View Full Version : Two Concepts of Evolution
Until the mid-1980s, the understanding of the development of animal life was that it had followed the logical path of a gradual evolution with more simple phyla over eons leading into more complex phyla.
With the rediscovery of fossils held quietly in the dusty drawers of the Smithsonian Institution since 1909, this concept underwent a drastic revision. These fossils in conjunction with other discoveries indicate that all animal phyla appeared almost simultaneously 530 million years ago in the Cambrian period.
All further development was confined to variations within each phylum. One of the great mysteries of animal evolution is WHY no new phyla have evolved or appeared since that Cambrian explosion of life as now documented by all fossil evidence in the world libraries and museums?
What happened to any NEW PHYLA EVOLUTION since that Cambrian period some half billion years ago? How long are we to wait for some new phyla to evolve?
There's no great mystery...where would a new phylum go?
Originally posted by Zero
There's no great mystery...where would a new phylum go?
Right into the proof column of the theory of evolution.
Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero
There's no great mystery...where would a new phylum go?
Right into the proof column of the theory of evolution. Ummm, no, I meant physically, where would you put an entire new phylum of creatures, geographically?
selfAdjoint
Mar20-04, 09:29 AM
My theory is that the Burgess shale explosion of phyla coincided with the evolution of the "homeobox" genes. These enabled a complex body plan to be developed. And all the niches available to various combinations of homeo genes were quickly explored. Many turned out to be not viable in the long run and the rest lived on to give us our modern phyla. Any new body plan that might arise by mutation would have to compete with established phyla already on the scene. So the laws of probability would say that it's extremely unlikely that a new body plan would be anything but a relative failure.
Originally posted by Zero
Ummm, no, I meant physically, where would you put an entire new phylum of creatures, geographically?
If the phylum had lungs and limbs, it would appear on the land and if gills and scales, in the sea.
Your meaning is unclear to me as any brand new phyla appearing anywhere on planet earth would create a world-wide riot in the scientific community similar to the report in the New York Times on April 23, 1991 titled "Spectacular Fossils Record Early Riot of Creation" referencing the dramatic conclusion that a burst of multicellular life was found during the Cambrian era, more than one-half billion years ago.
Not one new phyla found since that Cambrian Era.
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
My theory is that the Burgess shale explosion of phyla coincided with the evolution of the "homeobox" genes. These enabled a complex body plan to be developed. And all the niches available to various combinations of homeo genes were quickly explored. Many turned out to be not viable in the long run and the rest lived on to give us our modern phyla. Any new body plan that might arise by mutation would have to compete with established phyla already on the scene. So the laws of probability would say that it's extremely unlikely that a new body plan would be anything but a relative failure.
I like your theory about the Burgess shale explosion of phyla coinciding with the mysterious presence of 'homeobox' genes.
Some evolutionists hailed homeobox or hox genes as the saviour of evolution soon after they were discovered. They seemed to fit into the Gouldian mode of evolution (punctuated equilibrium) because a small mutation in a hox gene could have profound effects on an organism. However, further research has not born out many people's evolutionists’ hopes. Dr Christian Schwabe, the non-creationist sceptic of Darwinian evolution from the Medical University of South Carolina (Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), wrote:
What is the REAL message of the patterns of life? The Biotic Message
His book scientifically fights your theory on the factual terms, on their issues, using their testimony, and their ground rules. This non-cretionist dismantles many evolutionary illusions, and offers a new creation theory of biology.
He says that ‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’
(Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167–177).
Research in the six years since Schwabe wrote this has only born out his statement. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities (two heads, a leg where an eye should be, etc.); they do not change an amphibian into a reptile, for example. And the mutations do not add any information, they just cause existing information to be mis-directed to produce a fruit-fly leg on the fruit-fly head instead of on the correct body segment.
Of course, you are using the ubiquity of hox genes in your argument for common ancestry (‘Look, all these creatures share these genes, so all creatures must have had a common ancestor’). However, commonality of such features is to be expected with their origin from the same source. All such homology arguments are only arguments for evolution when one excludes, a priori, origins by design. Indeed many of the patterns seen do not fit common ancestry. For example, the discontinuity of distribution of hemoglobin-like proteins, which are found in a few bacteria, molluscs, insects, and vertebrates. One could also note features such as vivipary, thermoregulation (some fish and mammals), eye designs, etc.
You will simply have to give more proof of your theory of homeobox genes sudden appearance as the origin of early DNA pattern for phyla.
You might want to watch your quotations from other sources...make sure it is clear what you are quoting, and what your own ideas are.
BTW, are YOU a creationist, ID proponent, or otherwise deficient in the understanding of science?[g)] (I'm kidding)
Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero
Ummm, no, I meant physically, where would you put an entire new phylum of creatures, geographically?
If the phylum had lungs and limbs, it would appear on the land and if gills and scales, in the sea.
Your meaning is unclear to me as any brand new phyla appearing anywhere on planet earth would create a world-wide riot in the scientific community similar to the report in the New York Times on April 23, 1991 titled "Spectacular Fossils Record Early Riot of Creation" referencing the dramatic conclusion that a burst of multicellular life was found during the Cambrian era, more than one-half billion years ago.
Not one new phyla found since that Cambrian Era.
I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear.
A list of phyla:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/
Originally posted by FZ+
I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear.
A list of phyla:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/ Oops, I forgot to get back to that...that was my point exactly. Nearly every life-sustaining niche has been filled by some form of life. Where there is little life, evolutionary forces will shape existing species to fill each niche. But, once the niche is filled, it becomes nearly impossible for another species to compete with it. How then would we expect an entirely new phylum to come into existance, when it is hard enough for a new species to get a foothold?
Oh, and here is an interesting critique of Christian Schwabe: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
selfAdjoint
Mar20-04, 01:29 PM
He says that ‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’
Well that doesn't contradict my theory since I did point out that after the first radiation, the mutation of the hox genes would be very unlikely to produce a valid competitor phylum. For example I would expect mutations in the hox genes of vertibrates to produce nonviable fetuses.
Originally posted by FZ+
I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear. A list of phyla:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/
FZ+ as I understand it phyla are morphologically based branches of the tree of life on planet earth.
The different three morphological phyla types on earth being Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya.
The following graph demonstrates darwinian theory vs. the fossil record to this point in time. And you are correct in my confusion and error with phyla progression changes in the tree classifications of specie and class.
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGJ.html
The next graph demonstrates the "vast majority of phyla appear abruptly with low species diversity. The disparity of the higher taxa precedes the diversity of the lower taxa."
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGH.html
The last graph demonstrates evidence of sudden appearnce and stasis.
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGI.html
Darwin wrote, (*note Darwin's referral to the Silurian period is now known as the Cambrian era)
'I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age....Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian strata was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian to the present day.....The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained'
The Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 313 - 314
Derek E.G. Briggs, Douglas H. Erwin, & Frederick J. Collier
"The Fossils of the Burgess Shale," 1994, Smithsonian Institution, p.39.
Ummm...talus, you do realize that when Darwin said "at present", it was 1859?[;)]
Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...talus, you do realize that when Darwin said "at present", it was 1859?
I enjoyed your critical site of biochemist Schwabe but the article actually admits that both Darwin and Schwabe are both the extremes and that there must be a central ground. The following quote from your article appears to make Schwabe's one-time lucky event and the chance-oriented Darwin construct appear to be one and the same.
Schwabe wants to make the origin of life research "a hard science based upon chemistry, thermodynamics, kinetics and the laws of mass action". Who would object? The origin of life is not a one-time lucky event "in contrast to the chance-oriented Darwinian paradigm".....
Yes Darwin did say 'at present' in the admission of his possible error statment in the year 1859. What has bascially changed since that 1859 time which alters Darwin's basic evolutionary premise in 2004's scientific community?
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
He says that ‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’
Well that doesn't contradict my theory since I did point out that after the first radiation, the mutation of the hox genes would be very unlikely to produce a valid competitor phylum. For example I would expect mutations in the hox genes of vertibrates to produce nonviable fetuses.
Are you saying that the first radiation of various combinations of homeotic genes were "quickly" explored for an initially complex aberrant construct which was somehow successful. Then "quickly" disappeared because any further use of this gene would result in mutations producing nonviable fetuses? Or that everything originated from one phylum as contradicted by the fossil record as shown in previous thread graphs.
What are the chances of such a one time event occurring once in even 2X the full span of time speculated for the beginning of the universe until now?
*rolls eyes*
Do you think anyone today is a strict Darwinist? Old Charles would hardly recognise today's evolutionary science, so attacking Darwin is attacking a strawman.
Originally posted by Zero
*rolls eyes*
Do you think anyone today is a strict Darwinist? Old Charles would hardly recognise today's evolutionary science, so attacking Darwin is attacking a strawman.
*amazement*
Before I can avoid that Darwin 'strawman' again I need to understand your personal construct of 'currently recognized', 'accepted', 'fixed' evolutionary science as apposed to various evolution theorists, biologists and scientists with differing perspectives of Darwin's 1859 original theory.
You must additionally recognise that the so-called cambrian explosion may be only due to the start of fossilisation - pre-cambrian types may well have existed, but were undetectable because they did not secrete minerals etc to leave a genuine trace.
What has bascially changed since that 1859 time which alters Darwin's basic evolutionary premise in 2004's scientific community?
For a start, we actually have a theory of genetics, by which we observe that morphology is often hugely misleading - leaves etc are in fact very easy to produce, by the repitition of small parts, and that's why they are common in nature. We also understand a much greater changebility in the rate of evolution, involve in our models more of the inherent feedback between the organism and its environment, involve theories of co-evolution to see how ecosystems appear, view evolution in terms of new mathematical techniques of dynamical systems, and so on and so forth.
Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by FZ+
I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear. A list of phyla:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/
FZ+ as I understand it phyla are morphologically based branches of the tree of life on planet earth.
The different three morphological phyla types on earth being Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya.
The following graph demonstrates darwinian theory vs. the fossil record to this point in time. And you are correct in my confusion and error with phyla progression changes in the tree classifications of specie and class.
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGJ.html
The next graph demonstrates the "vast majority of phyla appear abruptly with low species diversity. The disparity of the higher taxa precedes the diversity of the lower taxa."
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGH.html
The last graph demonstrates evidence of sudden appearnce and stasis.
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGI.html
Darwin wrote, (*note Darwin's referral to the Silurian period is now known as the Cambrian era) IMHO there's an awful lot of stuff here mixed up, resulting in much confusion.
1) The taxonomic hierarchy is:
Kingdom
Phylum (Division for plants)
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
2) Little is known about the evolution of multi-cellular organisms before the Cambrian, for the good reason that there is little in the fossil record on which to base assignment of taxa (there's plenty of evidence of eukaryotes, just not enough to be able to classify them into classes etc)
3) The vertiginous mixing of Darwin's words with echoes of modern evolution theory - Darwin got it wrong, in many respects (he was a scientist, science progresses), Gould is just one of those who've developed the theory of evolution since Darwin
Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero
*rolls eyes*
Do you think anyone today is a strict Darwinist? Old Charles would hardly recognise today's evolutionary science, so attacking Darwin is attacking a strawman.
*amazement*
Before I can avoid that Darwin 'strawman' again I need to understand your personal construct of 'currently recognized', 'accepted', 'fixed' evolutionary science as apposed to various evolution theorists, biologists and scientists with differing perspectives of Darwin's 1859 original theory. There's no such thing as "fixed" science...you don't seem to understand much about science, frankly. Scientists "debunk" Darwin all the time, and after peer review and confirmation, the new info gets integrated into the modern view of evolution. Attacking "Darwinism" is worthless, because no real evolutionist treats Darwin as anything more than a starting point. The accepted view of Darwin is that he had a good general idea, based on what he knew then, but in the 150 years since, we know alot more.
talus wrote: Are you saying that the first radiation of various combinations of homeotic genes were "quickly" explored for an initially complex aberrant construct which was somehow successful. Then "quickly" disappeared because any further use of this gene would result in mutations producing nonviable fetuses? Or that everything originated from one phylum as contradicted by the fossil record as shown in previous thread graphs.
What are the chances of such a one time event occurring once in even 2X the full span of time speculated for the beginning of the universe until now? Something much like what you described may have happened - it's not possible to test that idea using what we have in the geological record (and our today's technology) at present. The "disappeared" part need not apply, monstrous alternatives would clearly not have survived, and even potentially 'good' ones may not have been able to compete with what had already become established. It's like: Why can't we find really complex precursors to 'life' here on Earth today? Not because they don't arise naturally (we don't know), but because they'd be eaten by the ubiquitous prokaryotes.
Another confusion that you, IMHO, create (not necessarily consciously) is over time. The solar system has only been around for ~4.5b years, much less time than since the Big Bang (~13.7b years). The oldest rocks we've identified on Earth are ~3.7b years old. The experiments on the hox gene (etc) represent ~1,000 years (maybe) of change in the wild; the gene itself may have been evolving for ~<1b years. And so on.
On a completely different topic: why is this thread in "General Philosophy"? Seems we're discussing the evolution of (multi-cellular) life on Earth, a topic for the Biology (or maybe Earth) sub-forum.
Originally posted by Nereid
On a completely different topic: why is this thread in "General Philosophy"? Seems we're discussing the evolution of (multi-cellular) life on Earth, a topic for the Biology (or maybe Earth) sub-forum. I was wondering the same thing...while Christian Schwabe is likely to be wrong in his assumptions, and the talk seems to approach pseudoscience, this is generally a scientific-based debate.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zero
There's no such thing as "fixed" science...you don't seem to understand much about science, frankly. Scientists "debunk" Darwin all the time, and after peer review and confirmation, the new info gets integrated into the modern view of evolution. Attacking "Darwinism" is worthless, because no real evolutionist treats Darwin as anything more than a starting point. The accepted view of Darwin is that he had a good general idea, based on what he knew then, but in the 150 years since, we know alot more.
Exactly.... There is no such thing as 'fixed' anything. The different theories of life form origin and formation remain continually in a state of 'evolving.' What is modern today is usually discredited tomorrow with new concepts based on 'scientific' findings.
Who are those accepted evolutionist scientists whose 'peer review and confirmations' become the ultimate authorities of anything? Your statement that now science knows 'a lot more' is surely subject to possible further change which may alter the entire Dwarinian starting point as error.
My maxim is 'always keep an open mind' and except nothing as the ultimate answer.
Originally posted by Zero
I was wondering the same thing...while Christian Schwabe is likely to be wrong in his assumptions, and the talk seems to approach pseudoscience, this is generally a scientific-based debate.
This thread is 'general philosophy and not generally a scientific-based debate. Scientific-based anything is based on theory and experimentation. Pseudoscience is based on false or unproven concepts and I would submit that both creationism and evolutionism are both; just that as evidence of fossil history doesn't prove anything. If anyone has evidence that any evolutionary scientist has demonstrated by actual experiment (reviewed by peers) that life formed from a chance-event, I would be willing to entertain this theory.
Originally posted by Nereid
Something much like what you described may have happened - it's not possible to test that idea using what we have in the geological record (and our today's technology) at present. The "disappeared" part need not apply, monstrous alternatives would clearly not have survived, and even potentially 'good' ones may not have been able to compete with what had already become established. It's like: Why can't we find really complex precursors to 'life' here on Earth today? Not because they don't arise naturally (we don't know), but because they'd be eaten by the ubiquitous prokaryotes.
So you are saying that all evidence of early earth complex life forms disappeared for reasons such as either being eaten or not surviving? That is a very broad allegation.
Another confusion that you, IMHO, create (not necessarily consciously) is over time. The solar system has only been around for ~4.5b years, much less time than since the Big Bang (~13.7b years). The oldest rocks we've identified on Earth are ~3.7b years old. The experiments on the hox gene (etc) represent ~1,000 years (maybe) of change in the wild; the gene itself may have been evolving for ~<1b years. And so on.
Yes you are right in the fact that many assumptions are being made about time spans (from earth's perspective) and the hox gene, etc which (MAYBE) evolved and so on. These assumptions are of course possible maybes but are based on current concepts with little proof other than current methods of determining relative time or grasping at an aberrant hox gene that may or may not have been responsible for anything.
