Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   bio evolution, light, sound and aroma
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 142 (717227)
01-25-2014 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by AndrewPD
01-24-2014 1:26 PM


The result of these replication "differences" is to create new unique emergent properties.
Some that work and some that don't, some that provide advantage (faster replication) and some that don't (stop replicating).
Not all are emergent properties, as that term is normally used to denote a combination of elements that is greater than the parts, something happens that is not expected from the combination. Consciousness is an emergent property of nerve development. Vision is an emergent property of light sensors. Brown bears becoming white bears is not an emergent property of having fur.
The description people are using here is loaded to try and exorcise anything that requires non mechanical entities.
Like god/s or spirits?
I find it suspicious that the language to describe evolution is supposed to dampen any claims of meaningful properties. It is like trying to describe a painting be mentioning individual dots of paint but ignoring the "gestalt." (the thing as a whole)
Science uses what it can measure. Then it develops models to see if it can be reproduced. If you cannot measure the emotional impact of a painting on people then it is difficult to apply that to any scientific model.
Are you faulting science for not including emotion? Do you expect science to explain everything?
It seems implicitly fuelled by atheism and the desire not to give a creator type thing any credit for any process in creating organisms. ...
Ah, so it is about religion. So much for that denial.
No. From my point of view (as a deist) science is not about why "life, the universe and everything" (Douglas Adams) was created but how it was accomplished.
We don't need to include a discussion of the life of Henry Ford to look at how he accomplished building cars, and to model that approach and reproduce it in the manufacturing of cars.
To discuss why Henry Ford developed a method for making cars is not important to discussing how he did it, and it is a different question with a different answer.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 1:26 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 12:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 62 of 142 (717234)
01-25-2014 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
01-24-2014 3:59 PM


Pain is a nerve discharge, and it's advantage lies in sensing the environment so the organism can react in a manner beneficial to the organism. Pain is just an extreme level of sensation
Pain is an experience in subjective personal consciousness. That is its only form. The correlation with nerve activity is not explanatory. There is an explanatory gap as with all conscious experience. The point is that reality contains phenomena only found in consciousness. What kind of objective existence could pain have?
If someone is under anaesthetic they don't experience pain.
Its existence is not explained by its value in some circumstances.
You are failing to explain why reality has such phenomena available and available only to consciousness.
It is hard to imagine what reality would be like without being seen through consciousness with the addition of mental attributes or qualia.
The lawful explanation for the emergence of vision etc would be one of explaining why biochemistry or physics can develop conscious perceptual visual properties not what the evolutionary benefit of vision is which is not a causal explanation.
Edited by AndrewPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2014 3:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by herebedragons, posted 01-25-2014 12:30 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 71 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-25-2014 1:50 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2014 5:32 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 63 of 142 (717237)
01-25-2014 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Adequate
01-24-2014 4:54 PM


Really I think you could have figured that out for yourself.
I can't see the Polar bear having to compete against anything.
How long could a brown bear survive in the Arctic without camouflage?
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.
Voila!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-24-2014 4:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-25-2014 3:13 PM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2014 3:39 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 64 of 142 (717239)
01-25-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
01-25-2014 9:43 AM


We don't need to include a discussion of the life of Henry Ford to look at how he accomplished building cars, and to model that approach and reproduce it in the manufacturing of cars.
To truly and honestly understand the causal origin of cars we would have to understand the mental states of of Henry Ford that were involved in him designing the thing and which motivated his actions causally.
These kind of mental state type entities seem to be inexplicably ruled out in evolution with the assumption of blind unintelligent mechanical processes. But because humans intelligently and mindfully create and design numerous things I see no reason to characterise the rest of reality as mindless and unintelligent which seems to be an unwarranted bias.
Indeed a theory of consciousness becoming increasing popular among materialists is Panpsychism which posits that consciousness is another layer intrinsic to reality.
It is easy to retrospectively strip a process of any intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2014 9:43 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by DrJones*, posted 01-25-2014 12:24 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-25-2014 1:38 PM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2014 6:14 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 65 of 142 (717242)
01-25-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by AndrewPD
01-25-2014 12:07 PM


