bio evolution, light, sound and aroma

It didn't. That's not how natural selection works. Ditto.You need to backtrack and ask a more fundamental question, such as "what is the theory of evolution?" or "what is natural selection?" Now, as you're aware, natural selection doesn't literally 'know' anything, that's why you put 'knew' in quotes. That's a good start. But also even metaphorically it doesn't 'know' much. It certainly doesn't 'know' about the existence of light, the laws of optics, et cetera. All it (metaphorically) 'knows' is which organisms are best-adapted to their environment. It favors good vision over bad without having the faintest idea what vision is or the physical laws underlying it. It doesn't need to.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The phrase "natural selection" is itself a metaphor, formed by analogy with the artificial selection practiced by humans when they breed plants and animals. It's the statistical tendency for organisms which are better fitted to survive and reproduce in their environment to actually do so, thus perpetuating their genes.As Darwin put it: "Can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yesterday you didn't know what natural selection was. Might there not still be things you don't know about evolution?

What is this "disposition" of which you speak?Does a lump of metal have a "disposition" to be made into a bicycle? Would we be able to take a lump of metal with this "disposition" and make it into a hatstand instead?

So your point would be that in order for evolution to happen, it would have to be possible?Yeah, I think we can agree on that. Like the "complex dispositions" of a shapeless homogeneous lump of metal to become a bicycle, a hatstand, an internal combustion engine, a statue ... ?

If you prefer an undesigned example, consider snowflakes. Is water "brimming with potential and bizarre and plentiful dispositions" to produce forms such as these? But again, I can make little of your example except that again you seem to be saying no more than that in order for something to happen, it must be possible. That is "Water does not have the disposition to turn into wine" = "water can't turn into wine"; and "water has the disposition to form snowflakes" = "water can form snowflakes". I don't see what, besides obscurity, you're adding by introducing (and reifying) these "dispositions" whereof you speak.

No, against brown ones.Really I think you could have figured that out for yourself.

Yeah, a brown bear, being so conspicuous, would soon be killed and eaten by ... er ... you know, those things that eat bears. 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.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Because there's a lot of mutations, and so some of them are bound to be. 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? 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.

It relies on the bones. Which you haven't looked at or, apparently, researched. And do what with it? 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? 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.

And yet apparently it does, which is something you'd have to deal with. For example, consider how electrical stimulation of the brain can cause the experience of memories, sounds, smells, etc. Consider how the loss of parts of the brain cause corresponding losses of conscious experience. Now, is this to be attributed to a physical deficit (in his retina, for example) or a defect in his immaterial soul? Which way would you bet?

Brain plasticity is a wonderful thing. Nonetheless, brain damage does in fact impair mental function. Stroke victims, for example, really aren't just putting it on. Apparently the remaining regions are sufficient for conscious states. Show me someone who's conscious without a brain, then we'll talk. But not in the absence of a brain.And look what LSD can do "with the absence of external perceptual input". Why would this material substance so profoundly mess with the immaterial? But it does produce mental experiences, yes? It would be surprising from my point of view if the crude expedient of zapping the surface of the brain could cause every conscious experience. But that it produces some conscious experiences refutes the contention that "There is no reason why any activity in the brain should lead to a conscious experience." 'Cos this is a physical activity that does. And often they aren't. Perhaps we should look at the most informative cases rather than the least. If we can draw no conclusions from Phineas Gage, whom I never mentioned, let's look at someone else.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Certainly. Does it mean that we can know things without a brain?I can make little of the rest of your post.

Oh, right, I was forgetting. Of course. When a man receives a traumatic injury to (for example) his visual cortex, and goes blind, those silly "neuronal reductionists" go about saying that the visual cortex is in some way responsible for the experience of seeing. But correlation is not causation. Obviously what's really happened is that his immaterial soul was injured, maybe by an invisible demon flying into it, and this caused him both to go blind and to bang just that part of his head in which erring neuroscientists locate his visual cortex.

Unfortunately for you, that's not the same thing. But not the necessity of the brain. Why not? They'd still have a body. They just wouldn't be able to control their brain in doing ... wait, what is it the brain does, according to you? Sometimes "the crudest form of correlation" is exactly what we observe. Calling it crude doesn't make it go away. The inability to identify living things, for example, really is correlated with damage to the superior temporal sulcus and the lateral fusiform gyrus. You may call that "crude" all you wish, it's also a fact. Specifically, the location of my consciousness appears to be inside my head. Say, what's inside my head? My brain, you say? Hmm, could be worth looking into. Two brains, then. That would fit in with them having two heads.