|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How is Natural selection a mechanism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2442 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
I can give two examples here of the fundamental privacy of consciousness here. Apologies if this becomes a long post.
If you are not from the UK you may not have heard of Harold Shipman but he is considered our most prolific serial killer who is thought to have killed hundreds of mainly old ladies by overdoses. However his wife always stuck by him declaring his innocence until he died from suicide in prison. So Prudence Shipman went to bed every night next to a mass murderer but she had no access to this information hidden in his mind. He must have had hundreds if not thousands of memories relating to the killings floating around. This is the absurdity that arises from mental privacy is that we communicate a veneer of our mind through language that can mask immense diversity. The other example is that my elder brother has been paralysed by MS for many years where he can only blink or slightly shake is head and I cared for him for several years in the past when I lived with him for around 6 years. During this Period and to the present I never assumed I knew what it was like to be my brother and I find people who second guess in this situation impose their believes on the ill person. To be a good carer you are supposed to ask what the person you are caring through wants exactly. You can never assume you know better than them. With my own mental health issues it has been really painful combatting peoples prejudices about why you are how you are and that includes damaging interactions with the mental health services. So I think an excess of (alleged) objectivity can lead to just ignoring the role and value of subjective input. It is implausible we can replace symbolic language with pointing at brain scans or subsume consciousness under a physicalist paradigm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
AndrewPD writes: I can give two examples here of the fundamental privacy of consciousness here. Apologies if this becomes a long post. I really don't see what this has to do with the topic of the thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2442 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
Taq writes: I really don't see what this has to do with the topic of the thread. It is challenging the idea that consciousness is an emergent property, that can be readily explained eventually and derived from natural selection. I don't agree that science has access to other people's consciousness to examine it objectively like cell mechanisms. Here I am highlighting the problem of accessing consciousness in order to study it and reduce it to a mechanistic by product and the weakness of neural correlations as access to mental content. Therefore the scope of evolutionary explanation is limited.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Andrew writes: It is challenging the idea that consciousness is an emergent property that can be readily explained eventually and derived from natural selection. It's not readily explained; science simply concludes that consciousness evolved naturally like all other features, functions and behaviours. That's the working hypothesis which stands until disproven. So far the only other mechanism we have is goddidit - which we reject.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
AndrewPD writes: I don't agree that science has access to other people's consciousness to examine it objectively like cell mechanisms. Here I am highlighting the problem of accessing consciousness in order to study it and reduce it to a mechanistic by product and the weakness of neural correlations as access to mental content. The correlation is pretty clear. No brain = no consciousness. The brain is explained by embryonic development. Embryonic development is explained by the genome. The genome is explained by natural selection and evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It is challenging the idea that consciousness is an emergent property, that can be readily explained eventually and derived from natural selection. You haven't made any such argument. Your thoughts are private because there is no outward indication of what goes on inside your head. That should not be all that surprising given that your skull is opaque. That condition would be the same whether or not consciousness was an emergent property. Get a better argument. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2442 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
NoNukes writes: You haven't made any such argument. Your thoughts are private because there is no outward indication of what goes on inside your head. That should not be all that surprising given that your skull is opaque. That condition would be the same whether or not consciousness was an emergent property. Get a better argument. It's nothing to do with the skull or failure to access the brain and neurons etc it is that consciousness is private subjective and only directly accessible one person the experiencing subject. It is not accessible in principle to any other than the self.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2442 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