These kind of mental state type entities seem to be inexplicably ruled out in evolution
they're ruled out because we don't have any evidence for them

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 12:07 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 1:40 PM DrJones* has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 66 of 142 (717243)
01-25-2014 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by AndrewPD
01-25-2014 11:55 AM


You are failing to explain why reality has such phenomena available and available only to consciousness.
What are you talking about?
I wouldn't consider Euglena to have consciousness, and yet they can respond to light by changing the direction their flagella beat. How they do that is not by thinking about it but when light hits the eyespot a secondary messenger is released that interacts with the flagella to induce it to reverse rotation. Nothing "conscious."
Plants can respond to light by inducing certain cells to swell, causing the plant to bend towards the light. It is done by chemically induced signals, not consciousness.
Serratia marcescens produce colored pigments when exposed to light that are also induced by chemical signals. These pigments serve no apparent purpose. Again, no consciousness.
Message 63 I can't see the Polar bear having to compete against anything.
They compete against seals. The seals recognize bears and avoid them (for obvious reasons). In order for a polar bear to get a decent meal it needs to sneak up on it prey. White coat coloration helps them do so. A brown bear would not get enough food to survive in the Arctic.
Message 64 It is easy to retrospectively strip a process of any intelligence.
Again, what are you talking about??
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 11:55 AM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 1:47 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 142 (717245)
01-25-2014 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by AndrewPD
01-25-2014 12:07 PM


These kind of mental state type entities seem to be inexplicably ruled out in evolution with the assumption of blind unintelligent mechanical processes. But because humans intelligently and mindfully create and design numerous things I see no reason to characterise the rest of reality as mindless and unintelligent which seems to be an unwarranted bias.
The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. When doing science, you apply methodological naturalism. That involves looking for a purely natural explanation. Explaining how species originate has been accomplished without needing to include anything mental or intelligent.
If it makes you feel better, you can just assume that this explains how God did it, and realize that God isn't going to be a part of a scientific explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 12:07 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 68 of 142 (717246)
01-25-2014 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by DrJones*
01-25-2014 12:24 PM


they're ruled out because we don't have any evidence for them
We have plenty of evidence of them.
Have you not had thoughts, dreams, imaginations and ideas?
The human experience is of mental entities. Consciousness is our only knowledge that a reality exists. As Thomas Nagel puts it "objectivity is the view from nowhere."
We don't see thoughts and experiences by looking at the brain that doesn't mean they don't exist.
You notion of evidence appears to be if I can't see it doesn't exist. A very visual led false dichotomy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by DrJones*, posted 01-25-2014 12:24 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by nwr, posted 01-25-2014 1:49 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 73 by DrJones*, posted 01-25-2014 2:16 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 69 of 142 (717247)
01-25-2014 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by herebedragons
01-25-2014 12:30 PM


It is easy to retrospectively strip a process of any intelligence.
Again, what are you talking about??
I am talking about explaining something that has already happened and already exists in a deliberate manner that avoids invoking intelligence, purposefulness and a wide range of other possibilities and characteristics. Or making an unprovable assumption about the qualitative nature of the process.
It is as I have been saying before a loaded narrative being created to paint a particular picture for what ever I would suggest Freudian-esque reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by herebedragons, posted 01-25-2014 12:30 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 70 of 142 (717248)
01-25-2014 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by AndrewPD
01-25-2014 1:40 PM


Have you not had thoughts, dreams, imaginations and ideas?
Yes. Yet, I have no evidence for them.
Thoughts, dreams, imaginations, ideas are not things. They lack thingness. People have made nouns out of those words, but it does not follow that they exist as actual things.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 1:40 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 2:19 PM nwr has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 71 of 142 (717249)
01-25-2014 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by AndrewPD
01-25-2014 11:55 AM