On a completely different topic: why is this thread in "General Philosophy"? Seems we're discussing the evolution of (multi-cellular) life on Earth, a topic for the Biology (or maybe Earth) sub-forum.
I suspect that at this point this subject is a discussion of general philosophy and not hard science proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Might there be a yet unknown theory of multi-cellular life as yet unknown by science?
Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero
I was wondering the same thing...while Christian Schwabe is likely to be wrong in his assumptions, and the talk seems to approach pseudoscience, this is generally a scientific-based debate.
This thread is 'general philosophy and not generally a scientific-based debate. Scientific-based anything is based on theory and experimentation. Pseudoscience is based on false or unproven concepts and I would submit that both creationism and evolutionism are both; just that as evidence of fossil history doesn't prove anything. If anyone has evidence that any evolutionary scientist has demonstrated by actual experiment (reviewed by peers) that life formed from a chance-event, I would be willing to entertain this theory. So you put it in Philosophy since you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You should realize, though, that science should be talking about scientifically, not philisophically. Otherwise, you have facts against "well, I'd feel better if it were some different way", and that leads nowhere.
Originally posted by Zero
So you put it in Philosophy since you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You should realize, though, that science should be talking about scientifically, not philisophically. Otherwise, you have facts against "well, I'd feel better if it were some different way", and that leads nowhere.
Thanks for your kind words. It seems that you are the one whose ideation of evolution is that, well maybe is a real theory and does not belong in a phiolosophical arena.
It might be that those scientists who believed that the earth was the center of the universe should have been in the solid field of pure science instead of concepualizing philosophically about the possibility that their theory was in error....
Originally posted by talus
Exactly.... There is no such thing as 'fixed' anything. The different theories of life form origin and formation remain continually in a state of 'evolving.' What is modern today is usually discredited tomorrow with new concepts based on 'scientific' findings.
Who are those accepted evolutionist scientists whose 'peer review and confirmations' become the ultimate authorities of anything? Your statement that now science knows 'a lot more' is surely subject to possible further change which may alter the entire Dwarinian starting point as error.
My maxim is 'always keep an open mind' and except nothing as the ultimate answer. [/B] So, are you willing to accept Christian Schwabe as being absolutely right? Your posting of late seems to show an anti-science bias , you know. NOTHING in science is absolute, not physics, or biology, or chemistry, or medicine, or any other branch of sciences. However, based on the total accumulation of evidence over the past few centuries, we can feel very confident in the fact of evolution...it is at least as well supported as any other scientific idea, and your desire for an "ultimate authority" misses the point.
Originally posted by talus
Thanks for your kind words. It seems that you are the one whose ideation of evolution is that, well maybe is a real theory and does not belong in a phiolosophical arena.
It might be that those scientists who believed that the earth was the center of the universe should have been in the solid field of pure science instead of concepualizing philosophically about the possibility that their theory was in error.... [/B] See what I mean? How can evolution NOT be a real theory? It is hugely supported by all of the evidence. A new theory to replace evolution would have to encompass all the evidence, and in addition to it answer other questions better than evolution does. Currently, there is no hypothesis which has enough evidence backing it to formulate a theory to compete with evolution. That doesn't at all mean that one of the current unsupported hypotheses will not someday be confirmed by the preponderance of the evidence; I am simply pointing out the fact that no hypothesis has fulfilled that requirement as of the current moment.
talus wrote: So you are saying that all evidence of early earth complex life forms disappeared for reasons such as either being eaten or not surviving? That is a very broad allegation. There's an awful lot of evidence of life on Earth, from ~3.4b onwards. However, there's little that can be said about the taxanomic classification - down to the species level - of multi-cellular life, before the Cambrian. One notable exception is the Ediacara Biota (http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/ediac/ediac.html), whose significance and relationship with the Cambrian phyla is still being worked out.
Also, note that, despite the apparent certainty of the charts talus posted earlier, the number of animalia phyla which appeared first in the fossil record in the early Cambrian is not certain, nor whether some of today's phyla in fact first appeared later.talus wrote: Yes you are right in the fact that many assumptions are being made about time spans (from earth's perspective) and the hox gene, etc which (MAYBE) evolved and so on. These assumptions are of course possible maybes but are based on current concepts with little proof other than current methods of determining relative time or grasping at an aberrant hox gene that may or may not have been responsible for anything. Not a bad summary, except that a little more precision in the use of terms such as 'assumption', 'concept', 'proof', 'methods' would be nice. Also, the timespans I was referring to weren't just re the hox gene - there isn't all that much uncertainty in the age of well-studied rock formations, and many 'genetic clocks' are now fairly well calibrated.talus wrote: I suspect that at this point this subject is a discussion of general philosophy and not hard science proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Might there be a yet unknown theory of multi-cellular life as yet unknown by science?With the possible exception of the role of the hox gene in the formation of phyla, this *is* an area of 'hard science', in the sense that there are hypotheses, predictions, tests and observations, falsification, thoery formation etc - just the same as in cosmology, high-energy particle physics, etc. New theories about multi-cellular life will surely be proposed! And, being science, they will have to encompass ALL the data and observations amassed to date.
talus wrote: *SNIP
The different theories of life form origin and formation remain continually in a state of 'evolving.' Such theories are not within the domain of evolution; they are in the field of abiogenesis.talus wrote: *SNIP
Pseudoscience is based on false or unproven concepts and I would submit that both creationism and evolutionism are both; just that as evidence of fossil history doesn't prove anything. If anyone has evidence that any evolutionary scientist has demonstrated by actual experiment (reviewed by peers) that life formed from a chance-event, I would be willing to entertain this theory. Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis - as Zero said in another post, there's no doubt about the fact of evolution, and we now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms; the same cannot be said of 'creationism'. There's an extensive thread elsewhere in PF on this very topic - I'll find it for you if you'd like.
Originally posted by Nereid
Such theories are not within the domain of evolution; they are in the field of abiogenesis. Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis - as Zero said in another post, there's no doubt about the fact of evolution, and we now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms; the same cannot be said of 'creationism'. There's an extensive thread elsewhere in PF on this very topic - I'll find it for you if you'd like. [/B] This confusion between abiogenesis and evolution is a hallmark of the pseudoscientific worldview. It goes right along with sticking "-ism" on the end of "Darwin", "science", and "evolution", to give the impression that they are pseudo-religious beliefs.
Originally posted by Zero
So, are you willing to accept Christian Schwabe as being absolutely right? Your posting of late seems to show an anti-science bias , you know. NOTHING in science is absolute, not physics, or biology, or chemistry, or medicine, or any other branch of sciences. However, based on the total accumulation of evidence over the past few centuries, we can feel very confident in the fact of evolution...it is at least as well supported as any other scientific idea, and your desire for an "ultimate authority" misses the point.
No I do not concede that I accept Christian Scwabe, Charles Darwin, scientists or theorists who feels that there is now a finite accumulation of empirical evidence.
There is of course no ultimate authority on any side of the two sided evolution vs creation paradigm.
It is my belief that intelligent humans have accumulated evidence which is nothing more than a perception of solid evidence.
Each person's cognitive abilities consist of human senses and the brain's inquisitve ability to provide a reality based on what appears to be our existence. A universe with immutable concrete laws of nature (and science) which must be explained as surely as any current concepts of evolution.
What? Huh? What are you talking about?
Creationism is a religious belief with no evidentiary support. Evolution is a firmly supported theory with the same level of acceptance as geology, physics, chemistry, etc.
Do you doubt physics, chemistry, or geology with the same fervor that you doubt evolution? Do you doubt evidence as a whole, do you doubt all perception?
And, let me ask again, are you a creationist? Seriously, this time.
Originally posted by Zero
See what I mean? How can evolution NOT be a real theory? It is hugely supported by all of the evidence. A new theory to replace evolution would have to encompass all the evidence, and in addition to it answer other questions better than evolution does. Currently, there is no hypothesis which has enough evidence backing it to formulate a theory to compete with evolution. That doesn't at all mean that one of the current unsupported hypotheses will not someday be confirmed by the preponderance of the evidence; I am simply pointing out the fact that no hypothesis has fulfilled that requirement as of the current moment.
Zero you appear to be a very intelligent fellow. Yet you make the categorical statement "how can evolution NOT be a real theory".
Obviously you feel that no other hypothesis currently exists which would explain that which is already proven. Your last statement confirms my premise that no hypothesis (including evolution and all its accumulated preponderance of evidence) has fulfilled that penultimate requirement as of the CURRENT MOMENT.
As scientific knowledge increases exponentially; evolution, creation and other theories are subsequently (in part) discredited or verified.
The fact that the majority of scientists agree on anything such as evolution's origin of life does not discount other possibilities.
Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero
Zero you appear to be a very intelligent fellow. Yet you make the categorical statement "how can evolution NOT be a real theory". I make that statement BECAUSE I am not only bright, but also better informed than you seem to be...that's ok though, we're all here to learn something, this is your turn![;)]
Obviously you feel that no other hypothesis currently exists which would explain that which is already proven. There are a couple of mistakes here. 1) there are plenty of other hypotheses...evolution is a THEORY, however, and there is no theory superior to it thus far. 2) Science never proves anything, and if you are expecting "proof" to be a litmus test, you are going to be disappointed every time.
Your last statement confirms my premise that no hypothesis (including evolution and all its accumulated preponderance of evidence) has fulfilled that penultimate requirement as of the CURRENT MOMENT.Evolution is both theory and fact...it is not a hypothesis, because it has supporting evidence. Creationism has no supporting evidence, and therefore is still catagorized as a hypothesis. BTW, "penultimate" means "second to last"...is that what you meant?
As scientific knowledge increases exponentially; evolution, creation and other theories are subsequently (in part) discredited or verified. Creationism has never been a theory. Evolution is a fact, it happens. Evolutionary theories explain how it works.
The fact that the majority of scientists agree on anything such as evolution's origin of life does not discount other possibilities. You have been repeatedly informed that evolution has nothing to do with origins. Do you think repeating your mistaken idea will somehow make it not a mistake?
Originally posted by Zero
What? Huh? What are you talking about?
Sorry for confusing you....
Creationism is a religious belief with no evidentiary support. Evolution is a firmly supported theory with the same level of acceptance as geology, physics, chemistry, etc.
Actually you are partially correct. Regligious beliefs are formed on tenets and dogmas based on a firm faith. Evolution also has its own dogmatic tenets or beliefs that geology, physics, chemisty, etc which also require faith in their realities.
Do you doubt physics, chemistry, or geology with the same fervor that you doubt evolution? Do you doubt evidence as a whole, do you doubt all perception?
In a way yes I believe in a sort of virtual reality in which each person or scientist bases his own so-called reality of physics, chemistry, geology, etc. You are firm in that which you sense to be real and in accumulated evidence that may or may not exist in a real universe. Instead we all may exist in a dimension in which we assume that all these things exist. This is my philosopy and that is why we are debating under this heading. Actually there is empirical evidence supporting this premise. Quantum mechanics and the fuzzy nature of particles appear to give credence to this alternative.
And, let me ask again, are you a creationist? Seriously, this time.
Seriously, I consider myself equivocal on the origin of things.
*yawn*
You aren't interested in debating anything. You have a rather confused understanding of science and have shown no interest in correcting your mistaken views on science in general.
This is a waste of time, and I'm starting to think you are a troll. You began by citing evidence, and now you claim that evidence doesn't mean anything.
Originally posted by Zero
I make that statement BECAUSE I am not only bright, but also better informed than you seem to be...that's ok though, we're all here to learn something, this is your turn!
At least you don't think too highly of your own superior intellect and penultimate knowledge. The old axiom, the truly intelligent know that they know nothing, seems to apply here.
There are a couple of mistakes here. 1) there are plenty of other hypotheses...evolution is a THEORY, however, and there is no theory superior to it thus far. 2) Science never proves anything, and if you are expecting "proof" to be a litmus test, you are going to be disappointed every time.
So there is no THEORY superior to evolution so far. Is that an example of your superior knowledge of all things already known? Actually I believe that ultimately a more complete knowledge of things will have more than 'empirical proof' as validation.
Evolution is both theory and fact...it is not a hypothesis, because it has supporting evidence. Creationism has no supporting evidence, and therefore is still catagorized as a hypothesis. BTW, "penultimate" means "second to last"...is that what you meant?
Actually creationism has an equivalent amount of supporting evidence as does evolution. You have attempted to discredit ireducible complexity but even a cursory understanding of Dr. Behe's premise belies your statements.
So evolution is both theory and fact but not a hypothesis. For your edification:
Roget's International Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases:
Theory
NOUN: supposition, assumption, supposal, supposableness [rare], suppositality [obs.], postulation [rare], condition, presupposition, hypothesis, postulate, postulatum, theory, data; proposition, position; thesis, theorem; proposal (plan) [See Plan]; assumed position.
Yes I meant penultimate to be as stated.
Roget's International Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases :
Penultimate
NOUN: END, closed, termination; desinence, conclusion, finis, finale, period, term, terminus, last, omega; extreme, extremity; gable end, butt end, fag-end; tip, nib, point; tail (rear) [See Rear]; verge (edge) [See Edge]; tag, peroration, appendix, epilogue; bottom dollar [colloq.], bitter end, tail end [colloq.], terminal, apodosis.
Please explain the word penultimate as meaning 'second to last.'
Creationism has never been a theory. Evolution is a fact, it happens. Evolutionary theories explain how it works.
You are entitled to your learned opinion. I remain ambivalent.
You have been repeatedly informed that evolution has nothing to do with origins. Do you think repeating your mistaken idea will somehow make it not a mistake?
The fact that evolution has anything to do with origins is also your repeating that you have some kind of definitive proof that that is the way it is. Do you think that making such trenchant statements will somehow make evolution the penultimate ANSWER.
Originally posted by Zero
*yawn*
You aren't interested in debating anything. You have a rather confused understanding of science and have shown no interest in correcting your mistaken views on science in general. This is a waste of time, and I'm starting to think you are a troll. You began by citing evidence, and now you claim that evidence doesn't mean anything.
*Ho Hum*
It appears that you are not interested in anything other than that which you have already accepted as fact. If that is the case, why do you even find the need to be on this site which is used for debate and discussion of other possibilities?
Name calling is not the sign of intelligence.
Yes I originally cited evidence but only as a means to open your mind that other proof exists of theories contrary to that you believe to be the ONLY WAY of ORIGINS.
Originally posted by Nereid
Such theories are not within the domain of evolution; they are in the field of abiogenesis. Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis - as Zero said in another post, there's no doubt about the fact of evolution, and we now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms; the same cannot be said of 'creationism'. There's an extensive thread elsewhere in PF on this very topic - I'll find it for you if you'd like.
Do you feel that evolution is at variance with abiogensis or ex nihilo?
You say there is no doubt about evolution but 'we' now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms.
There is actually so much evidence for both evolutionism and creationism as to make them basically one in the same.
IOW, evolution was a product of creation or how did that chance-event happen in all of time?
Yep...you are a creationist, and intellectually dishonest to boot. Too bad, really...you seemed to almost be interested in reality, and yet you keep stating the same tired creationist idiocy.
And yes, I said IDIOCY. If you say evolution has anything to do with origins, you are guilty of not understanding evolution. If you repeat it 3 more times after being corrected, you are either being intentionally ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Which one is it?
I can see why you wouldn't just admit to being a creationist...lying is the calling card of the creationist.
Oops, sorry about the rather heated posts...my heart got ahead of my head on this one.
However, my general position stands. You don't show much knowledge about the workings of science, which is a separate issue from any specific claim you make. You also seem to have fallen into the creationist's dogma and falsehood trap, which is regretable. I am always disturbed when liars like Behe trick impressionable people into buying into their pseudoscientific viewpoint, and it is hard to yank people from their clutches.
I'm sorry you've been lied to, and I would like the chance to steer you in the right direction...but we'll have to go VERY SLOWLY, and take each point one at a time, to make sure we don't jump ahead of ourselves...
Where do we begin?
Originally posted by talus
: Originally posted by Nereid
Such theories are not within the domain of evolution; they are in the field of abiogenesis. Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis - as Zero said in another post, there's no doubt about the fact of evolution, and we now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms; the same cannot be said of 'creationism'. There's an extensive thread elsewhere in PF on this very topic - I'll find it for you if you'd like. Here's the link I promised (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9781)Originally posted by talus: Do you feel that evolution is at variance with abiogensis or ex nihilo?
