I mentioned in the case of Henry Ford that his thoughts causally led to the creation of car.
Henry Ford didn't invent the car, his main contribution was the use of assembly line manufacturing.
Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean mental causation doesn't happen.
No one is arguing that my thoughts don't eventually cause my limbs to move. The thing is we can measure an electrical impulse travelling from my brain, through my nerves and to the muscles that control my limbs.
Show me how you'd determine if a thought caused an earthquake.
Handel's Messiah is a translation of his mental musical landscape being translated into a musical score.
Yes we have examples of human though creating works of art, or imagination leading to technology. Show me how'd you determine if imagination caused a snow storm.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
Well certainly. That is the reality within which we exist isn't it.
I see no valid reason to sacrifice this mental immediate realm for an ideologically loaded materialist dogma.
Are you suggesting that consciousness exists without a material substrate? If the material is so worthless why does the creator create it in the first place? (That last question only if it applies to your beliefs)
I can't see the Polar bear having to compete against anything.
How long could a brown bear survive in the Arctic without camouflage?
Yeah, a brown bear, being so conspicuous, would soon be killed and eaten by ... er ... you know, those things that eat bears.
Basically a dead bear walking.
Back in reality, grizzlies do not immediately die if placed against a white background, do in fact live within the Arctic Circle, have a range overlapping that of the polar bear, and can breed with them.
What The Polar bear needs is a thick white coat which its genes have to magic up via mutations. Its genes apparently being unconscious and hence unaware of the harsh environment they are in. But still they come up with the goods.
Wow. Your level of ignorance about something you fight so vehemently against is staggering. You really know nothing about evolutionary processes, selection and reproductive differential, do you.
The genes did not have to "magic up" anything. Imbecilic.
Let's start with a simple fact. You do know that not all humans have the same arm length, right? You do know that there are natural differences in length person to person and generation to generation, yes? These are caused by differences in genes, right? These differences came about because of changes (mutations) to genes, yes? This isn't some great surprise for you, is it?
Do you think that all bears have the same fur tone?
Do you doubt that the lighter and thicker the bears fur the better it can hunt and survive and have more babies in the successively snowier environments as a population of bears migrated slowly over generations into more northern areas?
Can you understand that over many generations the lighter/thicker trait becomes more and more prevalent in the population and the darker/thinner furs don't get reproduced so often?
Do you have some logical reason why, after very many generations of this moving so far north, the major population fur trait could not be very thick and very white?
After thousands of generations, voooiiilllaaa!, we have the slow natural development of polar bears. Evolution.
Do you really think that evolution says some brown bears walked into the Arctic Circle and POOF became white?
You really have no idea how this thing works, do you. Not a clue.
The genes did not have to "magic up" anything. Imbecilic.
The point I made is that mutating genes have no idea what environment they are in so why should any mutation be favourable to the environmental context? (This was the gist of the original post in this thread)
And in the case polar bears and other white animals that are camouflaged their genes are totally unaware they are living in a white environment. For a gene to create such a specific, valuable, environment-matching adaptation is indeed rather like magic. And was this alleged transition series observed or is it speculated out of necessity because the theory demands it?
Back to the case of pain. Pain is essential for human survival. Humans with congenital pain deficit die young because of severe bodily injury that is undetected. The issue I raised is that pain is a property that relies on conscious and why is this property that is so useful available in reality. Why does reality have this disposition?
Some evolutionary theories for things existence appear only to cite the usefulness of an property or function to explain its existence rather than a causal bio-physical explanation. Yes pain is invaluable but that doesn't explain where it comes from and where consciousness comes from and why reality allows these phenomena to exist.
Correlation is not causation in terms of neuron correlates.
The point I made is that mutating genes have no idea what environment they are in so why should any mutation be favourable to the environmental context? (This was the gist of the original post in this thread)
Of course the mutating genes have no idea of what they "should" be doing.
Gene mutations are just accidents, some simple and some more complex. And some happen to be better suited for the current environments, while others are deleterious.
So, guess which ones are more likely to be passed down to descendants?
And in the case polar bears and other white animals that are camouflaged their genes are totally unaware they are living in a white environment. For a gene to create such a specific, valuable, environment-matching adaptation is indeed rather like magic. And was this alleged transition series observed or is it speculated out of necessity because the theory demands it?
Again, gene mutations are accidents. But the individuals who inherit those genes may be more, or less, suited to a particular environment and this has a direct bearing on whether they pass those genes on.
