonsense, such as dead people with no ears being able to hear quite well, and people that don't exist with no eyes being able to experience eyesight really quite well.  It's a good idea to remain grounded by evidence lest you end up living in a fantasy world of magic.

This is the type of microscopic thinking that leads to naive conclusions. How caught up with physicality people are......

The idea is simple. Seeing and hearing are experiences. They are merely enabled by eyes and ears. A person sitting within a robot for example, needs cameras and microphones to see and hear but can see and hear perfectly well when he is outside the robot.

Consciousness is what sees and hears....not the eyes and ears.  Nothing magical about it.

[torridon]

This is the type of microscopic thinking that leads to naive conclusions. How caught up with physicality people are......

The idea is simple. Seeing and hearing are experiences. They are merely enabled by eyes and ears. A person sitting within a robot for example, needs cameras and microphones to see and hear but can see and hear perfectly well when he is outside the robot.

Consciousness is what sees and hears....not the eyes and ears.  Nothing magical about it.

This is exactly the sort of baseless nonsense that arises if you sever the link between evidence and concept. It is fantasy thinking.  The evidence shows quite clearly that consciousness is a phenomenology of brains and that hearing is a phenomenology of auditory systems.  We don't have any evidence whatsoever of inanimate objects lacking complex auditory arrangements being able to hear quite well. Hearing is a complex transduction of external phenomena, remember the tree falling in the forest ? the sound of the falling tree is an interpretive construction that happens uniquely in brains with auditory cortex. If you think you can get from a speculative claim of universal consciousness to dead people having good hearing, you've lost the plot somewhere along the way.

[Sriram]

This is exactly the sort of baseless nonsense that arises if you sever the link between evidence and concept. It is fantasy thinking.  The evidence shows quite clearly that consciousness is a phenomenology of brains and that hearing is a phenomenology of auditory systems.  We don't have any evidence whatsoever of inanimate objects lacking complex auditory arrangements being able to hear quite well. Hearing is a complex transduction of external phenomena, remember the tree falling in the forest ? the sound of the falling tree is an interpretive construction that happens uniquely in brains with auditory cortex. If you think you can get from a speculative claim of universal consciousness to dead people having good hearing, you've lost the plot somewhere along the way.

Auditory organs evolve to accommodate the faculty of hearing that is already present in Consciousness. Similarly with sight.

[torridon]

Auditory organs evolve to accommodate the faculty of hearing that is already present in Consciousness. Similarly with sight.

If hearing is already 'present in consciousness' why do we need auditory organs to construct it?  it is already there.

[Outrider]

'If they were true, the implications would be important'. Ok....but how do we know if they are true...if we keep brushing them off as 'woo' or whatever...?

Well, we develop a methodology for investigating observed phenomena, and then we apply that methodology rigorously, and then we open the account of that process to the general public to invite commentary and dissent, and if no-one can find any obvious flaws in the reasoning we provisionally accept that as a viable explanation for events, and if that doesn't happen then we leave that claim on the table as unverified.

We still don't know what Life is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'just a process by which bodily activities happen'.

No, we don't dismiss it, we conclude from the available evidence that's probably what it is. It's not a dismissal, it's a recognition of an extraordinary marvel of nature that doesn't need any supernatural garnish to make it wonderful.

We don't know what death is. People normally dismiss it off as ...'the cessation of all bodily processes'.

Again, that's not a 'dismissal'. It's a conclusion, based of that first conclusion.

We don't know why the universe exists. This is normally dismissed off as....'due to the laws of physics'.

Actually, it's normally dismissed as a meaningless question; before you can ask 'why' you have to justify the idea that there might be a 'reason' at all.

We don't know why Life exists and evolves. This is normally dismissed off as....'an emergent property of certain molecules and evolution is due to random variation and natural selection'.

In what way are these 'dismissal's? Because they don't entertain the magic that we see no evidence for anywhere?
 

All fundamental questions. But what kind of answers are these....?!

Answers based upon the available evidence and a rigorous process of investigation. What answers do you have - ancient versions of Harry Potter and Gandalf...

As naive as they get with no depth of vision whatsoever.

Having at least a degree of credulity is not 'naivety'. Accepting any old claim just because you can find a copy of it that has dust on the jacket isn't wisdom, it's intellectual vacuity.

O.

[Sriram]

If hearing is already 'present in consciousness' why do we need auditory organs to construct it?  it is already there.

I told you it is like being inside a robot. Why should the robot have cameras and microphones when the inside person has eyes and ears? Why should a car have wheels when we have legs?

[Stranger]

I told you it is like being inside a robot. Why should the robot have cameras and microphones when the inside person has eyes and ears?

If you're going to put a person inside a robot, then there'd be little point in giving it microphones and cameras. Much, much easier to give it windows and apertures that allow sound to pass through.

The idea that a disembodied consciousness can see and hear all by itself, yet has to have eyes and ears (not to mention to associated parts of the brain), is ludicrous.

[Sriram]

Well, we develop a methodology for investigating observed phenomena, and then we apply that methodology rigorously, and then we open the account of that process to the general public to invite commentary and dissent, and if no-one can find any obvious flaws in the reasoning we provisionally accept that as a viable explanation for events, and if that doesn't happen then we leave that claim on the table as unverified.

No, we don't dismiss it, we conclude from the available evidence that's probably what it is. It's not a dismissal, it's a recognition of an extraordinary marvel of nature that doesn't need any supernatural garnish to make it wonderful.

Again, that's not a 'dismissal'. It's a conclusion, based of that first conclusion.

Actually, it's normally dismissed as a meaningless question; before you can ask 'why' you have to justify the idea that there might be a 'reason' at all.

In what way are these 'dismissal's? Because they don't entertain the magic that we see no evidence for anywhere?
 
Answers based upon the available evidence and a rigorous process of investigation. What answers do you have - ancient versions of Harry Potter and Gandalf...

Having at least a degree of credulity is not 'naivety'. Accepting any old claim just because you can find a copy of it that has dust on the jacket isn't wisdom, it's intellectual vacuity.

O.

It is a fact that in western societies there has not been much of a history of secular spirituality divorced from religion.  Christianity and Islam have had a bad time due to scientific progress (Adam & Eve, six day creation etc.). The failure of religious mythology has made all suggestions of unseen causes or quasi physical forces seem dubious and delusional.  This is a mistake.  You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater and overlooking real phenomena. 

Many unseen and quasi physical forces do exist and they do influence our lives. Western minds are only now beginning to open out to such possibilities (outside religious myths).  All suggestions of quasi or exotic or extra physical phenomena need not be delusional.

Once these possibilities are recognized, new ways of looking at the world and its origins will develop and this will bring about new methodologies and new ways of examining these phenomena. That is when a new science will develop.  It is beginning to happen...slowly.

[torridon]

I told you it is like being inside a robot. Why should the robot have cameras and microphones when the inside person has eyes and ears? Why should a car have wheels when we have legs?

If there is 'something' inside that experiences vision then it would have no need to construct all the biological apparatus by which vision is constructed.  It can just do it natively.  Is there something inside a bat that can do echo-location natively ? Is there something inside a shark that does electroreception natively ? Is there something 'inside' a daffodil that is experiencing the Sun resulting in a heliotropic response ?

[Sriram]

If there is 'something' inside that experiences vision then it would have no need to construct all the biological apparatus by which vision is constructed.  It can just do it natively.  Is there something inside a bat that can do echo-location natively ? Is there something inside a shark that does electroreception natively ? Is there something 'inside' a daffodil that is experiencing the Sun resulting in a heliotropic response ?

It is obviously not as simple as the analogy I have given. I agree to that.