*SNIP
IOW, evolution was a product of creation or how did that chance-event happen in all of time? Not relevant, in a way similar to saying that the astrophysical theories of 'stellar evolution' have no relevance to theories of evolution of life on Earth, or chemistry is irrelevant to discussing magnetars, or economics irrelevant to understanding nucleosynthesis - they are beyond the stated domain of relevance (or 'scope').Originally posted by talus:
*SNIP
You say there is no doubt about evolution but 'we' now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms.
There is actually so much evidence for both evolutionism and creationism as to make them basically one in the same. What is 'evolutionism'?
What are the three (five? ten?) leading ,testable predictions of 'creationism'?
Originally posted by Zero
Yep...you are a creationist, and intellectually dishonest to boot. Too bad, really...you seemed to almost be interested in reality, and yet you keep stating the same tired creationist idiocy.
It seems that you too are not interested in any conclusions which do not give total acceptance to your preconceived ideas of evolutionary science facts and pigeonhole anyone not in agreement as obviously not intelligent. I am neither a creation(ist) nor a evoluntion(ist). You may be described as one whose beliefs and understandings of evolution are fixed in concrete. Anyone who poses even slight doubt to your 'science' is neither credible and not worthy of your own self described intellect.
It may be said instead that you are the one with the tired evolutionist theory which prevents you from stepping outside of your little box and open your mind. While I have used argument to push your buttons into believing that I am a creationist. Just too easy....
And yes, I said IDIOCY. If you say evolution has anything to do with origins, you are guilty of not understanding evolution. If you repeat it 3 more times after being corrected, you are either being intentionally ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Which one is it?
Got you.... You fell into this so easily... Real scientists and theorists never close their mind as reality is never as simple as you have demonstrated. Name calling again diminshes you so much.
I can see why you wouldn't just admit to being a creationist...lying is the calling card of the creationist.
When you have been uncovered as just one more liliputian, you resort to a canard.
Originally posted by Zero
Oops, sorry about the rather heated posts...my heart got ahead of my head on this one.
However, my general position stands. You don't show much knowledge about the workings of science, which is a separate issue from any specific claim you make. You also seem to have fallen into the creationist's dogma and falsehood trap, which is regretable. I am always disturbed when liars like Behe trick impressionable people into buying into their pseudoscientific viewpoint, and it is hard to yank people from their clutches.
I'm sorry you've been lied to, and I would like the chance to steer you in the right direction...but we'll have to go VERY SLOWLY, and take each point one at a time, to make sure we don't jump ahead of ourselves...
Where do we begin? I'm reposting this, just in case you missed it.
Originally posted by Zero
I'm reposting this, just in case you missed it.
No I didn't miss your original post or its message at all.
However, my general position stands. You don't show much knowledge about the workings of science, which is a separate issue from any specific claim you make. You also seem to have fallen into the creationist's dogma and falsehood trap, which is regretable. I am always disturbed when liars like Behe trick impressionable people into buying into their pseudoscientific viewpoint, and it is hard to yank people from their clutches.
I'm sorry you've been lied to, and I would like the chance to steer you in the right direction...but we'll have to go VERY SLOWLY, and take each point one at a time, to make sure we don't jump ahead of ourselves... Where do we begin?
Your subjective statement about my not knowing much about the workings of science is truly very revealing. We are posting on the general philosophy section of PF. The 'workings of true science' are as variable as those who interpret its experimental conclusions. I see that you have taken exception to my statement that a scientist or intellectual understands that lack of knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. I do not question that you have acquired scientific knowledge, albeit rather diminutive.
What is thought to be pseudoscience can eventually prove to create
world shaking realities. This is not always the case but to claim the alternative science construct incorrect, the faults must be demonstrated by experimentation and not merely that it appears to dispute long held scientific beliefs.
Dr. Michael Behe is a respected scientist and theoretical biochemist who does have his detractors much like many who dared question long held accepted facts about the origin of things. Einstein had many detractors himself but that did not make him a 'liar' or 'trickster.' That type of accusation diminishes any credibility you may have had.
If you would like to go slowly, point by point while elucidating the errors by some evidence would be a great starting point. Please refrain from name calling.
Originally posted by Nereid
Here's the link I promised (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9781) Not relevant, in a way similar to saying that the astrophysical theories of 'stellar evolution' have no relevance to theories of evolution of life on Earth, or chemistry is irrelevant to discussing magnetars, or economics irrelevant to understanding nucleosynthesis - they are beyond the stated domain of relevance (or 'scope'). What is 'evolutionism'?
Thanks for the link Nereid. I suppose you are basing your earth bound evolution on the following in your PF link:
Mentat:
Yes, evolution is true.
1. It fits very nicely with Mendelian genetics and Darwin came up with it PRIOR to reading Memdel's papers.
2. The fossil record indicates life has changed quite a bit over time, andevolution explains why better than ANYTHING else.
3. Mutations that change phenotype can be induced in lab (I've done it).
4. Speciation events have been observed.
5. Makes predictions about animal behavior that have been confirmed.
I could go on, but by all that God stuff in your post I can already see the level of thinking you operate at.
1)Mendellian genetics fits so nicely with Darwin's theory. Yep one out of four chances that a bean will inherit some of the characteristics of one of parent beans.
2) Fossel records indicate life has changed over time and evolution explains nothing. The fossil records indicate that the three phyla mostly appeared rather suddenly and no new bison has been created from elephants copulating. Humans who clone the nuclear material of cells does not prove evolution or creation.
3) "Evolution explains better than anything else" is not proof or evidence of the reality. Mentat claims to have created mutations by changing phenotypes in his own lab. Quite a feat for a human being. I suspect that Mentat should not only be world famous by now but a Nobel Peace Prize winner if this were true.
4)Speciation has been observed Mentat says. Where?????
5) Animal behavior proves evolution he says. WHAT?????
phenotype
NOUN: 1a. The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences. b. The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences. 2. An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular phenotype.
What are the three (five? ten?) leading ,testable predictions of 'creationism'?
I neither advocate evolution nor creation. The fact that I asked for any verifiable proof of evolution in an earlier post might be a start.
If any evolutionary model that we choose is such that each of the thousands of steps in a hypothetical mutation must be in sequence and any errorneous or out-of-order mutations is fatal, the number of trials required in the process would be in the magnitude of 4 1000 or deciminal notation 10 600. But this construct may be too strict. All "erroneous" mutations for example may not be fatal. It is possible to envision a sequence in which the thousands of steps can be be accomplished with far fewer than the random 10 600 trials.
With the statistics of probability, it is not the mathematics that is difficult. The difficulty is choosing the model that reasonably approxiamtes the real world. If we take take the most "optimistic" or forgiving set of assumptions in the thousands of mutations sequence, then the difficulty of achieving say a desired organ fades to triviality.
Evolution must be a miracle at the very least.
Originally posted by Nereid
.... calibrated.With the possible exception of the role of the hox gene in the formation of phyla, this *is* an area of 'hard science', in the sense that there are hypotheses, predictions, tests and observations, falsification, thoery formation etc - just the same as in cosmology, high-energy particle physics, etc. New theories about multi-cellular life will surely be proposed! And, being science, they will have to encompass ALL the data and observations amassed to date.
Nereid you might just find that the new science theory dealing with multi-cellular life could result in all previous data and observations amassed to date as erroneous and obsolete as abiogenesis in light of new insights into nature.
Now that I have nature's phyla branches down, I ask a fundamental question. Why, when in excess of 90 percent of marine life died some 250 million years ago, did no new phyla emerge? There certainly was a place for a new phyla when so many marine species disappeared. It seems none emerged because none fit the requirements of life. Evolution could not have formed life.
The selection of a miniscule fraction (the one out of 10378) of protein combinations that function for life from the vast number of possible combinations that function cannot have been by random point mutations on the DNA of the genome. It would be as if nature chose by random from a bag containing a billion, billion, billion… (repeated forty times) proteins the one that worked, and then repeated this same trick a trillion times! If proteins generation were a random process, then as with random word generation, the results would also be gibberish, but with life to form it would be fatal gibberish.
Are you familiar with the phenomena of convergent evolution? It seems that nature provides a format for rigorous statistical testing of evolution.
It seems that the emergence of organs similar in shape or function in animals of different species is convergent evolution. Such organs are designated as homologous if they arise by inheritance from common descent. The organs are analogous if the similarities satisfy the same need or function but were formed by independent evolutionary paths, rather than by a common ancestry. It seems from the graphs posted earlier demonstrate that nature's test for evolution failed.
Quoting Behe?
*yawn* never mind, this isn't going to go anywhere, and this isn't philosophy at all. It is discredited pseudoscience. Nereid, I wouldn't waste my time if I were you...breaking through creationist dogma is nearly impossible.
Originally posted by Zero
Quoting Behe? *yawn* never mind, this isn't going to go anywhere, and this isn't philosophy at all. It is discredited pseudoscience. Nereid, I wouldn't waste my time if I were you...breaking through creationist dogma is nearly impossible.
Sorry to bore you but I did not quote Dr. Behe. But you are right in one respect, you are wasting both your times as it appears that you cannot discuss things that disprove your truths.
selfAdjoint
Mar21-04, 07:32 PM
Now that I have nature's phyla branches down, I ask a fundamental question. Why, when in excess of 90 percent of marine life died some 250 million years ago, did no new phyla emerge? There certainly was a place for a new phyla when so many marine species disappeared. It seems none emerged because none fit the requirements of life. Evolution could not have formed life.
Nah, it was just cheaper and easier to fill the empty niches with peripheral modification of the surviving phyla. This whole argument of yours is just built around a belief that your analysis of something in the past is the only cogent one, and frankly, my dear, it isn't.
Nereid: .... calibrated.With the possible exception of the role of the hox gene in the formation of phyla, this *is* an area of 'hard science', in the sense that there are hypotheses, predictions, tests and observations, falsification, thoery formation etc - just the same as in cosmology, high-energy particle physics, etc. New theories about multi-cellular life will surely be proposed! And, being science, they will have to encompass ALL the data and observations amassed to date.
talus: Nereid you might just find that the new science theory dealing with multi-cellular life could result in all previous data and observations amassed to date as erroneous and obsolete as abiogenesis in light of new insights into nature. With respect, that's not how I understand 'data and observations'. First, think of Newtonian dynamics and General Relativity (GR). The former does a pretty good job of accounting for observations of the positions solar system objects, and making accurate predictions of their future positions. This applies even to observations of the Moon made with laser ranging (based on retroreflectors left by the Apollo astronauts) - down to ~1 cm. However, over a century ago there were observations that couldn't be accounted for, e.g. perihelion advance of Mercury. GR can account for these; and GR can account for all the Newtonian dynamics can too. The newer theory encompasses *all* data and observations amassed before it came along.
So a new theory of the evolution of multi-cellular life will need to account for the observations and data which the current theory/theories account for. This would include (just a short list) genetic inheritability, extinction of species, the fossil record, ...
[Edit: fixed formating in quote, for clarity]
talus wrote: *SNIP
3) "Evolution explains better than anything else" is not proof or evidence of the reality.
*SNAPGeneral Philosophy really isn't the best place to have this discussion; firstly, the relationship between science and reality is actively discussed elsewhere in PF (Mentat is quite keen on just such discussions), and I must say that talus would almost surely benefit for a deeper study - this sentence isn't about science at all.talus wrote: *SNIP
Mentat claims to have created mutations by changing phenotypes in his own lab. Quite a feat for a human being. I suspect that Mentat should not only be world famous by now but a Nobel Peace Prize winner if this were true.talus too could create mutations which change phenotype in his own lab (note the order of causation in talus' statement is backward), it's not hard to do.talus wrote: 4)Speciation has been observed Mentat says. Where????? The peppered moth is perhaps the best studied example of multi-cellular organisms in the wild; there are several examples of speciation in the lab. For bacteria, just think of the appearance of anti-biotic resistant strains.
This discussion is beginning to resemble the other thread.
talus wrote:There is actually so much evidence for both evolutionism and creationism as to make them basically one in the same.
Nereid: What is 'evolutionism'? What are the three (five? ten?) leading, testable predictions of 'creationism'?
talus replied: I neither advocate evolution nor creation. 'Evolutionism' and 'creationism' are your terms talus; I'd appreciate a straight answer to a very simple question about them. Let me ask again:
What is 'evolutionism'?
If 'creationism' is claimed to be science, what are the three (five, ten) leading, testable predictions?talus wrote: The fact that I asked for any verifiable proof of evolution in an earlier post might be a start. The confusion continues:
- 'evolution' is a fact
- there are various scientific theories concerning how it operates
- as they're scientific, the theories cannot 'prove' anything
- a great many falsifiable statements/predictions can be made from evolutionary theories, ranging from the time scale for the rise and spread of myxomatosis resistance in the Australian rabbit population, through the efficacy of influenza vaccinations, to predictions about fossils that will (and won't) be found in rocks of certain ages.
If 'creationism' (whatever it is) claims to be in the same domain as evolution theories, it needs to provide at least a similarly detailed set of falsifiable statements and predictions.
talus wrote: If any evolutionary model that we choose is such that each of the thousands of steps in a hypothetical mutation must be in sequence and any errorneous or out-of-order mutations is fatal, the number of trials required in the process would be in the magnitude of 41000 or deciminal notation 10600. But this construct may be too strict. All "erroneous" mutations for example may not be fatal. It is possible to envision a sequence in which the thousands of steps can be be accomplished with far fewer than the random 10600 trials.
With the statistics of probability, it is not the mathematics that is difficult. The difficulty is choosing the model that reasonably approxiamtes the real world. If we take take the most "optimistic" or forgiving set of assumptions in the thousands of mutations sequence, then the difficulty of achieving say a desired organ fades to triviality. Evolution must be a miracle at the very least.I've read this three times, and I still don't understand it; would you be so kind as to take it slowly, step by step, and explain?
Originally posted by Zero
Quoting Behe?
*yawn* never mind, this isn't going to go anywhere, and this isn't philosophy at all. It is discredited pseudoscience. Nereid, I wouldn't waste my time if I were you...breaking through creationist dogma is nearly impossible.
and those of use who refuse to be tied to the religion and seek to find the truth about this kinda stuff?.
i.e ME
Originally posted by Grim
and those of use who refuse to be tied to the religion and seek to find the truth about this kinda stuff?.
i.e ME If you want "truth", you'll have to first agree on terms, definitions, and standards. Otherwise, we aren't even speaking the same language, and rational debate isn't possible.
For instance, evolution is not a theory of the origins of life. If you attack evolution for "origin of life" issues, that is what we call a "strawman" argument; you are attacking a false, weaker version of something that you create, instead of attacking the actual idea.
As another example, if you ask for "absolute proof", you are not speaking the language of science. Science never makes the claim of being able to prove anything 100%, and the term "theory" is used to denote the very best we can ever hope to do. That's why us scientific types get mad when people say evolution is "just a theory"...it shows a lack of understanding of the word "theory", as though something can graduate from "theory" and become a "proven fact".
You also have to understand productive methods, and non-productive methods; you have to be able to determine what ideas are supported, and which are just conjecture. If you want to know which ideas are the "best" ideas, you've got to be able to wade though dogma, ulterior motives, unfounded assertions, and all sorts of messes.
ahh well we can never get the absolute truth about evloution unless there was someone watching it happen, what I am looking for is more substantial evidence, something that as well as deepening my understanding will give me ammo to fire back at those religous zealots who assume that the first thing you want to do when you get up in the morning is hear about god, you know the type...
I also happen to be particpating in a forum thread that's currently 41 pages and we are only just starting the evolution debate
Originally posted by Grim
ahh well we can never get the absolute truth about evloution unless there was someone watching it happen, what I am looking for is more substantial evidence, something that as well as deepening my understanding will give me ammo to fire back at those religous zealots who assume that the first thing you want to do when you get up in the morning is hear about god, you know the type...
I also happen to be particpating in a forum thread that's currently 41 pages and we are only just starting the evolution debate Have you checked out the Talk.Origins Archive? (http://www.talkorigins.org/)
You are probably wasting your time, though...the creationists don't speak the same language, intentionally, so that they can maintain their ignorance.
