Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How is Natural selection a mechanism?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 191 (815378)
07-19-2017 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by AndrewPD
07-19-2017 3:57 PM


For example if I am born with stronger than average arms that is a biochemical event. But if I don't have children that trait won't enter the gene pool.
That's true. If you don't have children, then you are not participating in evolution.
If your strength translates into an increased chance to survive and to rear children to child bearing/siring age, then you have a greater chance to propagate your traits. The people/animals/plants that do not survive to bear offspring have zero chance to propagating their genes.
Surely that is abundantly clear.
If there is no disposition for me to be born with strong arms that disposition can't arise.
That's incorrect. You are ignoring the possibility that you will be a mutant having inheritable characteristics that your parents did not have. Natural selection operates on variation.
So how can selection explain somethings existence?
Selection is only part of the explanation. Obviously.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
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
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AndrewPD, posted 07-19-2017 3:57 PM AndrewPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 07-19-2017 4:25 PM NoNukes has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 62 of 191 (815379)
07-19-2017 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes
07-19-2017 4:16 PM


NoNukes writes:
If you don't have children, then you are not participating in evolution.
You're still participating in selection. Whenever you kill something before it can reproduce, you're removing its genes from the pool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2017 4:16 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 07-20-2017 5:11 AM ringo has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2416 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 63 of 191 (815392)
07-19-2017 6:57 PM


Another pertinent example is consciousness.
It is easy to imagine what the benefits of consciousness might be for survival but that doesn't translate into an explanation, causal or otherwise of consciousness.
If you think consciousness is an emergent property of the brain then that would suggest consciousness is a disposition available at some level of reality. It's not clear how evolution can explain consciousness and similar goes for any emergent property.
(However consciousness as an emergent property is controversial)
So if dispositions are emergent properties from chemistry and physics that seems independent of evolution.
What I am saying overall is what seems to be happening on the theory is a body is gradually created by mutations then it either survives or it doesn't but it's not clear why all these little changes happen and all these emergent properties and mechanisms arise
Personally I am a gay anti natalist so I am kind of the antithesis of the official narrative.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 07-20-2017 11:30 AM AndrewPD has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 191 (815424)
07-20-2017 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by ringo
07-19-2017 4:25 PM


You're still participating in selection. Whenever you kill something before it can reproduce, you're removing its genes from the pool.
Except that the statement did not say anything about killing something. It talks about someone who has an enhanced physical phenotype, but still does not have children. Regardless of how fit or superior such a person is, he does not contribute to evolution because his genes cannot propagate.
That said, in hindsight, I see that I was wrong. Because said super-man might well prevent some weaker person from getting the girl. So even though he does not propagate his genes, he may be part of the selection process.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
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
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 07-19-2017 4:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 07-20-2017 11:37 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 65 of 191 (815435)
07-20-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by AndrewPD
07-19-2017 3:57 PM


o how can selection explain somethings existence?
New things don't emerge because of natural selection, they emerge because of mutation.
Natural selection is what fixates the new things into the population.
And you have to think about these things in terms of populations and not individuals.
And if you're gonna use inanimate objects as examples, there needs to be something analogous to reproduction. Cars don't mate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AndrewPD, posted 07-19-2017 3:57 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 66 of 191 (815462)
07-20-2017 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by AndrewPD
07-19-2017 6:57 PM


AndrewPD writes:
If you think consciousness is an emergent property of the brain then that would suggest consciousness is a disposition available at some level of reality. It's not clear how evolution can explain consciousness and similar goes for any emergent property.
Consciousness is no different than the emergent properties of digestion or circulation. The brain produces consciousness, and embryonic development produces the brain. Embryonic development is guided by the genome of the embryo, and that genome is the product of evolution. How is this not a valid explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AndrewPD, posted 07-19-2017 6:57 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2017 11:45 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 69 by AndrewPD, posted 07-21-2017 8:39 AM Taq has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 67 of 191 (815463)
07-20-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by NoNukes
07-20-2017 5:11 AM


