Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How is Natural selection a mechanism?
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 91 of 191 (815826)
07-24-2017 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
07-24-2017 4:13 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
Razd writes:
To people. It would not be irrelevant to organisms living in it in spite of a lack of consciousness.
I said consciousness is indisposable to science. I don't see how an unconscious organism can said to be have concerns or knowledge.
We have created models of animals behaviours and species classifications etc with our minds so we are impose concerns on them. And the validty of our constructs is at stake.
For example species can get named twice or be discovered to be unrelated. so what we observed or said at one time wasn't true. There has being biased (sexist/homophobic) culturally relative descriptions or selective observations of animal conduct. Racist and some social Darwinist made heirachies of racial features and the closeness of races to other specices.
(This happened in 1920's Rwanda by Belgian ethonologists (skull measurements etc)and was one basis for the identification cards they were given that helped fuel genocide)
The best example is the atom. There have been several models of the atom and none of them reflected the reality exactly (The plum pudding model par example). At what stage does our word atom capture an essential property of reality and stop being a construct?
If consciousnees was a thin layer on the brain a lot hangs on its abilities to accurately repesent the world. If you start to doubt consciousness then there is less grounds for certainty about its contents (ie everything we know)
It can't be more true or certain that the moon exists than that I do but the reverse is true (cogito ergo sum). I think there is a common misapprehension that science has somewhat transcended consciousness with it's "objectivity."
When I was deeply unconscious I did not know whether the universe continued to exist nor did I care. Some might say that was a blessed state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2017 4:13 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by CRR, posted 08-13-2017 2:34 AM AndrewPD has not replied

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


Message 92 of 191 (815828)
07-24-2017 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by AndrewPD
07-24-2017 5:40 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
Persistent vegetative state is an example of the difficulty in assessing states of consciousness.
Curiously I have no trouble with a "persistent vegetative state" meaning there is no there there. At the point where the brain stem ceases to function it meets the current medical practice in determining when a human life has ended. This criteria has been developed over a significant period of time with a lot of ethical input from all sides into the specific ethical considerations involved.
The legal standard of death is very clear - from What is the medical definition of death? (click):
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either
(1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead.
A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
That's the legal nuts and bolts of it: either failure of {heart\lung} system or total brain failure. Any person with either of these failures is universally and legally considered to be dead.
When that standard has not been met with a person in a coma it gets a little trickier ... the issue of personhood comes into play here, which should align with the issue of consciousness and capacity to have consciousness. Personally I feel that the families should be allowed to decide based on the best evidence/advice from medical professionals.
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 86 by AndrewPD, posted 07-24-2017 5:40 PM AndrewPD has not replied

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


Message 93 of 191 (815861)
07-25-2017 3:06 PM


I have said this elsewhere..
I have not heard an explanation for example, of why biochemical activity at neuronal synapses would lead to a private subjective severe pain sensation. Or why any physical activity should lead to an observer, subjectivity and sensation. Hopefully you can see the difference between someone examining my body and brain when I report pain and myself having the actual experience directly.

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


Message 94 of 191 (815862)
07-25-2017 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taq
07-24-2017 3:33 PM


Taq writes:
In what way can evolution NOT explain emergent properties found in biological species? I am still waiting for this explanation.
Water has several properties that can can be described as emergent such as it's ability to to be a solid, liquid or gas. Properties of larger more complex chemical interactions are emergent and these can be utilised if they are available.
For example I can stand on thick ice to cross a river when it is frozen. But unless water has the possibility to turn to ice I could not walk on a river.
There is a possible scenario where it was impossible for eyes to exist because the chemical and physical properties didn't exist. Other properties or events needed for life include distance from the sun, atmosphere, planck's constant and so on.
I don't see how evolution explains the biochemical emergence of properties as in why these properties (like say consciousness) exist in the first place.
I assume a positive mutation has to create the component parts of eyes and their light filtering abilities and this is a biochemical process. It is a pretty banal fact that a faulty eye will not aid survival like a faulty engine in a car.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 3:33 PM Taq has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 95 of 191 (815863)
07-25-2017 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by AndrewPD
07-24-2017 8:05 PM