If someone is under anaesthetic they don't experience pain.
Why is that? The assemblage of molecules we call the brain has been affected by a drug, or more molecules. So the pain experience stops because of materialism. And when the drug wears off the pain may return again because of materialism.
You are failing to explain why reality has such phenomena available and available only to consciousness.
If you'd like to participate and contribute to our understanding then neuroscience is the field for you. Much has already been discovered. You may not like the implications though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 11:55 AM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 2:12 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 72 of 142 (717254)
01-25-2014 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by shalamabobbi
01-25-2014 1:50 PM


Why is that? The assemblage of molecules we call the brain has been affected by a drug, or more molecules. So the pain experience stops because of materialism. And when the drug wears off the pain may return again because of materialism.
If you'd like to participate and contribute to our understanding then neuroscience is the field for you. Much has already been discovered. You may not like the implications though.
I have studied perception at university and I know how neurons work and about transduction, retinotopic and tonotopic mapping among other things.
The correlations of experiences with brain regions are not explanatory they don't have a causal explanation.
A signal from the external word is transduced and then a signal is set up in the brain. In the case of mapping they try and preserve features of the initial sense data. There is no explanation of how that leads to a qualitative conscious subjective experience. That is where the explanatory gap is.
I think the mapping efforts are naive. They are trying to preserve the structure of what is presumed to be in the conscious percept.
But conscious states are highly complex and not easily dissected into "atoms" of experience. And this view of perception is criticised by theorists who embrace embodied cognition which has far less emphasis on consciousness being in the brain as mental representations rather than it being an interactive process with external stimuli.
There are also interesting cases where a person was paralysed by a medication before surgery but they could still feel pain so were operated on whilst consciousness. The surgeon couldn't discern they were still conscious as they were unable to give behavioural or verbal reports of their subjective (and excruciating conscious states.)
The mind brain relationship is not transparent and uncontroversial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-25-2014 1:50 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 73 of 142 (717256)
01-25-2014 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by AndrewPD
01-25-2014 1:40 PM


Have you not had thoughts, dreams, imaginations and ideas?
Sure I have, now tell me how you would test for a thought causing evolution. How would you determine if a dream caused an earthquake?
You notion of evidence appears to be if I can't see it doesn't exist.
Not true at all.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 1:40 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 2:23 PM DrJones* has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 74 of 142 (717258)
01-25-2014 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by nwr
01-25-2014 1:49 PM


Have you not had thoughts, dreams, imaginations and ideas?
Yes. Yet, I have no evidence for them.
Thoughts, dreams, imaginations, ideas are not things. They lack thingness. People have made nouns out of those words, but it does not follow that they exist as actual things.
The problem is we have immediate personal experience of our mental and conscious states "I think there for I am". If science can't objectively see them that is a limit to sciences scope.
People like Daniel Dennet and The Churchlands want to undermine this domains validity so that they can claim it is less than it is but unfortunately I am an authority on my experiences. The Churchland's seem to think that describing anger by using brain and hormonal language is more profound than someone knowing they are angry.
But if you didn't have the initial experience you wouldn't know what the biochemical correlates were referring to. Their is a primacy of conscious experience.
I see no valid reason to sacrifice this mental immediate realm for an ideologically loaded materialist dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nwr, posted 01-25-2014 1:49 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-25-2014 2:38 PM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 95 by nwr, posted 01-26-2014 9:48 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 75 of 142 (717259)
01-25-2014 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by DrJones*
01-25-2014 2:16 PM


Sure I have, now tell me how you would test for a thought causing evolution. How would you determine if a dream caused an earthquake?
I mentioned in the case of Henry Ford that his thoughts causally led to the creation of car. The same as volitional thoughts lead to bodily limb movements. Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean mental causation doesn't happen.
The reality of humans is brimming over with it such as in the realm of musical composition. Handel's Messiah is a translation of his mental musical landscape being translated into a musical score. The computer was created by a collaboration of individuals thought scapes imagination and reason etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by DrJones*, posted 01-25-2014 2:16 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by DrJones*, posted 01-25-2014 2:30 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024