NoNukes writes:
Except that the statement did not say anything about killing something.
I was responding to your statement, not the one you were responding to. I wanted to point out that we're always participating in selection, whether it's our species or another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 07-20-2017 5:11 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 191 (815465)
07-20-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Taq
07-20-2017 11:30 AM


Consciousness is no different than the emergent properties of digestion or circulation.
Oh, I dunno... My digestion and circulation are not aware of themselves like my consciousness is

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 07-20-2017 11:30 AM Taq has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2416 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 69 of 191 (815543)
07-21-2017 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Taq
07-20-2017 11:30 AM


Taq writes:
Consciousness is no different than the emergent properties of digestion or circulation. The brain produces consciousness, and embryonic development produces the brain. Embryonic development is guided by the genome of the embryo, and that genome is the product of evolution. How is this not a valid explanation?
There are lots of differences here. Digestion and circulation are visible phenomena that we can obejectively study and that we see emerging from their components we don't see any thing like consciousness and sensation and cognition emerging from neurons these are private subjective phenomena only accessible to one person directly.
The point is emergent properties in themselves aren't explained by evolution. If a property emerges that is because biochemistry (in the case of digestion) allowed a property to arise.
Consciousness is a deep topic. Defining it is controversial and it is inaccessible to group observation it also does not exhibit spatial temporal properties and exhibits semantics and qualia.
So even if consciousness is "selected" or thrives because it is survival aiding that doesn't explain or origin and it seems a rather trivial point to just list potential survival benefits of consciousness.
I may have raised this elsewhere but I think emergent properties or dispositions have to exist for a creature to emerge. And emergent properties are not created by evolution but are allowances from the nature of atoms/molecules etc So it doesn't matter if you stretch the procedure over billions of years if properties can't emerge.
Why do these dispositions exist especially the ability for a hypothetical "physical reality" to allow self reflection and the observation of reality.?
These aren't trivial problems. Trying create a genuinely conscious robot that reports having experiences and can reflect on her existence. there is no evidence that robots are any more conscious than an abacus.
Edited by AndrewPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 07-20-2017 11:30 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 9:43 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 10:34 AM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2017 11:15 AM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 73 by caffeine, posted 07-21-2017 3:34 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 191 (815564)
07-21-2017 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by AndrewPD
07-21-2017 8:39 AM


Consciousness is a deep topic.
Your point is not lost, but if you're talking about the "deep topic", then I think the term sentience is better.
I mean, a goldfish is conscious...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AndrewPD, posted 07-21-2017 8:39 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 71 of 191 (815568)
07-21-2017 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by AndrewPD
07-21-2017 8:39 AM


AndrewPD writes:
Digestion and circulation are visible phenomena that we can obejectively study and that we see emerging from their components we don't see any thing like consciousness and sensation and cognition emerging from neurons these are private subjective phenomena only accessible to one person directly.
That isn't true. Techniques like functional MRI can actually tell us what a person is thinking about. We can measure neurons firing and functioning. We can measure brain activity. Consciousness is a very visible phenomenon.
The point is emergent properties in themselves aren't explained by evolution.
Why not?
So even if consciousness is "selected" or thrives because it is survival aiding that doesn't explain or origin and it seems a rather trivial point to just list potential survival benefits of consciousness.
I already explained the origin in the previous post.
Why do these dispositions exist especially the ability for a hypothetical "physical reality" to allow self reflection and the observation of reality.?
They exist because they evolved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AndrewPD, posted 07-21-2017 8:39 AM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by AndrewPD, posted 07-22-2017 11:11 AM Taq has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 191 (815581)
07-21-2017 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by AndrewPD
07-21-2017 8:39 AM