emergence and evolution
I suppose you are alluding to the homuncular regress problem.
Yes.
I won't go into the rest as it's off topic here.
It's not clear how evolution can explain consciousness and similar goes for any emergent property.
Evolution in the form of biological requires emergent properties. An arm is an emergent property. At its reductionist level its just atoms, but through the actions of genes operating in a certain environment those atoms are arranged into molecules, proteins that form an arm and so on.
Since all traits are emergent, since biology works through developmental processes, it is not clear how you are viewing evolution as having difficulty with explaining emergent properties: that is, in a sense, what it actually does - explains a particular category of emergent properties under the category of 'life'.
So if dispositions are emergent properties from chemistry and physics that seems independent of evolution.
Well, no.
Evolution is the explanation of how chemistry/physics in a certain arrangement have come to form the diverse life we find on the planet. The emergent properties arise - and those emergent properties which, on average, lead to the reproduction of more entities with those emergent properties than those without said emergent properties, increase in frequency in the population of aforementioned living entities.
That's how we explain the nature and distribution of adaptive emergent properties. Not all evolution is adaptive, incidentally.
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
It certainly isn't clear. It's a complex subject. It not being clear is not an argument against it.
Life develops over time, small changes at the start can lead to big consequences later. It can be difficult or impossible to predict those later consequences - it is a chaotic system - but it's also not completely mysterious. The development of a lifeform - more easily understood in multicellular life, but not limited to it - is governed by two primary factors: The environment (which includes itself!) and the genome. Obviously much of the environment is not actually heritable and so is not that which evolves through natural selection. The genome however, mutates, and the way the mutated genome interacts with the environment can lead to differential reproductive success of resultant entity - the conditions for evolution to occur.
Personally I am a gay anti natalist so I am kind of the antithesis of the official narrative.
Your sexual preferences and opinions about the value of birth may be uncommon, but for what it's worth - their existence does not stand in opposition to the thesis of evolutionary biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by AndrewPD, posted 07-24-2017 8:05 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 96 of 191 (815864)
07-25-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AndrewPD
07-24-2017 7:46 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
AndrewPD writes:
No it only proves consciousness can interact with the brain.
That's like saying "digestion only interacts with the intestines".
Why don't you show us the existence of a consciousness independent of a brain. Until then, we are correctly concluding that the brain produces consciousness.
Now if consciousness is some kind of emergent property leaking out of neuronal synapses that is still a mystery and I don't see what role evolution has in explaining that, or natural selection.
Reality isn't limited to what you can or can't accept. The reality is that evolution is responsible for the human brain which produces consciousness.
Anyhow as I posted earlier there are cases like the man with 90% of his brain missing which make large areas of the brain redundant for consciousness or neural correlates.
There are people who are missing large sections of their intestines, yet they are still able to digest food. Does this mean that digestion is some separate entity from the gastrointestinal tract?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AndrewPD, posted 07-24-2017 7:46 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by AndrewPD, posted 07-25-2017 4:34 PM Taq has replied
 Message 98 by AndrewPD, posted 07-25-2017 4:41 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 97 of 191 (815866)
07-25-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Taq
07-25-2017 3:27 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
Taq writes:
That's like saying "digestion only interacts with the intestines".
No it's not.
For a start digestion is not private and subjective like conscious states only directly accessible to the subjects.
Consciousness could interact with the brain without being identical with it. It clearly is not identical with it. Are you under the illusion conscious states are identical with brain states? (My brain states are never of neurons firing or neurotransmitters unless I am reading a text book)
I have already differentiated between consciousness and the contents of consciousness.
I am fully consciousness at night lying on my bed in the dark awaiting sleep and feeling the soft duvet and my breathing. I am not more conscious when I am out on a sunny day seeing crowds of people. Regions of the brain allow us to access more contents for our consciousness but there is a basic state of being fully awake. You can be fully alert and awake with limited conscious content such as no visual content, sound etc.
There is an explanatory gap between brain states and conscious states. I don't see how natural selection sheds any light on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 3:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 6:45 PM AndrewPD has not replied

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


Message 98 of 191 (815867)
07-25-2017 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Taq
07-25-2017 3:27 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
Taq writes:
There are people who are missing large sections of their intestines, yet they are still able to digest food. Does this mean that digestion is some separate entity from the gastrointestinal tract?
I cited that case (and there are various others) because it undermines neural correlations. The brain is different than the digestive system when you are claiming that specific brain regions are correlated with specific conscious states or cognitive abilities.
The brain is quite homogenous but not completely. If everything (as has been been posited by some theorists) could simply be performed anywhere in the brain then that makes neural correlation even less explanatory.
To make the brain coincide somehow with conscious states it has to share at least some features of the mental state. (For example retinotopic mapping to preserve spatial details of signals from the Optic nerve)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 3:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2017 4:53 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 100 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 6:42 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 191 (815868)
07-25-2017 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by AndrewPD
07-25-2017 4:41 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
The brain is quite homogenous...
No it isn't:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by AndrewPD, posted 07-25-2017 4:41 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by AndrewPD, posted 07-25-2017 6:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 100 of 191 (815871)
07-25-2017 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by AndrewPD
07-25-2017 4:41 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
AndrewPD writes:
I cited that case (and there are various others) because it undermines neural correlations. The brain is different than the digestive system when you are claiming that specific brain regions are correlated with specific conscious states or cognitive abilities.
Get back to me when you find a human without a brain who still functions normally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by AndrewPD, posted 07-25-2017 4:41 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by AndrewPD, posted 07-25-2017 6:53 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 101 of 191 (815872)
07-25-2017 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by New Cat's Eye
07-25-2017 4:53 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
I was referring to its neurons. But your picture enhances my point that losing 90% of the brain and functioning normal is problematic for localisation and correlation claims.
It was Taq who was claiming it was similar to losing intestine. I was granting him that the brain may have some flexibility due to reusing neurons elsewhere after brain damage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2017 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 102 of 191 (815873)
07-25-2017 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by AndrewPD
07-25-2017 4:34 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
AndrewPD writes:
For a start digestion is not private and subjective like conscious states only directly accessible to the subjects.
It is just as private and subjective as conscious states. The way you experience food moving through your body is only experienced by you.
There is an explanatory gap between brain states and conscious states. I don't see how natural selection sheds any light on this.
That would be an argument from ignorance. There is really no doubt that the brain is causing those conscious states. The brain is a product of embryonic development which is itself a product of the genome and its specific DNA sequence. That DNA sequence is a product of natural selection and evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by AndrewPD, posted 07-25-2017 4:34 PM AndrewPD has not replied