I'm off my turf here but I'm not sure that Neo-Darwinists aren't a bit too quick off the mark in crying 'creationism' whenever someone challenges their theory. There are many valid objections to the theory that do not imply Creator Gods.
For instance Neo-Darwinist selection is not capable of accounting for the evolution of consciousness. Also, if an ecological system is seen as a complex system then it is also not possible to account for what drives it towards increasingly complex, what it is that motivates the system. This is also a problem in more general computational studies of complexity.
Originally posted by Canute
I'm off my turf here but I'm not sure that Neo-Darwinists aren't a bit too quick off the mark in crying 'creationism' whenever someone challenges their theory. There are many valid objections to the theory that do not imply Creator Gods.
For instance Neo-Darwinist selection is not capable of accounting for the evolution of consciousness. Also, if an ecological system is seen as a complex system then it is also not possible to account for what drives it towards increasingly complex, what it is that motivates the system. This is also a problem in more general computational studies of complexity. Good questions, worthy of a discussion in Biology IMHO.
However, talus - whose position and assertions this thread is about - introduced the terms 'evolutionism' and 'creationism' (without defining either, I might add) and has said his interest is philosophical (he's not been clear - at least as far as I can see - as to whether he would like to discuss any scientific basis for either of these undefined '-isms').
A personal observation: from reading some of the discussions here in PF, related to 'evolution' (often as not it's abiogenesis) and 'creation science', I'm struck by how parochial it seems. I mean, it seems to be just a bunch of christians in the US who get worked up, and certainly far from a unified christian view at that. Where are the challenges from Islam, Judaism, Buddhism??
Originally posted by Nereid
However, talus - whose position and assertions this thread is about - introduced the terms 'evolutionism' and 'creationism' (without defining either, I might add) and has said his interest is philosophical (he's not been clear - at least as far as I can see - as to whether he would like to discuss any scientific basis for either of these undefined '-isms').
Point taken.
A personal observation: from reading some of the discussions here in PF, related to 'evolution' (often as not it's abiogenesis) and 'creation science', I'm struck by how parochial it seems. I mean, it seems to be just a bunch of christians in the US who get worked up, and certainly far from a unified christian view at that. Where are the challenges from Islam, Judaism, Buddhism?? [/B]
I think the reason may be that Christianity is the most scientific of all religions these days. It has no subtle teachings about 'emptiness' or 'the two Brahman' which actually might be true. As a result it has no plausibility as a metaphysic, or rather it doesn't have one. God just exists for some reason. All the subtlety was taken out when the Gnostics were branded heretical and the Gnostic Gospels stricken from the records.
If you read the Gospel of Mary (or Thomas) you suddenly find Jesus talking the language of Buddhism, of 'non-dual' doctrines. Bear in mind that Mary was Jesus's acknowledged favourite follower and was said at the time to have had a better understanding of his teachings than the other disciples. It was only a few centuries later that she was demoted to reformed prostitute with nothing to say, some say for male chauvinist reasons, some say because her teachings contradicted Peter's and the rest.
Had the Church been founded on her and other more Gnostic interpretions of Jesus's teaching I suspect Christians would be as quiet on these issues as Buddhists.
However Buddhists are not being quiet about Neo-Darwinism because they agree with it. It is just that they know there is no scientific evidence to contradict it. The idea that human consciousness plays a role in human behaviour and thus in our evolution as a social species seems abhorent to Darwinists. Why this is I quite honestly have no idea. It seems to threaten the status quo in some way.
Anyway, with no scientific evidence to decide the matter there is nothing to be done but hope for a change of paradigm. It may be that the 'problem of conscious' will lead to such a change, but it's going take a couple more decades by the look of it.
Sorry, got carried away there.
Originally posted by Zero
Have you checked out the Talk.Origins Archive? (http://www.talkorigins.org/)
*SNIP That is an awesome website Zero. [:D]
I'm still reading through it, but one paragraph in particular seems very relevant (or it would be if we were discussing science; unless and until talus returns to answer the questions put to him, we can't know if he's interested in science or not):
"The real test of any scientific theory is its ability to generate testable predictions and, of course, have the predictions borne out. Evolution easily meets this criterion. In several of the above examples I stated [plant Divisions, equivalent to Animalia phyla], closely related organisms share X. If I define closely related as sharing X, this is an empty statement. It does however, provide a prediction. If two organisms share a similar anatomy, one would then predict that their gene sequences would be more similar than a morphologically distinct organism. This has been spectacularly borne out by the recent flood of gene sequences -- the correspondence to trees drawn by morphological data is very high. The discrepancies are never too great and usually confined to cases where the pattern of relationship was debated."
My personal summary: all the painstaking work done by paleontologists has been confirmed, to an extraordinary extent, by a completely independent line of research.
Originally posted by Canute
I'm off my turf here but I'm not sure that Neo-Darwinists aren't a bit too quick off the mark in crying 'creationism' whenever someone challenges their theory. There are many valid objections to the theory that do not imply Creator Gods.
For instance Neo-Darwinist selection is not capable of accounting for the evolution of consciousness. Also, if an ecological system is seen as a complex system then it is also not possible to account for what drives it towards increasingly complex, what it is that motivates the system. This is also a problem in more general computational studies of complexity. You're a bit off the mark. Plus, you keep making those absolute statements, like "evolution CANNOT explain". The real point is that evolution doesn't CLAIM to explain consciousness. So that criticism is irrelevant.
As far as the "complexity" argument, creationists misuse information theory to support their bogus claims. Why would they need to lie and misrepresent, if there really IS support for their claims?
The bigger issue is not who is right and who is wrong. The real issue is strict intellectual honesty, accounting for all the evidence, proper logic, and correct use of terms and definitions.
Originally posted by Nereid
That is an awesome website Zero. [:D]
I'm still reading through it, but one paragraph in particular seems very relevant (or it would be if we were discussing science; unless and until talus returns to answer the questions put to him, we can't know if he's interested in science or not):
"The real test of any scientific theory is its ability to generate testable predictions and, of course, have the predictions borne out. Evolution easily meets this criterion. In several of the above examples I stated [plant Divisions, equivalent to Animalia phyla], closely related organisms share X. If I define closely related as sharing X, this is an empty statement. It does however, provide a prediction. If two organisms share a similar anatomy, one would then predict that their gene sequences would be more similar than a morphologically distinct organism. This has been spectacularly borne out by the recent flood of gene sequences -- the correspondence to trees drawn by morphological data is very high. The discrepancies are never too great and usually confined to cases where the pattern of relationship was debated."
My personal summary: all the painstaking work done by paleontologists has been confirmed, to an extraordinary extent, by a completely independent line of research. That's EXACTLY the point. Ask a creationist what's coming next, and he'll say "I don't know, whatever God decides". Science, however, can make decent predictions, for instance scientists can predict how long a new antibiotic is going to work before the germs adapt to it.
Plus, of course, pre-DNA evolutionary science pretty much predicted what we would find in today's modern genetics, even though they had never seen a DNA helix. The strength of evolutionary theory is evident in the fact that it fits in with ideas and evidence that no one had even thought of 150 years ago.
Originally posted by Zero
You're a bit off the mark. Plus, you keep making those absolute statements, like "evolution CANNOT explain". The real point is that evolution doesn't CLAIM to explain consciousness. So that criticism is irrelevant.
The bigger issue is not who is right and who is wrong. The real issue is strict intellectual honesty, accounting for all the evidence, proper logic, and correct use of terms and definitions.
Couple of points. You can't complain that I make absolute statements and then make the same statement yourself. Secondly if there is an aspect of species that current evolutionary theory cannot explain in principle it seems to me that something is missing from the theory. As you say, intellectual honesty demands that all the evidence is accounted for.
Originally posted by Canute
Couple of points. You can't complain that I make absolute statements and then make the same statement yourself. Secondly if there is an aspect of species that current evolutionary theory cannot explain in principle it seems to me that something is missing from the theory. As you say, intellectual honesty demands that all the evidence is accounted for. What absolute statement did I make?
And, what aspect of biology is current evolutionary theory not able to explain in principle?
Originally posted by Zero
What absolute statement did I make?
And, what aspect of biology is current evolutionary theory not able to explain in principle?
You said that orthodox evolutionary theory does not claim to be able explain consciousness. I said it cannot explain it. I don't see the difference. Or do you think Neo-Darwinism will suddenly change?
I didn't say that current evolutionary theory could not explain all the aspects of biology. Of course it does since biology is defined as what current evolutionary theory can explain. My point was that it doesn't cover all the facts.
Originally posted by Canute
You said that orthodox evolutionary theory does not claim to be able explain consciousness. I said it cannot explain it. I don't see the difference. Or do you think Neo-Darwinism will suddenly change?
I didn't say that current evolutionary theory could not explain all the aspects of biology. Of course it does since biology is defined as what current evolutionary theory can explain. My point was that it doesn't cover all the facts.
See, here's one of the places where the lack of scientific knowledge really hurts the discussion. You made an unfounded absolute statement: "evolution cannot explain consciousness". Putting aside the illogic of that statement, the relevant point is that evolution doesn't have to explain it, because consciousness doesn't fall under the definition of evolution. Evolution doesn't explain chemistry, or black holes, or auto mechanics either, so does that in some way invalidate evolution?
Faulting evolution for not explaining consciousness to your liking is like faulting a car for not being able to fly.
Originally posted by Zero
See, here's one of the places where the lack of scientific knowledge really hurts the discussion.
It's ok, mine isn't perfect either.
You made an unfounded absolute statement: "evolution cannot explain consciousness".
To make it clear - Neo Darwinist orthodoxy is an account of the evolution of zombies. In this view the evolution of life on earth would have unfolded precisely as it has if there was no such thing as consciousness. This is consistent with the view of the 'hard' sciences, whose theory rests on the assumptions that the universe is causally complete, that it is entirely physically determined and that consciousness is non-causal.
This entails that the existence of consciousness cannot be explained by science, and that the 'evolution of consciousness' is an incoherent idea, making consciousness non-existent within current evolutionary theory ex hypothesis. It certainly cannot explain it.
Putting aside the illogic of that statement, the relevant point is that evolution doesn't have to explain it, because consciousness doesn't fall under the definition of evolution.
If you look carefully you'll see this is tautological.
Consciousness is associated only with living species as far as we know. Science routinely assumes that it arises from biological brains. If so it evolved. The fact that evolutionists choose to define 'evolution' so as to exclude it is neither here not there.
Evolution doesn't explain chemistry, or black holes, or auto mechanics either, so does that in some way invalidate evolution?
That isn't quite the point. At the moment the orthodox view is that consciousness is non-causal. It is therefore ignored by most neo-Darwinists (even though Darwin did not do this). Yet if it is a product of brains and brains evolved then it evolved. Yet how could it evolve if it is non-causal, if it does not contribute to 'fitness'? We must assume then that it did not evolve. In this case it is the only known case of a species-wide feature appearing, becoming more complex, and passing from generation to generation without fail since the dawn of time for no reason at all.
Faulting evolution for not explaining consciousness to your liking is like faulting a car for not being able to fly. [/B]
I don't fault evolutionists at all for not explaining consciousness. Nobody can do it. I blame them for it defining out of existence when it clearly exists and is clearly connected to biological function.
If machines were conscious then you'd have a point. But only biological entities that have evolved have it. It would some coincidence if this was not for biological reasons.
Why is it that every conversation turns into a justification for a person's idiotic, pseudoscientific BS?!?
Originally posted by Canute : To make it clear - Neo Darwinist orthodoxy is an account of the evolution of zombies. In this view the evolution of life on earth would have unfolded precisely as it has if there was no such thing as consciousness. This is consistent with the view of the 'hard' sciences, whose theory rests on the assumptions that the universe is causally complete, that it is entirely physically determined and that consciousness is non-causal.
This entails that the existence of consciousness cannot be explained by science, and that the 'evolution of consciousness' is an incoherent idea, making consciousness non-existent within current evolutionary theory ex hypothesis. It certainly cannot explain it.
*SNIP
Consciousness is associated only with living species as far as we know. Science routinely assumes that it arises from biological brains. If so it evolved. The fact that evolutionists choose to define 'evolution' so as to exclude it is neither here not there.
*SNIP
At the moment the orthodox view is that consciousness is non-causal. It is therefore ignored by most neo-Darwinists (even though Darwin did not do this). Yet if it is a product of brains and brains evolved then it evolved. Yet how could it evolve if it is non-causal, if it does not contribute to 'fitness'? We must assume then that it did not evolve. In this case it is the only known case of a species-wide feature appearing, becoming more complex, and passing from generation to generation without fail since the dawn of time for no reason at all.
I don't fault evolutionists at all for not explaining consciousness. Nobody can do it. I blame them for it defining out of existence when it clearly exists and is clearly connected to biological function.
If machines were conscious then you'd have a point. But only biological entities that have evolved have it. It would some coincidence if this was not for biological reasons. Forgive the rather crude SNIPping and SNAPping, but there are some good points here.
First, if we are to include 'consciousness' as an object of our study in biology (first; its inclusion in evolution would come later), how do we do this?
More concretely, how do we determine which organisms - today - have 'consciousness'?
Is this a binary thing? e.g. homo sap has it, but all other eukaryotes don't.
Or a 1-dimensional thing? e.g. Homo sapiens has 27.4 units of 'consciousness', Tachyglossus aculeatus (a.k.a. the echidna) has 3.56 units of 'consciousness', Magnolia virginiana (a.k.a. Sweetbay Magnolia) has 0.078 units of 'consciousness'.
Or something else entirely?
Perhaps we can cut to the chase and say that the amount of 'consciousness' that an organism has is directly proportional to the size of its brain?
You see the problems? In principle, 'consciousness' may be no different from 'bi-pedalism', or 'implementation of PSI', but how can we tell?
Originally posted by Zero
Why is it that every conversation turns into a justification for a person's idiotic, pseudoscientific BS?!? [/B]
First you have to show that it does before wondering why. I must presume that you can't answer my comments.
Originally posted by Canute
First you have to show that it does before wondering why. I must presume that you can't answer my comments. Your comments have no bearing on evolution. Your little pet theory isn't science, and has no place in a scientific conversation.
Originally posted by Nereid
First, if we are to include 'consciousness' as an object of our study in biology (first; its inclusion in evolution would come later), how do we do this?
More concretely, how do we determine which organisms - today - have 'consciousness'?
Is this a binary thing? e.g. homo sap has it, but all other eukaryotes don't.
Or a 1-dimensional thing? e.g. Homo sapiens has 27.4 units of 'consciousness', Tachyglossus aculeatus (a.k.a. the echidna) has 3.56 units of 'consciousness', Magnolia virginiana (a.k.a. Sweetbay Magnolia) has 0.078 units of 'consciousness'.
Or something else entirely?
Perhaps we can cut to the chase and say that the amount of 'consciousness' that an organism has is directly proportional to the size of its brain?
You see the problems? In principle, 'consciousness' may be no different from 'bi-pedalism', or 'implementation of PSI', but how can we tell?
Nereid, How can we argue that biological systems evolve, if humans are the only biological system conscious? From what did they evolve, from systems that are not conscious? Humans are conscious of the fact, that biological complexity, however that relates to consciousness, seems to give an organism its level of conciousness.
Why do we notice that as system complexity increases, the level of consciousness seems to also, whether we have talked to dolphins or not. This is a simple experiment, just ask your neighbor next door whether this is his or her conscious observation, that matches yours.
Can we not trust comparrison of human experience? My opinion is that consciousness seems to engulf a entity, it so does at a certain level depending on system complexity, system complexity facilitates its entrance not that it needs it. When your dead that system complexity is useless.
[8)]
Originally posted by Nereid
[quote]First, if we are to include 'consciousness' as an object of our study in biology (first; its inclusion in evolution would come later), how do we do this?
I think you've outlined the issues well. I don't think we can include consciousness in Biology as it stands. At present Biology is defined so as to exclude it. However it's an odd situation when psychology is supposed to be a scientific disclipine but evolutionary theory denies that our psychology affects our behaviour.
More concretely, how do we determine which organisms - today - have 'consciousness'?
We can't, and never will. However we can assume one way or the other, as we do now.
