Is the Cambrian Explosion the End of Phyla Evolution?

[Zero]

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.

 

[Canute]

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).

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.

 

[Zero]

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?

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Zero]

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 the 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]

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*

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?

 

[Zero]

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]

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.

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[Canute]

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?

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP
I have made no argument for conscious eukaryotes. (Yet). We're talking about human beings.

Er, human beings are eukaryotes

 

[Zero]

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.

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...

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[Evo]

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]

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.

 

[Canute]

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?

 

[Canute]

Er, human beings are eukaryotes

Human beings are all eukaryotes but not all eukaryotes are human beings. I'm sticking to human beings for now.

 

[Canute]

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

 

[Zero]

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]

Nereid: Because we can’t measure it [consciousness], we *can’t* take it into account.[/color]

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.[/color]

>> 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? [/color]

Canute: Yep, all that. No progress yet, although it's promised for the future. [/color]

>> 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? [/color]

Canute: That's not clear. Certainly neuroscience won't clear up the mystery on its own, but it will no doubt contribute.[/color]

>> 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).[/color]

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.[/color]

>> *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.

 

[Canute]

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 exercise 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]

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.

 

[Evo]

<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"?

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[Zero]

Of course, we've also got to get past the misconception that animals choose to evolve, which came up earlier in the discussion.

 

[Evo]

"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!

 

[Zero]

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.