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


Message 103 of 191 (815874)
07-25-2017 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Taq
07-25-2017 6:42 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
Taq writes:
Get back to me when you find a human without a brain who still functions normally.
This is naive. I mentioned earlier vegetative states and other states where the presence of consciousness is unknown. You seem to be trying to describe consciousness as it appears to an observer observing someone else's behaviour but as I have said it is private and subjectivity.
You will never have the same access to my pain as I do.I know from long experience of mental illness how wrong, misinformed and skeptical people are about other peoples mental states. There are even physical illness cases that have faced the same skepticism because they couldn't find an immediate physical correlation.
Whether or not I -appear- conscious to you is irrelevant. Dualism could be true easily and consciousness leave the body and enter another body or realm.
If part of your computer breaks down you can save stuff on a disk and use another computer. I am not advocating this model personally but your position begs the question and assumes that consciousness is somehow identical with the brain.
Even scientists and other theorists have discussed uploading consciousness to a computer especially with transhumanism.
What feature of consciousness are you picturing that can only exist in one brain at one time?
Edited by AndrewPD, : Aesthetics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 6:42 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 7:07 PM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2017 10:53 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 104 of 191 (815876)
07-25-2017 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by AndrewPD
07-25-2017 6:53 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
AndrewPD writes:
This is naive. I mentioned earlier vegetative states and other states where the presence of consciousness is unknown. You seem to be trying to describe consciousness as it appears to an observer observing someone else's behaviour but as I have said it is private and subjectivity.
You could also claim that the conscious state of rock is unknown, and then conclude that a rock could also have consciousness.
If you can't find a person who demonstrates consciousness but lacks a brain, then I would call this very strong evidence that the brain produces consciousness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by AndrewPD, posted 07-25-2017 6:53 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 191 (815877)
07-25-2017 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by AndrewPD
07-25-2017 6:53 PM


Re: How would you design an experiment/test?
I was referring to its neurons.
Those aren't homogeneous either... there are several types of neurons.
But your picture enhances my point that losing 90% of the brain and functioning normal is problematic for localisation and correlation claims.
Uh... "losing 90% of the brain and functioning normal" - that's a bit sensational. And I'm being nice about it. I checked your link, it really doesn't prove anything to me. That one pic looks shady, but it doesn't really matter - it's beside the point.
It was Taq who was claiming it was similar to losing intestine. I was granting him that the brain may have some flexibility due to reusing neurons elsewhere after brain damage.
Well, as far as we can tell on Earth, sentience requires a brain. And as I said in Message 68, my digestion isn't aware of itself like my sentience ("consciousness" - see Message 70) is. So they're already different to me.
Taq writes:
Get back to me when you find a human without a brain who still functions normally.
This is naive.
It really isn't. If you have something that "functions normally" without a brain, then it isn't human.
Your claim that a person can function normally after "losing" 90% of their brain is unfounded - your link even uses the word "damaged", but still, it's beside the point.
I mentioned earlier vegetative states and other states where the presence of consciousness is unknown. You seem to be trying to describe consciousness as it appears to an observer observing someone else's behaviour but as I have said it is private and subjectivity.
You will never have the same access to my pain as I do.
Ditto.
Look, you and I are both sentient, and we exist on Earth. That's undeniable.
Whether or not I -appear- conscious to you is irrelevant. Dualism could be true easily and consciousness leave the body and enter another body or realm.
Sure, but forget what "could be". What IS?
What is relevant is whether or not you appear sentient to me. And you do (unlike a goldfish, although they do appear conscious, i.e. "awake").
What feature of consciousness are you picturing that can only exist in one brain at one time?
The ones that make us human are the ones that allow us to interact with each other out in the real world on Earth.
All the spiritual beings that I have encountered that appear sentient to me are not out there running around in the real world on Earth where everyone other human can see them too.
Apparently you need a brain to do that. That's not naive - the alternative is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by AndrewPD, posted 07-25-2017 6:53 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