Is this a binary thing? e.g. homo sap has it, but all other eukaryotes don't.
My guess is that at the very least all creatures that can 'act' have it, but this cannot be proved.
Perhaps we can cut to the chase and say that the amount of 'consciousness' that an organism has is directly proportional to the size of its brain?
Possibly - but there's no evidence that this is the case. It seems reasonable to say that the bigger the brain the more like human consciousness the entity's consciousness will be. However in the end 'brains' are for computation and it's not clear yet how computation relates to experience.
You see the problems? In principle, 'consciousness' may be no different from 'bi-pedalism', or 'implementation of PSI', but how can we tell? [/B]
No I wasn't suggesting that conciousness is no different to bi-pedalism, and I'm not suggesting that evolutionary theory should explain consciousness. I'm suggesting that the fact that we are conscious affects our behaviour, and that this should be acknowledged in evolutionary theory. I know that it cannot be acknowledged at the moment (it would contradict physics for a start) but we are free to alter our assumptions and IMHO it's time we did.
Even Darwin saw this problem.
“In higher animals the use of the term ‘instinct’ to describe complex behaviour became progressively more difficult because of the interference of increasingly large doses of judgement and reason: ‘ The orang in the Eastern islands, and the chimpanzee in Africa, build platforms on which they sleep; and as both species follow the same habit, it might be argued that this was due to instinct, but we cannot feel sure that it is not the result of both animals having similar wants and possessing similar powers of reasoning.’ ” (D I 36 (Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex)
Current theory is very good at explaining how the genes for bi-pedalism became spread throughout the species once a few pioneers started to walk upright. What it does not explain is why they bothered to do so if they were not conscious that it gave them an advantage. At the moment it's as if they first stood up by accident.
Originally posted by Canute
Current theory is very good at explaining how the genes for bi-pedalism became spread throughout the species once a few pioneers started to walk upright. What it does not explain is why they bothered to do so if they were not conscious that it gave them an advantage. At the moment it's as if they first stood up by accident.
Huh?
There are several examples of bi-pedalism emerging by accident. Bipedal dinosaurs, for example. Bipedal insects. Bipedal lizards. Bipedal birds. (all of them!) And we do see an evolution in hip structure allowing humans to stand up for periods of time. Saying that they "decided" to stand up sounds suspiciously like Lysenkoism.
Yet how could it evolve if it is non-causal, if it does not contribute to 'fitness'?
I don't understand what you mean. Either it is a by product of increased brain complexity, which has other advantages, or it does have a survival value and does contribute to fitness. Both have reasonable evidence. Of course, evidence of consciousness does not exactly feature prominently in fossils, and even less if we adopt the metaphysical "experience" definition.
If machines were conscious then you'd have a point. But only biological entities that have evolved have it.
Prove it.
Originally posted by FZ+
Huh?
There are several examples of bi-pedalism emerging by accident. Bipedal dinosaurs, for example. Bipedal insects. Bipedal lizards. Bipedal birds. (all of them!) And we do see an evolution in hip structure allowing humans to stand up for periods of time. Saying that they "decided" to stand up sounds suspiciously like Lysenkoism.
How often do you stand up without meaning to? It must come as a surprise when you do. I'll make the statement and let you disprove it - there is no evidence as yet that anything in the whole history of the planet stood up by accident. It is a neo-Darwinist assumption for which there is no evidence.
I don't understand what you mean. Either it is a by product of increased brain complexity, which has other advantages, or it does have a survival value and does contribute to fitness. Both have reasonable evidence. Of course, evidence of consciousness does not exactly feature prominently in fossils, and even less if we adopt the metaphysical "experience" definition.
You can argue that it is a by-product, as epiphenominalists do, but you cannot argue it that it bestows any advantage. To do is to contradict the scientific view. I agree that there is evidence that is does bestow an advantage (or disadvantage) but this is denied by evolutionary biologists (although there are exceptions).
Prove it. [/B]
Why do you think there is such a debate going on about whether non-biological organisms can be conscious? It's because no example has yet been found.
However I agree it cannot be proved - I was just stating the scientific orthodoxy.
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually bothered to understand what evolution was, before making claims about it?
I've not seen this much misunderstanding of evolution is so few posts in a long time. We've got "animals choose to evolve", we've got "why doesn't it explain consciousness(in a metaphysical mumbo-jumbo sort of way)?", we've got "it doesn't explain origins, so it must be wrong", plus varied and sundry creationist nonsense.
Fliption
Mar25-04, 10:00 AM
Wouldn't it be nice if people in the process of having their dogmatic views challenged would actually stay on topic and not resort to propaganda?
I don't mind a sermon on having an honest, rational discussion but some people have no business preaching it.
Originally posted by Zero
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually bothered to understand what evolution was, before making claims about it?
We agree at last. And what Fliption said.
Originally posted by Fliption
Wouldn't it be nice if people in the process of having their dogmatic views challenged would actually stay on topic and not resort to propaganda?
I don't mind a sermon on having an honest, rational discussion but some people have no business preaching it. Yeah, it would be nice if we could avoid propaganda...unfortunately, the dogma is coming from the creationist and pseudo-philosophical side.
Listen, Fliption, and tell me if I'm wrong:
We need to define what evolution can and cannot do, what science can and cannot do. Then, we need to stop faultying evolution and science in general for not doing what it admittedly cannot, and is not even claiming to be able to do. Thirdly, it would help if people wouldn't carry the baggage of previous and other ongoing debates into this on.
For instance, "consciousness"(whatever that is), is a dabate to have with the cognitive scientists. The evolutionists are only really concerned with gene frequencies over generations, and their effects on biological funtions. While the evolution of brains peripherally falls under evolution, the "materialist/idealist" debate really doesn't belong here, you know? It certainly doesn't invalidate or weaken evolution.
Fliption
Mar25-04, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, it would be nice if we could avoid propaganda...unfortunately, the dogma is coming from the creationist and pseudo-philosophical side.
I've seen it from all views in these forums.
We need to define what evolution can and cannot do, what science can and cannot do. Then, we need to stop faultying evolution and science in general for not doing what it admittedly cannot, and is not even claiming to be able to do. Thirdly, it would help if people wouldn't carry the baggage of previous and other ongoing debates into this on.
For instance, "consciousness"(whatever that is), is a dabate to have with the cognitive scientists. The evolutionists are only really concerned with gene frequencies over generations, and their effects on biological funtions. While the evolution of brains peripherally falls under evolution, the "materialist/idealist" debate really doesn't belong here, you know? It certainly doesn't invalidate or weaken evolution.
But we're not really talking about what evolutionists are concerned with are we? We talking about what science ought to be concerned with in explaining the development of life. If someone now thinks that means climbing into a box called "gene frequencies over generations" then it seems someone has lost sight of the forest due to all the trees.
You may be right but it actually didn't jump out to me as an obvious fact that evolution has nothing to do with consciousness. I have long been asking the question, why are we conscious in light of how we supposedly developed? Since the scope of evolution is a theory of life development and life(at least some of it) is conscious then it's not obvious to me why this is out of scope.
Now if you're suggesting that all pet theories of todays science should be kept hidden from consciousness so they aren't affected by all its problems in order to avoid any paradigm shifts then I can't climb on board. It seems that any open, intelligent person would be naturally curious about the question I asked above.
Fliption, this isn't about who's right and who's wrong, this isn't about what is proper to be curious about, or which questions should be asked. It is, ultimately, about context. We HAVE to concern ourselves only with what evolutionary scientists are talking about, when discussing evolution, that is the only coherent way to go about it.
Now, I'm sure that there is a very specific group of people who call themselves "evolutionary psychologists" or some such, that would be interested in this debate, but the outcome of that discussion would likely(but not certainly) carry little weight in the overall scheme of evolutionary science. Picking apart a tiny bit of the overall subject generally doesn't lead to dismissing the entire field, don't you agree?
But we're not really talking about what evolutionists are concerned with are we? We talking about what science ought to be concerned with in explaining the development of life. If someone now thinks that means climbing into a box called "gene frequencies over generations" then it seems someone has lost sight of the forest due to all the trees.
You may be right but it actually didn't jump out to me as an obvious fact that evolution has nothing to do with consciousness. I have long been asking the question, why are we conscious in light of how we supposedly developed? Since the scope of evolution is a theory of life development and life(at least some of it) is conscious then it's not obvious to me why this is out of scope.
Now if you're suggesting that all pet theories of todays science should be kept hidden from consciousness so they aren't affected by all its problems in order to avoid any paradigm shifts then I can't climb on board. It seems that any open, intelligent person would be naturally curious about the question I asked above.I have to agree with Zero, your questions don't have anything to do with the scientific study of evolution.
What you are discussing is more along the lines of biological anthropology. Here is a link to help you understand the difference.
Biological Anthropology
"But human history begins in a different place further back in time. It starts at least 4 million years ago, when a population of apelike creatures from eastern Africa turned onto a unique evolutionary road. Thus, the anthropologist's comparative perspective must be expanded to include more than prehistoric human societies, for behavior has primate roots as well. To fully understand humankind we must learn more about its place in the natural habitat of living things.
Biological (or physical) anthropology looks at Homo sapiens as a genus and species, tracing their biological origins, evolutionary development, and genetic diversity. Biological anthropologists study the biocultural prehistory of Homo to understand human nature and, ultimately, the evolution of the brain and nervous system itself."
http://www.aaanet.org/anthbroc.htm
Fliption
Mar25-04, 07:33 PM
I will admit I don't have a clue what either of you are saying. To me this is like claiming that we understand how a car works. Our theory of how a car works explains everything that a car does except for the fact certain gases come out of the muffler. Our theory can't explain that, therefore it is out of scope for our car theory.
I'm sure I'm not understanding. I leave this analogy so you can see what I'm thinking.
Nereid: First, if we are to include 'consciousness' as an object of our study in biology (first; its inclusion in evolution would come later), how do we do this?
Canute: I think you've outlined the issues well. I don't think we can include consciousness in Biology as it stands. At present Biology is defined so as to exclude it. However it's an odd situation when psychology is supposed to be a scientific disclipine but evolutionary theory denies that our psychology affects our behaviour.But why is consciousness so excluded? Because you can't stick it under a microscope! If & when Acme produces a deluxe instrument for measuring consciousness, maybe things will be different.
Psychology in evolution? Hey, my wish is that astrophysics can provide unambiguous predictions about the future direction of the national debt.Nereid: More concretely, how do we determine which organisms - today - have 'consciousness'?
Canute: We can't, and never will. However we can assume one way or the other, as we do now.Doesn't that take us beyond science then? Nothing wrong with that, but the corollary is then that's it's beyond the ken of any theory of evolution.Nereid: Is this a binary thing? e.g. homo sap has it, but all other eukaryotes don't.
Canute: My guess is that at the very least all creatures that can 'act' have it, but this cannot be proved.A quibble, but 'proof' isn't part of science.Nereid: Perhaps we can cut to the chase and say that the amount of 'consciousness' that an organism has is directly proportional to the size of its brain?
Canute: Possibly - but there's no evidence that this is the case. It seems reasonable to say that the bigger the brain the more like human consciousness the entity's consciousness will be. However in the end 'brains' are for computation and it's not clear yet how computation relates to experience.With the advances in neuroscience of the past decade or three, we may hope that many aspects of the 'computation/experience' relationship will be well constrained. Let's resume our discussion then.Nereid: You see the problems? In principle, 'consciousness' may be no different from 'bi-pedalism', or 'implementation of PSI', but how can we tell?
Canute: No I wasn't suggesting that conciousness is no different to bi-pedalism, and I'm not suggesting that evolutionary theory should explain consciousness. I'm suggesting that the fact that we are conscious affects our behaviour, and that this should be acknowledged in evolutionary theory. I know that it cannot be acknowledged at the moment (it would contradict physics for a start) but we are free to alter our assumptions and IMHO it's time we did. *SNIP
Current theory is very good at explaining how the genes for bi-pedalism became spread throughout the species once a few pioneers started to walk upright. What it does not explain is why they bothered to do so if they were not conscious that it gave them an advantage. At the moment it's as if they first stood up by accident.And IMHO, there's a big red line: put factors like consciousness (as presently understood - the future is another day) into evolution, and so much of what has lead to its success (in a nutshell, the scientific method) disappears.
But why should we - as scientists studying evolution - worry what critters thought or felt when they 'stood up'? We can observe behaviour, we can make hypotheses regarding the observed behaviour, we can test them (in principle, if not always in practice), and so on.
If we ever get to the point of studying the development of consciousness in eukaryotes, we may be able to hypothesise about the advantages it brings/brought to critters (or not); until then ...
I will admit I don't have a clue what either of you are saying. To me this is like claiming that we understand how a car works. Our theory of how a car works explains everything that a car does except for the fact certain gases come out of the muffler. Our theory can't explain that, therefore it is out of scope for our car theory.
I'm sure I'm not understanding. I leave this analogy so you can see what I'm thinking.The problem is that what you are curious about doesn't fit into the "core" science of evolution. Your questions are valid, but not in this topic, they are a completely different discussion.
I have long been asking the question, why are we conscious in light of how we supposedly developed? Since the scope of evolution is a theory of life development and life(at least some of it) is conscious then it's not obvious to me why this is out of scope.Because the study of evolution is concerned with biological changes, not thought processes. It is possible to study biological changes, it is not possible to study what human predecessors 2+ million years ago might have been thinking.
Nereid's post goes into more detail.
Fliption
Mar25-04, 09:04 PM
I'm not interested in someone's ability to slice science up into nice and neat buckets. You're telling me that if you have reason to believe that some psychological characteristics of life could call into question the very method of development of the biology itself, that you're going to ignore this relationship? Just because they're taught in two different buildings at the university?
I'm not interested in someone's ability to slice science up into nice and neat buckets. You're telling me that if you have reason to believe that some psychological characteristics of life could call into question the very method of development of the biology itself, that you're going to ignore this relationship? Just because they're taught in two different buildings at the university?Explain to me how you are going to study the relationship of consciousness and the possible effects it has had on biological evolution. I'm curious to hear how this can be done.
I'm not interested in someone's ability to slice science up into nice and neat buckets. You're telling me that if you have reason to believe that some psychological characteristics of life could call into question the very method of development of the biology itself, that you're going to ignore this relationship? Just because they're taught in two different buildings at the university?Does anyone 'have reason to believe that some psychological characteristics of life could call into question the very method of development of the biology itself'?
Perhaps you could clarify: what critters could you be referring to (other than homo sap.) - "some psychological characteristics of life"?
re 'the very method of development of the biology itself': we can go to a good library, pull down all kinds of books, of many different ages and written in many languages, and thus describe how 'biology' came to be what it is today. But I've got a sneaking suspicion you don't mean this - please clarify.
'could': there could be things happening in gamma ray bursts which, if we understood them, would shake the foundations of physics, lead to the replacement of General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, etc, etc.
The good news about cross-disciplinary studies is that a) quite a few people trained in one field later go work in another (all science is better for it), and b) when enough data has been gathered, understanding become sufficiently stable and broad, tools refined (limits understood), etc, you do find new fields becoming established. One of my favourites is astro-biology; you may be interested in paleoecology.
Fliption
Mar26-04, 12:02 AM
Explain to me how you are going to study the relationship of consciousness and the possible effects it has had on biological evolution. I'm curious to hear how this can be done.
It does not fit into a scientific box so that means it doesn't exists as far as the credibility of your theory goes? I never said it could be done. But the fact that it cannot be done means there is an explanatory gap in your theory. Saying it is not in scope therefore the theory is not lacking seems a bit intellectually dishonest to me.
Fliption
Mar26-04, 12:06 AM
Does anyone 'have reason to believe that some psychological characteristics of life could call into question the very method of development of the biology itself'?
Perhaps you could clarify: what critters could you be referring to (other than homo sap.) - "some psychological characteristics of life"?
The position has been presented that evolutionary theory explains the evolution of zombies. If we assume that consciousness is a product of evolution then the theory seems lacking. The only response that's been given to this is that the theory is not lacking because it isn't supposed to cover consciousness. That's for the scientist next door. That seems absurd to me.
