Is the Cambrian Explosion the End of Phyla Evolution?

[Evo]

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]

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?

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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'?

 

[Nereid]

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.[/color]
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?

 

[Nereid]

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?

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[Zero]

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]

What is a 'zombie'?

What is 'consciousness'?

I rest my case.

 

[Zero]

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]

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.

 

[Zero]

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?

 

[Nereid]

I rest my case.

What case is it that you are resting?

 

[Zero]

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]

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.

 

[Zero]

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]

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)?

 

[Zero]

I'm going to 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*

 

[Zero]

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!

 

[Nereid]

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'.

 

[Nereid]

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 existence of 'conscious' observers, but *any* 'observer' - for example, a videocamera will do (or a 'zombie', whatever that is).

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Canute]

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.