Within most organisms (or rather populations) there is quite a range of variation. Some are better adapted, others not so. If the environment changes, the ones who are better adapted might no longer be so, while others might suddenly become better adapted.
No magic needed.
Here is an on-line lecture that helps to explain how things can evolve naturally:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):
Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
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
The point I made is that mutating genes have no idea what environment they are in so why should any mutation be favourable to the environmental context?
And that point shows up your total lack of knowledge of the mechanisms involved.
The genes do not "create such a specific, valuable, environment-matching adaptation ...". The environment culls through the attributes already existing in the population. Those variations of an attribute (those genes, those mutations, changes, of past genes) that fit better in this specific environment thrive more, have more babies than the others and spread in the population over the generations. It's called natural selection.
This points up the problem to which you are so blind. You do not understand the mechanisms, their effects on a population and most of all their results over time. As a consequence the stones you think you are throwing at "evolution" are only thin air. You have nothing but your own made up straw men to fight against and you look more than just foolish. You fight but you do not know your enemy. It's imbecilic.
The issue I raised is that pain is a property that relies on conscious ...
Does it really? I hope you are not limiting "consciousness" to humans, then, because dogs feel pain don't they? So do fish. So do clams.
The mechanism is not "pain" but "reaction to strong dangerous stimuli". Almost all life exhibits this phenomenon. I can not say a plant experiences pain as we perceive it but some do react to harmful stimuli and thus "recognize" or "feel" the dangerous stimuli on some level. In mammals such a stimulus is perceived in the brain as pain.
... and why is this property that is so useful available in reality.
Good god, man. Do you not read your own writing?
" ... die young because of severe bodily injury that is undetected."
If this reaction had not developed (evolved) in a population they would soon go extinct wouldn't they.
Again, you have it basackward. Pain did not already exist so we adopted its use, rather, these reactions evolved as signals of danger to the organism without which it would die. Those that inherited the reactions lived. Perception of pain is just one of a multitude of responses to stimuli that evolved in life systems all based on the same evolutionary mechanism - chemical response to stimuli.
Why does reality have this disposition?
Because without its development populations become extinct.
That is the strongest possible "... causal bio-physical explanation".
But in your ignorant search for magic you are blind to the reality and power of evolution in such mechanisms.
The point I made is that mutating genes have no idea what environment they are in so why should any mutation be favourable to the environmental context?
Because there's a lot of mutations, and so some of them are bound to be.
And in the case polar bears and other white animals that are camouflaged their genes are totally unaware they are living in a white environment. For a gene to create such a specific, valuable, environment-matching adaptation is indeed rather like magic.
Not that much like. Mutations which change the hue of organisms are possible, and also rather common, whereas magic is impossible and much much rarer.
By what strange ... what's the word ... ah yes ... magic ... by what strange magic would such mutations only occur when they're harmful by making the animal conspicuous and never when they're useful by making the animal camouflaged?
And was this alleged transition series observed or is it speculated out of necessity because the theory demands it?
We can see a grizzly-polar bear transition in the fossil record, if that's what you mean. But perhaps you'll say that that was made by magic too.
We can see a grizzly-polar bear transition in the fossil record, if that's what you mean. But perhaps you'll say that that was made by magic too.
That relies on the validity of homology claims.
Take the case of Ursus minimus
The skeleton of Ursus minimus was very similar to that of the larger Asian black bear. With the exception of the age of the bones, it is often difficult to distinguish the remains of Ursus minimus from those of modern Asian black bears
The issue I am raising is how and or why a mutation creates something in synch with the environment at all. This is what I have been discussing in the issue of dispositions.
Col2v8 said
Light impacts a cell... well is this not what I am on about... namely how did a cell evolve and organise itself in the first place to know that light impacting on it could be used as energy... how do you get the stages going ever towards this immense sophistication and manipulation of light.
So lets look at the retina
The kind of mutation to favour a complex arrangement like this would have to be very specific to maintain a complex interaction between numerous finely tuned systems. Not just like having a general change of fur colour
And then you rely on the emergence consciousness to be aware of an image being transduced so that the organism can see anything to respond meaningfully to it.
So what is happening? The genes are mutating and throwing up an array of surprisingly very meaningful structures to be selected. Including ones like aspects of visual systems that allow an internal representation of subtle features of the external world.
What we are talking about is exceedingly specific and exceedingly beneficial mutations by genes that are apparently unconscious of themselves and their environment.