The orthodox scientific view is that human consciousness evolved, yet orthodox evolutionists don't agree saying that evolution can be studied as if human beings were zombies. It is the orthodox view in 'analytical' philosophical circles that zombies cannot exist, yet apparently human beings are zombies. It is the orthodox scientific view that consciousness is non-causal, yet somehow human beings can collapse wave functions and in some theories can create new universes. It is the orthodox view that the universe is causally closed and strictly physically determined, yet the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM implies that the existence of the universe depends on the existence of conscious observers. Here we are, still evolving, still doing things on purpose, yet teleology is banned from evolutionary theory. As if maize evolved without intentional human intervention. Altruism is explained as if humans did not consciously know who is a stranger and who is kith and kin. The whole thing's a shambles. It only works because everyone stays in their 'disciplines' and passes the buck whenever there's a problem. Seems to me that particle physics is the only place where there's any sign of imagination or willingness to face facts.
But why is consciousness so excluded? Because you can't stick it under a microscope! If & when Acme produces a deluxe instrument for measuring consciousness, maybe things will be different.
So because we can't measure it we don't need to take it into account. It's an argument I suppose.
Psychology in evolution? Hey, my wish is that astrophysics can provide unambiguous predictions about the future direction of the national debt.
Can you explain altruism without presuming conscious awareness?
Doesn't that take us beyond science then? Nothing wrong with that, but the corollary is then that's it's beyond the ken of any theory of evolution.A quibble, but 'proof' isn't part of science.With the advances in neuroscience of the past decade or three, we may hope that many aspects of the 'computation/experience' relationship will be well constrained.
Not a chance, and it's becoming increasingly obvious.
Let's resume our discussion then.And IMHO, there's a big red line: put factors like consciousness (as presently understood - the future is another day) into evolution, and so much of what has lead to its success (in a nutshell, the scientific method) disappears.
Why? It doesn't mean that selection, genetic inheritance etc are wrong.
But why should we - as scientists studying evolution - worry what critters thought or felt when they 'stood up'? We can observe behaviour, we can make hypotheses regarding the observed behaviour, we can test them (in principle, if not always in practice), and so on.
Why do biologocal entities care whether they live or die or bother to behave in any particular way? You can say 'programmed by our genes', but this is not enough. Brain plasticity shows that.
If we ever get to the point of studying the development of consciousness in eukaryotes, we may be able to hypothesise about the advantages it brings/brought to critters (or not); until then ...
That's making my point seem ridiculous, as you know.
The position has been presented that evolutionary theory explains the evolution of zombies. If we assume that consciousness is a product of evolution then the theory seems lacking. The only response that's been given to this is that the theory is not lacking because it isn't supposed to cover consciousness. That's for the scientist next door. That seems absurd to me.What is a 'zombie'?
What is 'consciousness'?
Canute: So because we can't measure it we don't need to take it into account.
Because we can't measure it, we *can't* take it into account.
Canute: Can you explain altruism without presuming conscious awareness?
What is 'altruism'? What is 'conscious awareness'?
Nereid: Doesn't that take us beyond science then? Nothing wrong with that, but the corollary is then that's it's beyond the ken of any theory of evolution.A quibble, but 'proof' isn't part of science.With the advances in neuroscience of the past decade or three, we may hope that many aspects of the 'computation/experience' relationship will be well constrained.
Canute: Not a chance, and it's becoming increasingly obvious.
I am not following you; neuroscience isn't advancing? the relationship between what the brain does - 'computation' (your word) - and experience isn't becoming better understood? No matter how much neuroscience we do, the relationship between computation and experience will forever by a mystery?
Canute wrote (Nereid emphasis): The orthodox scientific view is that human consciousness evolved, yet orthodox evolutionists don't agree saying that evolution can be studied as if human beings were zombies. It is the orthodox view in 'analytical' philosophical circles that zombies cannot exist, yet apparently human beings are zombies. It is the orthodox scientific view that consciousness is non-causal, yet somehow human beings can collapse wave functions and in some theories can create new universes. It is the orthodox view that the universe is causally closed and strictly physically determined, yet the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM implies that the existence of the universe depends on the existence of conscious observers. Here we are, still evolving, still doing things on purpose, yet teleology is banned from evolutionary theory. As if maize evolved without intentional human intervention. Altruism is explained as if humans did not consciously know who is a stranger and who is kith and kin. The whole thing's a shambles. It only works because everyone stays in their 'disciplines' and passes the buck whenever there's a problem. Seems to me that particle physics is the only place where there's any sign of imagination or willingness to face facts.Which 'orthodox scientists' view 'consciousness as non-causal'?
Which facts need to be faced?
Do eukaryotes, other than homo sap., exhibit behaviour that Canute would describe as 'altruism'? If so, does Canute infer/assume/whatever that all such behaviour is, without qualification, evidence for 'consciousness' in such organisms?
This is coming from the camp of "subjective experience cannot be the result of the physical, because we don't find it emotionally satisfying"
The problem with that is, while philosophy has room for pure conjecture, opinion, and emotionalism, science limits that stuff as much as possible. And, of course, philosophy(as practiced by most laypersons) is not as disciplined as science, and they like it that way.
Unfortunately, science has rules, and if you don't like the rules or refuse to follow them, you can't play.
Which 'orthodox scientists' view 'consciousness as non-causal'?
Which facts need to be faced?
Do eukaryotes, other than homo sap., exhibit behaviour that Canute would describe as 'altruism'? If so, does Canute infer/assume/whatever that all such behaviour is, without qualification, evidence for 'consciousness' in such organisms?
The problem with this is, if I understand Canute's point, is while instinct will mimic human behavior, humans also have a "magical fairy dust" which allows us to be conscious. The "magical fairy dust" only exists in those species with developed minds, and if your brain is damaged, you get less "magic fairy dust". Whenever something physical happens to your brain, the difference in your personality or intelligence is not due to the physical, but due to your brain affecting the "magic fairy dust".
In other words, while the brain behaves exactly like there is actually NO "magic fairy dust", the "magic fairy dust is necessary, because otherwise humans can't live after death, and there might not be a "God", and the supernaturalists won't know where morals come from.
Fliption
Mar26-04, 08:41 AM
What is a 'zombie'?
What is 'consciousness'?
I rest my case.
I rest my case.So do I. Apples and oranges, NOMA, and a bucketful of chicken when I really want a box of steaks.
Fliption
Mar26-04, 08:53 AM
The problem with that is, while philosophy has room for pure conjecture, opinion, and emotionalism, science limits that stuff as much as possible. And, of course, philosophy(as practiced by most laypersons) is not as disciplined as science, and they like it that way.
Unfortunately, science has rules, and if you don't like the rules or refuse to follow them, you can't play.
Philosophy can be done poorly Zero. You never seem to acknowledge this. You always assume that because there are a few wackos (on the internet of all places) that this means all philosophers are emotional, irrational wishful thinkers. It's just not a very responsible position imo. When science is done poorly, you assign the phrase "pseudo science" to it. But no distinction is ever made for philosophy. How about pseudo philosophy? It takes a bit more thought(god forbid) to draw the distinction but to deny it is there is clearly wrong.
The problem with this is, if I understand Canute's point, is while instinct will mimic human behavior, humans also have a "magical fairy dust" which allows us to be conscious. The "magical fairy dust" only exists in those species with developed minds, and if your brain is damaged, you get less "magic fairy dust". Whenever something physical happens to your brain, the difference in your personality or intelligence is not due to the physical, but due to your brain affecting the "magic fairy dust".
In other words, while the brain behaves exactly like there is actually NO "magic fairy dust", the "magic fairy dust is necessary, because otherwise humans can't live after death, and there might not be a "God", and the supernaturalists won't know where morals come from.
And this is just more propaganda. I think you called it a "strawman" earlier. Is that right? My suggestion is that you battle your demons (god, magic fairy dust) somewhere else. No one here cares about your personal issues.
Fliption, you just don't get it...I'm not even attempting to discuss the "right and wrong" of an idea. Do you know what "NOMA" means?
I rest my case.What case is it that you are resting?
And this is just more propaganda. I think you called it a "strawman" earlier. Is that right? My suggestion is that you battle your demons (god, magic fairy dust) somewhere else. No one here cares about your personal issues.
This isn't about a personal issue of mine...it is about trying to explain things with incoherent terminology. "Magic fairy dust" has as much meaning(from a practical, scientific standpoint) as "soul" or "spirit". Seeing as all three of them are undetected, unmeasured, and unknowable(again, from the scientific standpoint), they are equal terms. What Canute seems to be describing is something that is non-material; yet the situation he is describing seems to resemble pure materialism, except that he claims some non-material thing is necessary. Anyhoo, we don't need to get into that here.
How do I explain this? Ok, I'll try this...
Let's say you are an auto mechanic. Your field necessitates understanding how the parts of an engine go together, how to figure out what breaks and how to fix it. The fact that the engine works on certain principles of thermodynamics and chemistry is only secondary. So, what happens if there is a new revolution in quantum mechanics that says that the building blocks of reality are different from what we have supposed? Since internal combustion occurs either way, the effect on auto mechanics is nil.
Its the same thing with evolution and philosophy of consciousness. Whatever we suppose about consciousness, the genetics of reproduction continue to work the same way in humans and bacteria equally.
Fliption
Mar26-04, 09:07 AM
What case is it that you are resting?
Because you have a theory that explains life development and you still ask this question.
Also, I've seen from experience that once someone resorts to asking that question(that they obviously know the answer to), they're about to use the hard problem of consciousness to deny it's relevance. It is a scientific box in a philosophy forum. And I've already been down that road in other threads.
What case is it that you are resting?He's resting MY case actually...since the language and assumptions in each area are different, one field cannot necessarily speak to the concerns of the other.
Fliption
Mar26-04, 09:30 AM
This isn't about a personal issue of mine...it is about trying to explain things with incoherent terminology. "Magic fairy dust" has as much meaning(from a practical, scientific standpoint) as "soul" or "spirit". Seeing as all three of them are undetected, unmeasured, and unknowable(again, from the scientific standpoint), they are equal terms. What Canute seems to be describing is something that is non-material; yet the situation he is describing seems to resemble pure materialism, except that he claims some non-material thing is necessary. Anyhoo, we don't need to get into that here.
But no one has mentioned the words soul, spirit, or non-material. These are pre-occupations that get assigned to anyone who doesn't pass some standard in your brain. They don't necessarily apply to anyone here. That's why I said "strawman".
Let's say you are an auto mechanic. Your field necessitates understanding how the parts of an engine go together, how to figure out what breaks and how to fix it. The fact that the engine works on certain principles of thermodynamics and chemistry is only secondary. So, what happens if there is a new revolution in quantum mechanics that says that the building blocks of reality are different from what we have supposed? Since internal combustion occurs either way, the effect on auto mechanics is nil.
Its the same thing with evolution and philosophy of consciousness. Whatever we suppose about consciousness, the genetics of reproduction continue to work the same way in humans and bacteria equally.
Thanks for this analogy. It is helpful. I do see one difference however. It may be based on a misconception on my part so let me know if that's the case. The difference I see is that the overall objective of an auto mechanic and a quantum scientist is different. An auto mechanic has a simple pragmatic interest in getting the automobile running. He doesn't care about truth. The quantum scientists, however, is interested in how things actually work. Is this not true? What we're talking about here in this thread is 2 different areas of study for the purposes of understanding how things actually work. So why should they have inconsistencies? Are we saying that evolution is good for only pragmatic reasons and isn't interested in how life actually developed(with all features intact)?
I'm gonna disagree with you slightly, as I'm sure you knew I would. Science is in the business of explaining observable, measured, repeatable phenomena, in general. Since whatever Canute is describing seems to fall outside that standard, science doesn't seem to have anything to say on the subject, pro or con. What Canute seemed to be describing was something in addition to the measured activity of the brain, apart from it.(If I'm wrong I appologise) If that "something else" is non-physical, then it cannot be addressed by science.
None of that invalidates or attacks philosophy. Kepp on making assumptions and following them to their logical ends...and when you've got something science can work with, give them a call.*grins*
Or, to put it another way: Philosophers are to scientists what scientists are to engineers...
...and this discussion reminds me of what happens when engineers think they've got a scientific problem licked...check Theory Development for the outcome!
Because you have a theory that explains life development and you still ask this question.
Also, I've seen from experience that once someone resorts to asking that question(that they obviously know the answer to), they're about to use the hard problem of consciousness to deny it's relevance. It is a scientific box in a philosophy forum. And I've already been down that road in other threads.With respect, you and I haven't discussed anything here at PF before (my memory isn't perfect, so maybe we have and I've forgotten).
How do you know that *I* "obviously know the answer" to the questions that I asked?
BTW, I tend to agree with you about science and philosophy (well, making some no doubt quite unwarranted assumptions about what you may mean), but it's good to take a look at the landscape every now and then, esp re 'consciousness'.
Canute wrote: *SNIP
yet the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM implies that the existence of the universe depends on the existence of conscious observers ...I missed this earlier. I'm going to have to and check, but IIRC, it's not the existance of 'conscious' observers, but *any* 'observer' - for example, a videocamera will do (or a 'zombie', whatever that is).
Canute:Because we can't measure it, we *can't* take it into account.
In that case subjective experiences. pain and so on, can't be taken into accout in any scientific theory. Not much chance of them being scientifically explained then.
What is 'altruism'? What is 'conscious awareness'?
Best do a search. I'm not the best person to explain.
I am not following you; neuroscience isn't advancing? the relationship between what the brain does - 'computation' (your word) - and experience isn't becoming better understood? Yep, all that. No progress yet, although it's promised for the future.
No matter how much neuroscience we do, the relationship between computation and experience will forever by a mystery?
That's not clear. Certainly neuroscience won't clear up the mystery on its own, but it will no doubt contribute.
In that case subjective experiences. pain and so on, can't be taken into accout in any scientific theory. Not much chance of them being scientifically explained then. .
Here's that unfounded, unsupported, absolute statement again. Tell the truth; it isn't that science can't or doesn't explain it, it is that you find the answer unsatisfying. Mentat has been explaining it for years.
Which 'orthodox scientists' view 'consciousness as non-causal'?
Physicalism and physical determinism entail that consciousness is non-causal. ess is All of them. This is one of the big areas of debate.
Which facts need to be faced?
The fact that consciousness exists but science can't prove it.
Do eukaryotes, other than homo sap., exhibit behaviour that Canute would describe as 'altruism'? If so, does Canute infer/assume/whatever that all such behaviour is, without qualification, evidence for 'consciousness' in such organisms?
I have made no argument for conscious eukaryotes. (Yet). We're talking about human beings.
The problem with this is, if I understand Canute's point, is while instinct will mimic human behavior, humans also have a "magical fairy dust" which allows us to be conscious. The "magical fairy dust" only exists in those species with developed minds, and if your brain is damaged, you get less "magic fairy dust". Whenever something physical happens to your brain, the difference in your personality or intelligence is not due to the physical, but due to your brain affecting the "magic fairy dust".
In other words, while the brain behaves exactly like there is actually NO "magic fairy dust", the "magic fairy dust is necessary, because otherwise humans can't live after death, and there might not be a "God", and the supernaturalists won't know where morals come from.
Don't be so ridiculous. Are you on something? If you can't have a sensible discussion then let people like Neried do it, who I don't agree with but who is is at least is dealing with the issues.
Don't be so ridiculous. Are you on something? If you can't have a sensible discussion then let people like Neried do it, who I don't agree with but who is is at least is dealing with the issues.
Instead of hurling invective, show me where I misstated your position. As I said earlier, if it is an incorrect view of your position, I'm sorry. But, if I am wrong, you should do me the courtesy of showing me WHERE I am wrong.
Thanks in advance.
I missed this earlier. I'm going to have to and check, but IIRC, it's not the existance of 'conscious' observers, but *any* 'observer' - for example, a videocamera will do (or a 'zombie', whatever that is).
I think you'll find it has to be a conscious observer. John Wheeler goes so far as to suggest that the universe exists only by virtue of being observed, right back to the Big Bang. What is more experiments show that electron states never change if they are continually observed, even when they are excited to above stable levels they do not fall back while being observed by a conscious observer.
I think you'll find it has to be a conscious observer. John Wheeler goes so far as to suggest that the universe exists only by virtue of being observed, right back to the Big Bang. What is more experiments show that electron states never change if they are continually observed, even when they are excited to above stable levels they do not fall back while being observed by a conscious observer.