Taq writes: The correlation is pretty clear. No brain = no consciousness You never have access to anyone's consciousness other than your own. Looking at someone's behaviour or their brain is not observing their consciousness. If I am in pain you can never experience it and looking at my brain or body is not accessing my pain. There are lots of phenomena that are dependent on one another but do not fully describe the individual phenomena. You are assuming consciousness can only arise in brains and in certain types of brains. What properties of the brain make it the only type of thing that could be associated with or cause consciousness. And by consciousness here I explicitly mean the experiencer who is subject to experiences, the subjective perspective and so. In consciousness studies there has been a lot argument about not restricting consciousness to brains and proposing artificial consciousness and consciousness in animals with different nervous systems. Nevertheless I don't see how evolution explains this property or predicts or ensures it. I am sure natural selection would select something as rich as consciousness.....select it after it began to exist for no reason as a free disposition from nature. It seems nature and chemistry/physics gives a lot of free gifts to evolution for it to work with. Hence the primeval soup of treasures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It is challenging the idea that consciousness is an emergent property, that can be readily explained eventually and derived from natural selection. You haven't made any such argument. Your thoughts are private because there is no outward indication of what goes on inside your head. That should not be all that surprising given that your skull is opaque. That condition would be the same whether or not consciousness was an emergent property. Get a better argument. It looks like AndrewPD is trying to make the argument that consciousness is god-given rather than an emergent property of the brain due to our current lack of knowledge re the connection between brain function and consciousness. This ignores all the various levels of consciousness in other organisms that show it is a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind/type/category. Fail. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Nevertheless I don't see how evolution explains this property or predicts or ensures it. There is no Theory of Consciousness. Without a consensus on what Consciousness is, what causes causes consciousness - it is not surprising that we don't have a specific answer as to how it came to be. The question then is, so what?
I am sure natural selection would select something as rich as consciousness How can you be sure? For all we know what was being selected was higher order thinking. The meta cognition of thinking about thinking and thinking about thinking about thinking - which in turn may have arose as a function of social need - understanding what others are thinking and what they think you are thinking and what they think you think they are thinking. Which might lead to a state of awareness about ones self that we have come to call consciousness. Thus - consciousness itself is just a consequence that arose because other properties were being selected for that resulted in it. How can you be sure this is not the case? Since we cannot agree on a Theory of Consciousness - how can we say it isn't a spandrel?
It seems nature and chemistry/physics gives a lot of free gifts to evolution for it to work with. Looking at the epic pile of dead bodies that are left behind makes me think maybe 'free' isn't the right word here. There are gifts, but in order to 'find' them - requires a lot of wandering about in 'genespace' - and a consequently large number of deaths - so they are certainly paid for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
AndrewPD writes: You never have access to anyone's consciousness other than your own. You can't determine if someone has a consciousness? Really?
You are assuming consciousness can only arise in brains and in certain types of brains. What properties of the brain make it the only type of thing that could be associated with or cause consciousness. I am making no such assumption. What I am doing is OBSERVING that human consciousness arises from the human brain. No human brain, no human consciousness.
In consciousness studies there has been a lot argument about not restricting consciousness to brains and proposing artificial consciousness and consciousness in animals with different nervous systems. We are still talking about physical biological structures that are produced by embryonic development. Embryonic development is controlled by the genome, and the genome is a product of natural selection and evolution.
Nevertheless I don't see how evolution explains this property or predicts or ensures it. You can lead a horse to water . . . Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You never have access to anyone's consciousness other than your own. Uh, sure I do: "Hey man, how are you feeling?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AndrewPD Member (Idle past 2442 days) Posts: 133 From: Bristol Joined: |
Have you discussed this list on here?
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php "Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signatories must also agree with the following statement: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. Sign the List – Dissent from Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism... You do realize, don't you, that "Belief gets in the way of learning." Those who accept a belief in creationism can easily compartmentalize all of their scientific training and "believe six impossible things before breakfast." When they are applying the creationist "method" (belief) to things they are no longer doing science. To do science one must follow the scientific method, which is the exact opposite.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Science isn't settled by lists. But any "evolutionist" could sign that with a clear conscience.
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia
quote: Note especially the last paragraph. Of course any discussion of that meaningless list would be incomplete without Project Steve. 1,417 scientists have signed:
quote: And each and every one is named Steve or some variant, including the renowned Professor Steve S. Steve . Approximately 1% of scientists are named Steve, so the signatories represent only a tiny fraction of scientists who would sign that statement. (In case you haven't figured it out, the list is a joke mocking the foolish DI list and others creationists have produced.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024