The issue of consciousness has taken me down the road of solipsism and idealism personally. If the world was just mechanical with no mental aspects I could more easily accept a purely mechanical description of reality.
Yes, that exorcism is known as "objectivity". Without it, we'd have to reckon with everybody's subjective ideas about "non mechanical entities".
Thomas Nagel described objectivity aptly as "The view from nowhere".
Imagine the inventor of the motorbike has a dream that led to its invention (like some musicians take songs from dreams). That would mean that in describing the origin of these things we would have to take into account the role of the dream.
Now if someone was investigation how an artefact was created should they rule out the possibility that something like the Pyramids was inspired by a mental state like a dream or desire or fantasy?
I see no valid reason to rule out entities that may be invisible to us being behind the behaviours observed in reality. It depends on what you think the whole of reality was based on (its substrate or something like) Some people believe reality is in the mind of a god and some people speculate about a simulation.
Humans succumb to reason giving explanations. So for example I might be walking down the road to catch a bus. The scientist could describe how my muscles were working and other physical forces at work whilst failing to capture my motive for walking down the road, that I have beliefs about bus stops and timetables and an internal desire to catch the bus.
So I don't see how the scientific methodology can arbitrate in these kind of issues. Because science doesn't have a methodology for discerning design and intelligence, meaning and mental content in nature.
It relies on the bones. Which you haven't looked at or, apparently, researched.
Take the case of Ursus minimus
And do what with it?
The issue I am raising is how and or why a mutation creates something in synch with the environment at all.
Luck, obviously. As in the case of the white animals. Mutations are constantly creating white animals, and normally this is not in the least "in sync with the environment". A white lion, a white dolphin, a white chimp, etc, are not in sync with their environment. But when a similar mutation happens to an animal living in a white environment, then it's in sync. Now, it would be mind-bogglingly weird if such mutations only occurred where they'd be useless, wouldn't it?
So lets look at the retina [...] What we are talking about is exceedingly specific and exceedingly beneficial mutations by genes that are apparently unconscious of themselves and their environment.
Which is also apparently what we were talking about when we were discussing polar bears.
Mutations occur. Some of them are bound to be beneficial. These are favored by selection. Just as there's no magic in the white coat of the polar bear, so there's no need to see magic in the retina.
If someone is under anaesthetic they don't experience pain.
Curiously we wouldn't call them anesthetics if they didn't block pain, would we?
There are several known methods to block pain, and they all involve blocking nerve transmissions. Why is that?
Do you know what opiods are and how they work? Have you ever had one? Did they zap your brain or give you an injection\pill? Do you know what an epidural is?
Pain is an experience in subjective personal consciousness. That is its only form. ...
Actually pain can be measured from measuring nerve impulses, which is an objective measurement.
... The correlation with nerve activity is not explanatory. ...
Denial is not refutation. There are different levels of pain and they grade up from the sensation of touch ... why do you suppose that is?
It is hard to imagine what reality would be like without being seen through consciousness with the addition of mental attributes or qualia.
Only if you have a failure of imagination. Reality exists whether you sense it or not, and it kills you just as readily.
There is an explanatory gap as with all conscious experience. The point is that reality contains phenomena only found in consciousness.
Nope.
What kind of objective existence could pain have?
So that the organism can avoid or retreat from painful situations, thus giving it an advantage for survival.
So that the organism can avoid or retreat from painful situations, thus giving it an advantage for survival.
It is still a unique private subjective sensation held subjectively.
The comparison with for instance vision is that there may be an object out their causing the visual perception or which the perception represents. Although how that object or representation reaches consciousness is unknown till we explain how consciousness works.
However with pain it is not representing the environment directly. We can see tissue damage on our skin and that represents bodily injury the pain is just an unpleasant sensation or qualia. Rather like colour or sound.
Where would pain, sound and colour be if there weren't conscious entities to experience them? They produce unique sensations in the mind.
If you have heard of the knowledge argument or "Mary's room" then there is a real life equivalent. Knut Nordby was an expert in the science of vision and colour but was achromatic and he said he didn't know what it was like to see colour and couldn't imagine it. Without the direct experience the scientific explanation didn't explicate the missing qualia.
Among its example is that of a girl with a hemispherectomy who functioned normally after the surgery and later became bilingual with a whole hemisphere of the brain redundant.
And this man was fully conscious his only symptom was a limp and he previously had a low iq.
™ Version 4.2