I think very few QM folks believe an observer has to be conscious...but you see how quickly this conversation leaves the discipline of evolutionary biology?
Instead of hurling invective, show me where I misstated your position. As I said earlier, if it is an incorrect view of your position, I'm sorry. But, if I am wrong, you should do me the courtesy of showing me WHERE I am wrong.
Thanks in advance.
If you'll let up with the accusations of insanity I might do that. I'd rather discuss it. Try reading my posts. If that doesn't work I'll answer questions. But one thing, don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You have to show that they are wrong or back off.
I think very few QM folks believe an observer has to be conscious...but you see how quickly this conversation leaves the discipline of evolutionary biology?
Of course it does. What we're arguing about is whether it should. Anyway, I'm happy to talk evolutionary biology whenever you want to start.
If you'll let up with the accusations of insanity I might do that. I'd rather discuss it. Try reading my posts. If that doesn't work I'll answer questions. But one thing, don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You have to show that they are wrong or back off.Another confusion on your part...you have to show you are right, and for teh right reasons...but that's neither here nor there.
I said, in reference to your ideas:
The problem with this is, if I understand Canute's point, is while instinct will mimic human behavior, humans also have a "magical fairy dust" which allows us to be conscious. The "magical fairy dust" only exists in those species with developed minds, and if your brain is damaged, you get less "magic fairy dust". Whenever something physical happens to your brain, the difference in your personality or intelligence is not due to the physical, but due to your brain affecting the "magic fairy dust".
In other words, while the brain behaves exactly like there is actually NO "magic fairy dust", the "magic fairy dust is necessary, because otherwise humans can't live after death, and there might not be a "God", and the supernaturalists won't know where morals come from. Which part of this is incorrect, and would you be kind enough to explain why?
Fliption
Mar26-04, 10:54 AM
I'm gonna disagree with you slightly, as I'm sure you knew I would. Science is in the business of explaining observable, measured, repeatable phenomena, in general. Since whatever Canute is describing seems to fall outside that standard, science doesn't seem to have anything to say on the subject, pro or con. What Canute seemed to be describing was something in addition to the measured activity of the brain, apart from it.(If I'm wrong I appologise) If that "something else" is non-physical, then it cannot be addressed by science.
None of that invalidates or attacks philosophy. Kepp on making assumptions and following them to their logical ends...and when you've got something science can work with, give them a call.*grins*
That science is in the business of explaining observable, measured, repeatable phenomenon is "how" science goes about acheiving it's goal. The goal being to acquire knowledge about how things actually work. Am I off here?
I think I see your view on this topic more clearly now. But don't you think that from a philosophical perspective, not a scientific one, there is additional room to admit that something is missing in a theory that doesn't acccount for some major features? The question I like to ask is "If you had to bet your money on what truth is, what would you bet on?" Wouldn't you step into a philosphical box and take a big picture look at everything before you made the bet?
Of course it does. What we're arguing about is whether it should. Anyway, I'm happy to talk evolutionary biology whenever you want to start.
OK, go ahead...I'm waiting! [:)]
Fliption
Mar26-04, 10:57 AM
Here's that unfounded, unsupported, absolute statement again. Tell the truth; it isn't that science can't or doesn't explain it, it is that you find the answer unsatisfying. Mentat has been explaining it for years.
Now wait a minute. Earlier you said:
"science doesn't seem to have anything to say on the subject, pro or con."
Now you're saying that Mentat has it all figured out. Have I crossed wires somewhere?
BTW, Mentat's explanation of this shows a lack of understanding for the issue. That explanation is almost ridiculous. I wouldn't put my eggs in that basket.
That science is in the business of explaining observable, measured, repeatable phenomenon is "how" science goes about acheiving it's goal. The goal being to acquire knowledge about how things actually work. Am I off here?
I think I see your view on this topic more clearly now. But don't you think that from a philosophical perspective, not a scientific one, there is additional room to admit that something is missing in a theory that doesn't acccount for some major features? The question I like to ask is "If you had to bet your money on what truth is, what would you bet on?" Wouldn't you step into a philosphical box and take a big picture look at everything before you made the bet?Well, that's a whole other thing, isn't it? If I am stating an opinion or gut feeling, I should label it as such. If I am stating a philosophical postion, I must also qualify it that way. If I am making a scientific pronouncement, the standards are again different, and rightly so.
For instance, my opinion is that a metaphysical view of consciousness is bollocks. My logical viewpoint is that it is possible, but currently neither logically supported nor backed up by solid evidence. My opinion is absolute, but my more rational-based philosophical statement is more uncertain. From a purely scientific standpoint, I must demand that no statement can be made about those aspects of consciousness which some philosophies embrace, yet have no measurable evidence to back them up. In other words, science has to take a backseat to philosophy is certain areas, and philosophers can only suggest avenues of inquiry for scientists.
Now wait a minute. Earlier you said:
"science doesn't seem to have anything to say on the subject, pro or con."
Now you're saying that Mentat has it all figured out. Have I crossed wires somewhere?
BTW, Mentat's explanation of this shows a lack of understanding for the issue. That explanation is almost ridiculous. I wouldn't put my eggs in that basket.Mentat shows good insight on the issue...but his viewpoint, again, is unsatisfying to you. However, his viewpoint is as much philisophical as scientific, no matter how reasonable his scientific viewpoint may be.
Read my last post for more clarification of my reasoning.
For instance, my opinion is that a metaphysical view of consciousness is bollocks.
What is the 'metaphysical view of consciousness'?
My logical viewpoint is that it is possible, but currently neither logically supported nor backed up by solid evidence. My opinion is absolute, but my more rational-based philosophical statement is more uncertain.
So you don't know but your opinion is absolute.
From a purely scientific standpoint, I must demand that no statement can be made about those aspects of consciousness which some philosophies embrace, yet have no measurable evidence to back them up. In other words, science has to take a backseat to philosophy is certain areas, and philosophers can only suggest avenues of inquiry for scientists.
You misjudge the relationship between science and philosophy, They are not different things, each in their little box.
“It is difficult to decide where science ends and mysticism begins. As soon as we begin to make even the most elementary theories we are open to the charge of indulging in metaphysics. Yet theories, however provisional, are the very lifeblood of scientific progress. We simply cannot escape metaphysics, though we can perhaps over-indulge, as well as have too little.”
Banesh Hoffmann – The Strange Story of the Quantum (Penguin 1968)
You seem to be saying that evoutionary biology can safely assume that consciousness does not exist because consciousness is a philosophical problem. Is that about right?
Mentat shows good insight on the issue...but his viewpoint, again, is unsatisfying to you. However, his viewpoint is as much philisophical as scientific, no matter how reasonable his scientific viewpoint may be.
Read my last post for more clarification of my reasoning.
You should listen to Fliption, he knows what he's talking about. Mentat has not (as yet) grasped the issues. No reason why he should have done of course, but they are all laid out in the scientific literature online for anyone who's interested.
*SNIP
I have made no argument for conscious eukaryotes. (Yet). We're talking about human beings.Er, human beings are eukaryotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote) [g)]
So you don't know but your opinion is absolute.
[/b] As absolute as my opinion on the best flavor of Jello(lime) and my favorite beer(Guinness)...and as useful for rational debate.
[b]You seem to be saying that evoutionary biology can safely assume that consciousness does not exist because consciousness is a philosophical problem. Is that about right?
Depends on which aspect of evolution we are talking about...if we are talking straight genetics, then absolutely. If we are talking the psychological or behavioral areas, then no. Even then, however, they can only concern themselves with physical, biological elements...any sort of "external" source of consciousness can safely be excluded, since it is an unproven and unprovable(thus far) concept.
I'm still waiting for your correction of my statement that seemed to offend you...
You should listen to Fliption, he knows what he's talking about. Mentat has not (as yet) grasped the issues. No reason why he should have done of course, but they are all laid out in the scientific literature online for anyone who's interested.
*yawn* You assume your conclusion in your premise, you have nothing for him to grasp. That's a different thread, discuss it there.
That science is in the business of explaining observable, measured, repeatable phenomenon is "how" science goes about acheiving it's goal. The goal being to acquire knowledge about how things actually work. Am I off here?
I think I see your view on this topic more clearly now. But don't you think that from a philosophical perspective, not a scientific one, there is additional room to admit that something is missing in a theory that doesn't acccount for some major features? The question I like to ask is "If you had to bet your money on what truth is, what would you bet on?" Wouldn't you step into a philosphical box and take a big picture look at everything before you made the bet?I see your point, but I don’t think scientists studying evolution have ever pretended that the information they have is 100% conclusive. Since it is impossible to know if “consciousness” had an effect on evolution or not, how can we expect scientists to include this information in their evaluation? It’s not possible, they could do no more than make wild guesses. I don't see the value in that.
Fliption
Mar26-04, 12:38 PM
I see your point, but I don’t think scientists studying evolution have ever pretended that the information they have is 100% conclusive. Since it is impossible to know if “consciousness” had an effect on evolution or not, how can we expect scientists to include this information in their evaluation? It’s not possible, they could do no more than make wild guesses. I don't see the value in that.
I don't have an argument against that specifically except that many science types do indeed act as if their pet theories are 100% certain. The attitude that is demonstrated by some(not you) in these very forums to opposing views can't possibly be coming from one who acknowledges potential theory gaps. For some, there is even hostility at the idea of thinking about the issues philosophically.
As absolute as my opinion on the best flavor of Jello(lime) and my favorite beer(Guinness)...and as useful for rational debate.
Yes.
Depends on which aspect of evolution we are talking about...if we are talking straight genetics, then absolutely. If we are talking the psychological or behavioral areas, then no.
Are you suggesting that consciousness affects behaviour?
Even then, however, they can only concern themselves with physical, biological elements...any sort of "external" source of consciousness can safely be excluded, since it is an unproven and unprovable(thus far) concept.
I don;t know what you mean by 'external' source. Did you think I was arguing for God or something?
I'm still waiting for your correction of my statement that seemed to offend you...
C'mon. You've been calling me a fool since I arrived and never addressed a single issue in my posts. I think you were too quick off the mark.
A question to get back to the issues. Did consciousness evolve or not in your opinion?
Er, human beings are eukaryotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote) [g)]
Human beings are all eukaryotes but not all eukaryotes are human beings. I'm sticking to human beings for now.
I think very few QM folks believe an observer has to be conscious...but you see how quickly this conversation leaves the discipline of evolutionary biology?
I think you'll find that you're wrong.
The problem with this is, if I understand Canute's point, is while instinct will mimic human behavior,
Not in my opinion
humans also have a "magical fairy dust" which allows us to be conscious.
I prefer the term consciousness. Human beings are conscious.
The "magical fairy dust" only exists in those species with developed minds,
Is that your opinion? It's not mine.
and if your brain is damaged, you get less "magic fairy dust".
Pardon? Perhaps you'd like to point out where I said that.
Whenever something physical happens to your brain, the difference in your personality or intelligence is not due to the physical, but due to your brain affecting the "magic fairy dust".
The brain is physical, and the orthodox view of neuroscience is that changes in brain states affect conscious states. Perhaps you have a better theory.
In other words, while the brain behaves exactly like there is actually NO "magic fairy dust",
Neuroscience suggests otherewise. It is thought that brains cause consciousness.
the "magic fairy dust is necessary, because otherwise humans can't live after death,
You want to lay off the weed mate. Who mentioned death for goodness sake. Where do get all this stuff? You're tilting at windmills.
and there might not be a "God",
Ah, now I get it. You didn't read what I wrote. I thought not. I don't happen to believe in God, not that it's relevant whether I do or don't.
and the supernaturalists won't know where morals come from.
Now it's morals! Is your paradigm really so fragile that you have to invent all this stuff? These are interesting issues, it's a shame it's impossible to discuss them with you. I'll leave you to your fantasies of Gods and supernatural beings. Bye
See, you can hold a grudge, or you can accept my apology...which shall it be, eh?
I'm sorry.I got your views wrong.
Nereid: Because we can’t measure it [consciousness], we *can’t* take it into account.
Canute: In that case subjective experiences. pain and so on, can't be taken into accout in any scientific theory. Not much chance of them being scientifically explained then.
>> Au contraire! When the subject is pricked at the tip of the right index finger, the following brain activity is noted; when under a local anaesthetic, …. etc. Also see next.
Nereid: I am not following you; neuroscience isn't advancing? the relationship between what the brain does - 'computation' (your word) - and experience isn't becoming better understood?
Canute: Yep, all that. No progress yet, although it's promised for the future.
>> Hmm, what say you then to ‘colour science’ – details of how colour is perceived in humans?
Nereid: No matter how much neuroscience we do, the relationship between computation and experience will forever by a mystery?
Canute: That's not clear. Certainly neuroscience won't clear up the mystery on its own, but it will no doubt contribute.
>> What makes you so certain?
Nereid: … but IIRC, it's not the existence of 'conscious' observers, but *any* 'observer' - for example, a videocamera will do (or a 'zombie', whatever that is).
Canute: I think you'll find it has to be a conscious observer. John Wheeler goes so far as to suggest that the universe exists only by virtue of being observed, right back to the Big Bang. What is more experiments show that electron states never change if they are continually observed, even when they are excited to above stable levels they do not fall back while being observed by a conscious observer.
>> *Quite* different from what I expected! I will have to go read up on it. Does this mean that poor old Shrödinger’s cat won’t live (or die) until a *human* looks at the videotape of the inside of the box? Does this guarantee that the cat *cannot* be conscious? That the universe didn’t come into existence until homo sap. evolved??
Returning to ‘consciousness’ (you’ve gone and got me all curious again). What’s the orthodox philosophical view of consciousness? For example, am I conscious while I’m asleep? in a coma? Do I have more consciousness if I am able to understand – and discuss – the concept of consciousness? What if I am not conscious of my consciousness? If a person’s left and right brains are not connected with each other, are there two ‘consciousnesses’ or just one? I’m hoping to get some answers from the philosophical POV; the distilled conclusions of centuries of study.
See, you can hold a grudge, or you can accept my apology...which shall it be, eh?
I'm sorry.I got your views wrong.
OK. Forget it. Let's start again.
Going back to start the issue I raised was whether the fact that humans are conscious should be taken into account in evolutionary theory. Science (regardless of the views of individual scientists) takes it as axiomatic that consciousness is non-causal. If this is so then we don't need to take it into acount. However this non-causality is an assumption. It is generally thought that it is impossible on the behavioural evidence to distinguish with certainty between 'mechanical' human actions (physically determined stimulus-response mediated via the brain) and self-willed actions resulting from the excercise of freewill.
In this case there is no justification for assuming that human consciousness should be ignored in studying the evolution of our species. It is an assumption, and we could just as easily adopt the opposite assumption. Obviously 'conscious experience' cannot be studied by biologists directly, but how we take it into account is not the issue, it's whether we should that is the first question to answer. In a way my argument here echoes that of Chalmers, who argues that science as a whole needs to redefine itself in order to include conscious experience or forever fail to explain it.
I'm suggesting that we should do this, since we know from our own experience that when we are not conscious we don't exhibit behaviour. This suggests that if humans had not been conscious their evolution as a species would have been quite different. The Darwin quote I posted shows that there are good reasons for making this change. (In fact I believe some people on the fringe are beginning to work on 'evolutionary psychology').
Another way of coming at it is the 'zombie' problem from consciousness studies. 'Zombies are defined as entities that behave precisely as human beings do, doing the washing up and talking philosophy and science and so on, but who have no inner subjective experiences. As far as I know 'zombies' have been shown to be an incoherent idea (Hypno - is this right??). If this is the case then neo-Darwinism is somewhat incoherent, since it treats human beings as zombies.
One advantage of including consciousness in evolutionary theory is that we would then have a reason for why human beings care whether they live or die and thus evolve.
In the end all that is required is the swapping of one assumption for another.
selfAdjoint
Mar27-04, 09:49 AM
Science (regardless of the views of individual scientists) takes it as axiomatic that consciousness is non-causal.
This statement is almost meaningless to me. Science doesn't assume anything is non causal. And what can "science" even mean, except the opinions of the scientific community? Treated perhaps as an ongoing dialectic, but still.