There are lots of differences here. Digestion and circulation are visible phenomena that we can obejectively study and that we see emerging from their components we don't see any thing like consciousness and sensation and cognition emerging from neurons these are private subjective phenomena only accessible to one person directly.
We can observe brain activity and the neuron patterns for different thoughts.
Emergent means that when a certain threshold is crossed then a new level of operation appears.
Self-consciousness for instance, is observable in several species, like chimps and porpoises, while it is absent from others (cats, birds, etc). So self-consciousness is an emergent property of brain function. And we can look at other emergent properties, such as problem solving and danger recognition.
So there are levels of consciousness, and the full consciousness we enjoy is more a matter of degree than a different kind of thought process/recognition.
Especially when each of these cognition levels provides an advantage for survival or reproduction and thus become selected.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 69 by AndrewPD, posted 07-21-2017 8:39 AM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by AndrewPD, posted 07-22-2017 11:01 AM RAZD has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 73 of 191 (815611)
07-21-2017 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AndrewPD
07-21-2017 8:39 AM


The point is emergent properties in themselves aren't explained by evolution. If a property emerges that is because biochemistry (in the case of digestion) allowed a property to arise.
If I understand what you're saying, you're right, but I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
If an organism changes the composition of an chemical which it uses to digest food; and the new acid extracts more energy from the food; natural selection explains why this innovation would spread in a population. It doesn't tell you anything about why the altered chemical is more efficient at breaking down food though - that would be a matter of the chemistry.
Is this all you're saying, or am I missing something?
Incidentally, I don't think the selective advantages of consciousness are in any sense obvious. I don't think we will understand them unless and until we understand how consciousness occurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AndrewPD, posted 07-21-2017 8:39 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2416 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 74 of 191 (815649)
07-22-2017 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
07-21-2017 11:15 AM


RAZD writes:
We can observe brain activity and the neuron patterns for different thoughts.
This is not true.
Observing brain activity is not observing consciousness. If you are in pain and someones is observing your neuronal activity do you think they have the same access to your pain as you.
Experiences are private and neural activity is correlated weakly with verbal reports of private experiences. These correlations are not identical with experience and the content of consciousness. Also correlation is not causation. But the correlations are much weaker than you are implying.
Some conscious experiences are correlated with numerous brain regions niot a one on one mapping with a reported phenomena. The activity of the neurons can be explained in different ways doing different tasks but none of them can be shown to produce consciousness in a direct way as an emergent property (there is a fundamental explanatory gap).
People here seem not to be acknowledging the privacy and scope of subjectivity. There has been a huge amount of information in this thread none of which would be accessible for brain scanners. A lot of knowledge about what we think other people think and feel is through the semnatics of language which can not be disposed of by or "reduced" neural correlations.
My degree was in Psychology and Philosophy of mind. I had to study articles on neural correlations and issues about the nature of components of mind ,semantics in language, the results of FMRI etc, localisation,definition of mind, role of consciousness, volitional movement, mental representation. So I have read a lot in this area and if you had read a lot in the area you would be skeptical about some of the blase claims being made here.
It will be quite tiring to go through each issue but I can do.. but there is nothing simple or uncontroversial about any facet of the mind.
People seem to demand less rigorous explantion of mind than they would in any other area of academia. Yet consciousness is our only access to reality, it is how we can do science and how we have any perception or belief in reality.
There is a big issue about how perception shapes theories and how valid perceptions are so that we have no transparent access to an underlying reality. And in the history of philosophy this has led from an early age to the realisation that we can always be skeptical about or perceptions but far less so about our conscious existence (cogito ego sum)
Edited by AndrewPD, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2017 11:15 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2017 12:02 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2416 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 75 of 191 (815650)
07-22-2017 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Taq
07-21-2017 10:34 AM


The point is emergent properties in themselves aren't explained by evolution.
Taq writes:
Why not?
Emergent properties are properties created by atomic interactions they rely on prexistent dispositions or "availabilities" as explained or described through atomic and chemical theories (Physics/chemistry). None of these theories relies on Darwinian evolution.
There is limit as to what could happen on a planet with only one or two elements or just water.
I thought evolution was supposed to occur after a primeval soup had formed and this soup therefore has to have available dispositions that things can emerge from.
So in what way does evolution explain these available dispositions (ie dispostions that natural "laws" allow or control or do not prohibit")
So for instance if you diamond very little will happen to it over long periods of time. It doesn't have the suitable dispositions. In this way "Hair" could not evolve if chemistry did not allow it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 10:34 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:33 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024