<In this case there is no justification for assuming that human consciousness should be ignored in studying the evolution of our species.>
<This suggests that if humans had not been conscious their evolution as a species would have been quite different.>
<One advantage of including consciousness in evolutionary theory is that we would then have a reason for why human beings care whether they live or die and thus evolve.
In the end all that is required is the swapping of one assumption for another.>Let me see if I understand you.
1) You want it acknowledged that "consciousness" could have had an impact on human evolution. Ok, that is fair. It can't be ruled out 100%. It cannot be disproved. It also cannot be proved.
OR
2) You want the study of consciousness included in the study of evolution. Historically, that's not possible. There is no way to know if any conscious decisions made in the past actually impacted the evolution of man.
Are you just wanting some type of disclaimer on evolutionary theory saying "this is the best we can do based on the facts present, but maybe "consciousness" might have had some impact, but there is no way to tell"?
Let me see if I understand you.
1) You want it acknowledged that "consciousness" could have had an impact on human evolution. Ok, that is fair. It can't be ruled out 100%. It cannot be disproved. It also cannot be proved.
OR
2) You want the study of consciousness included in the study of evolution. Historically, that's not possible. There is no way to know if any conscious decisions made in the past actually impacted the evolution of man.
Are you just wanting some type of disclaimer on evolutionary theory saying "this is the best we can do based on the facts present, but maybe "consciousness" might have had some impact, but there is no way to tell"?
"Behavior" affects evolution, with or without consciousness. I don't see where adding "consciousness" adds too awful much to evolution.
Of course, we've also got to get past the misconception that animals choose to evolve, which came up earlier in the discussion.
"Behavior" affects evolution, with or without consciousness. I don't see where adding "consciousness" adds too awful much to evolution.Excellent point. I can be fully conscious and exhibit no behavior. It would be behavior that would have the potential to make an impact, and as you stated, behavior doesn't have to be "conscious".
Of course, we've also got to get past the misconception that animals choose to evolve, which came up earlier in the discussion.I missed that part!
Excellent point. I can be fully conscious and exhibit no behavior. It would be behavior that would have the potential to make an impact, and as you stated, behavior doesn't have to be "conscious".
This is why, from the evolutionary science standpoint, consciousness is irrelevant. Behavior, whether thought out or instinctive, is what matters. And, as far as the ways humans select the breeding for animals and plants, our intent doesn't matter...to that plant or animal, it is simply an "environmental factor", with the same type of influence as weather or available foodstuffs.
Canute:*SNIP
It is generally thought that it is impossible on the behavioural evidence to distinguish with certainty between 'mechanical' human actions (physically determined stimulus-response mediated via the brain) and self-willed actions resulting from the excercise of freewill.
*SNAP *SNIP
I'm suggesting that we should do this [redefine science as a whole in order to include conscious experience], since we know from our own experience that when we are not conscious we don't exhibit behaviour.
*SNAP *SNIP
Zombies are defined as entities that behave precisely as human beings do, doing the washing up and talking philosophy and science and so on, but who have no inner subjective experiences.Clearly, then, zombies exhibit behaviour. Further, perhaps 'we' (conscious homo saps) can exhibit behaviour while not conscious? Consider sleep-walking. Consider highly trained habitual action (e.g. operating a lathe, doing the dishes, taking the monthly backup, playing the 1,000th concert, shooting the 10,000th enemy of the state) - whence the expression 'on auto-pilot', and 'mechanical' actions.
Why does this matter? One reason: to help us formulate tests that we might do (if only in principle) to determine the importance of 'consciousness' to behaviour.
(Canute wrote:) Science (regardless of the views of individual scientists) takes it as axiomatic that consciousness is non-causal.
This statement is almost meaningless to me. Science doesn't assume anything is non causal. And what can "science" even mean, except the opinions of the scientific community? Treated perhaps as an ongoing dialectic, but still.
Here (http://www.culture.com.au/brain_proj/CONTENT/CHAPTERS.HTM) is an interesting compilation of materials on consciousness, including references to work being done by scientists into what it is and how it works. It seems somewhat dated, because it refers to Tucson II, and this University of Arizona website (http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/tucson/) tells me there've been several conferences since. Has any PF member been to one of these conferences?
A quick scan through the papers suggests that some understanding of the biological aspects of consciousness is already 'in the bag', and so a very tentative answer to the question 'how did consciousness in humans evolve' would be 'not known yet; however it's likely tied up with the evolution of the brain'.
Canute and Fliption have introduced the concept of a zombie: "... entities that behave precisely as human beings do, doing the washing up and talking philosophy and science and so on, but who have no inner subjective experiences."
If we take a class of very intelligent zombies, get them to read up on consciousness, mores of modern social discourse, etc, then ask them, individually, the following questions:
- do you understand the concept of 'consciousness'?
- do you feel pain when your finger is pricked?
- have you ever felt any kind of love?
- are you conscious?
How will they answer? How could we tell if they whether they were lying or not? How will their answers vary, one from the other?
If phoenixthoth, Mentat, Nereid, or anyone else builds a machine which they claim is conscious, how do the rest of you test the claim? BTW, the machine will answer 'Yes' to all the above questions.
(except the one about 'love' :wink: )
Here (http://www.culture.com.au/brain_proj/CONTENT/CHAPTERS.HTM) is an interesting compilation of materials on consciousness, including references to work being done by scientists into what it is and how it works. It seems somewhat dated, because it refers to Tucson II, and this University of Arizona website (http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/tucson/) tells me there've been several conferences since. Has any PF member been to one of these conferences?
A quick scan through the papers suggests that some understanding of the biological aspects of consciousness is already 'in the bag', and so a very tentative answer to the question 'how did consciousness in humans evolve' would be 'not known yet; however it's likely tied up with the evolution of the brain'.
This is off topic but needs an answer.
Scan the papers carefully and you will see that there has been no scientific progress on explaining consciousness. Even the hunt for the neural correlates of it is being criticised by some.
I really do not understand how you can claim that science has made progress on explaining something it cannot yet define or prove to exist. Anyway, how on earth can science explain how consciousness arises from brain when idealism is unfalsifiable?
(Hypnogogue is going to Tucson this year).
Canute and Fliption have introduced the concept of a zombie: "... entities that behave precisely as human beings do, doing the washing up and talking philosophy and science and so on, but who have no inner subjective experiences."
If we take a class of very intelligent zombies, get them to read up on consciousness, mores of modern social discourse, etc, then ask them, individually, the following questions:
- do you understand the concept of 'consciousness'?
- do you feel pain when your finger is pricked?
- have you ever felt any kind of love?
- are you conscious?
How will they answer? How could we tell if they whether they were lying or not? How will their answers vary, one from the other?
You miss the point. Zombies are hypothetical entities that cannot exist for logical reasons. Therefore human being cannot be zombies as biologist usually assume.
If phoenixthoth, Mentat, Nereid, or anyone else builds a machine which they claim is conscious, how do the rest of you test the claim? BTW, the machine will answer 'Yes' to all the above questions.
It is impossible in principle to tell if a machine is conscious or not (or any other human being). This is known as the 'other minds' problem. It is not only impossible to prove that our ancestors were conscious, it is impossible to be sure the one you love is. This is why being unable to prove that the consciousness of our ancestors had any effect on their behaviour is not a reason to assume that it did not.
Let me see if I understand you.
1) You want it acknowledged that "consciousness" could have had an impact on human evolution. [COLOR=Navy]Ok, that is fair. It can't be ruled out 100%. It cannot be disproved. It also cannot be proved.
Quite so. However to me the fact that currently human beings feel pain, fall in love, eat when they feel hungry and like to avoid death suggests that they probably did in the past also.
OR
2) You want the study of consciousness included in the study of evolution. [COLOR=Navy]Historically, that's not possible.
Don't see what you mean there.
There is no way to know if any conscious decisions made in the past actually impacted the evolution of man.
There's no way to know if they do now either. Yet here we are with skyscrapers, genetic engineering, discussions of consciousness and a strong sense that we make decisions consciously. Are you saying that human beings were not conscious in the same way in the past? If not why not?
Are you just wanting some type of disclaimer on evolutionary theory saying "this is the best we can do based on the facts present, but maybe "consciousness" might have had some impact, but there is no way to tell"?
I have never known of anyone passing on their genes successfully while unconscious, (although Hollywood actors seem good at pretending to do it). Why would a 'zombie', if there were such a thing, have sex? So maybe consciousness does have some impact on our behaviour, or did we stop evolving when we became conscious?
The reason that a "zombie" would have sex is the same reason why everything has sex(or its equivalent): biological imperative.
The reason that a "zombie" would have sex is the same reason why everything has sex(or its equivalent): biological imperative.
Speak for yourself. Personally I find it enjoyable.
"Finding it enjoyable" is part of the biological imperative...love and lust are hormonal, remember?
"Finding it enjoyable" is part of the biological imperative...love and lust are hormonal, remember?
In that case you cannot argue that consciousness plays no part in our evolution.
OR
2) You want the study of consciousness included in the study of evolution. Historically, that's not possible.
Don't see what you mean there.
There is no way to know if any conscious decisions made in the past actually impacted the evolution of man. There's no way to know if they do now either. Yet here we are with skyscrapers, genetic engineering, discussions of consciousness and a strong sense that we make decisions consciously. Are you saying that human beings were not conscious in the same way in the past? If not why not? I'm saying that there is no way to determine if or how any concious decisions impacted human evolution.
I have never known of anyone passing on their genes successfully while unconscious,I'm referring to unconscious thought/behavior as in doing things without thinking about them, not unconscious as in "knocked out"
There was an excellent article on "consciousness" posted in the biology section that I think can help clarify the difference.
Here is an exerpt from that article.
Living on autopilot
People talk without thinking all of the time.
Literally.
If you doubt it, think about this: When you're talking, do you construct each sentence first in your mind, piecing the words together? Or do you simply talk, the words tumbling out in proper sequence and syntax?
For the most part, it's probably the latter. You don't think about each word before you speak it. "Your brain," says Koch, "takes care of that quite well without any conscious effort on your part."
Speaking is, in profound ways, a "nonconscious" behavior. It is a mental operation not directly associated with conscious feelings, sensations or memories. It just sort of happens, seemingly, on its own.
The same is true about much of life. Surprisingly big chunks of it, Koch writes in his new book, "The Quest for Consciousness," happen without us being consciously aware they are happening.
"We all do things every day, virtually every minute, that do not involve conscious thought, from tying our shoes, to driving to work or working out, to cooking dinner," said Koch. "These actions are essentially routine, automatic. You do them without thinking and often have no direct memory of them afterward."
Neurobiologists call these actions "zombie behaviors," activities that occur without conscious input or self-examination. They have been a subject of scholarly debate for more than a century, serious grist for philosophers and psychologists like Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud. Increasingly, they are also the stuff of science.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20040324-9999-news_lz1c24zombie.html
hypnagogue
Mar30-04, 01:34 AM
Evo, you are talking about higher-order consciousness while Canute is talking about the more general phenomenal consciousness. Here's a link (http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcintosh/consc.htm) that goes into a bit of deeper detail. I imagine I'll check out that biology thread and address this issue in more detail over there, however.
As for the issue of evolution and consciousness. I find it unfortunate that some firmly on the materialist side continue to badly misrepresent the philosophical problems of consciousness, although on the whole it has been a pretty fair discussion.
For my part, I don't think evolutionary theory as it stands is much the worse for its exclusion of consciousness. Here we should be specific: by consciousness we really mean phenomenal consciousness, or subjective experience, as the other aspects of consciousness (including at least higher-order consciousness, discriminatory consciousness, responsive consciousness-- see link) are not in themselves problematic in principle for a purely physicalist theory.
The reason the ommission of P-consciousness is not terribly problematic for a theory of evolution is that it is still an open issue whether or not P-consciousness is causally efficacious in any way; that is, whether or not it is epiphenomenal. If it is shown one day to be causally efficacious, then certainly it must be taken into account by an evolutionary theory, but it would seem premature to say that a theory is incomplete for ommitting a phenomenon whose causal relevance is yet to be determined.
In particular, the purported causal role of P-consciousness would seem to be readily filled by causal mechanisms that are already part of the physicalist model of reality. This is precisely why the philosophical notion of the 'zombie' is a useful one-- because it would seem that we can describe the behavior of an organism (in particular, a human) in purely physical terms without needing to invoke P-consciousness at all. Canute has said:
Zombies are hypothetical entities that cannot exist for logical reasons. Therefore human being cannot be zombies as biologist usually assume.
But the logical plausibility of zombies is precisely what makes them a compelling tool in the philosophy of mind. No one supposes that zombies actually exist in the real world, but that is besides the point. We might say that zombies are logically possible but cannot exist in our world (or so we presume) as a consequence of the contingent laws of our world.
So, for instance, the concern Canute raises in the following quote is not particularly troublesome for a physicalist theory of evolution:
One advantage of including consciousness in evolutionary theory is that we would then have a reason for why human beings care whether they live or die and thus evolve.
A physicalist theory can still tell a relatively straightforward causal story as to why e.g. a primitive human might run from a tiger. On this view, sensory inputs from the tiger enter the human's brain and activate a series of neural impulses which ultimately stimulate his muscles to engage in a 'run away' behavior. Importantly, P-consciousness has not been invoked here, nor need it be for a coherent causal picture to be painted. The adequacy of this causal story as a complete depiction of reality ultimately depends on whether or not P-consciousness is epiphenomenal.
Of course, this still leaves us with an impoverished understanding of P-consciousness itself, be it epiphenomenal or not. But evolution is concerned with telling a causal story about the development and propogation of genes. If P-consciousness is not involved in that causal story then evolution is not obligated to talk about it, even if the fact remains that P-consciousness itself is an explanandum in its own right in need of explanation under any circumstance.
Hypno - A very excellent post.
I agree that the current theroretical model of evolution does not need to encompass P-consciousness or assume that it is causal. This is clearly true since at the moment it does not do these things.
However this limits the relevance of evolutionary theory at a time when we ought to be making it central to our thinking. Evoltutionary theory as an explanation of our past is interesting but not very useful. However if we can learn from that past we may be able to apply its lessons to the actions we are taking now that will affect our future. However as it stands that theory is of no use at all in this respect, except for messing around with genes in 'pin the tail on the donkey' style.
The evolution of the species ought to be a political matter IMO. As it stands it is so esoterically physical that it is of no use whatsoever in this regard. Yet P-consciousness is important, or may be. As Popper said "
“Men frequently outlive their beliefs; but for as long as the beliefs survive (often a very short time), they form the (momentary or lasting) basis of action. “ (The Problem of Induction 1953)
For most philosophers there is no human behaviour withour beliefs. Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory denies this completely. As a result it has no relevance to anything much unless one is a biologist, and certainly not to current events.
The current theory is based on the assumption that humans are not conscious (not P=conscious anyway) amd that in any case consciousness is non-causal. As you say there is no evidence that could force this assumption to be changed. However there is nothing to stop us changing it voluntarily, for there is no evidence against the other assumption either. We can toss a coin.
Because we do not accept the causal efficacy of P-consciousness (at even the simplest level of having it as opposed to not having it) we get stuck on this sort of problem:
“There’s a price top pay in becoming more complex; the system is more likely to break, for instance. We need a reason why biological systems become more complex through time. It must be very simple and it must be very deep.” (Stuart Kauffman quoted in Roger Lewin's 'Complexity')
As I pointed out before it is odd sort of science we do when many physicists say we can create universes but virtue of being conscious, but biologist say we cannot even have sex on purpose.
Evo, you are talking about higher-order consciousness while Canute is talking about the more general phenomenal consciousness.Yes, the post was to explain this to Canute.I'm referring to unconscious thought/behavior as in doing things without thinking about them, not unconscious as in "knocked out" This was to clarify an earlier post about behavior being both "conscious" and "unconcious".
P.S. Excellent post Hypnagogue.
Thanks hypnagogue, cleared up a lot of questions I had about consciousness, especially a scheme for classifying it, and relating it to things which may (or may not) be observed.
Are you going to Tucson this year?
hypnagogue
Mar31-04, 10:16 AM
Are you going to Tucson this year?
Yes I am... just days away now! Very exciting. :biggrin:
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.