Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Human consciousness
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 14 (82560)
02-03-2004 11:06 AM


See Human Intelligence forum topic.
[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-03-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by kjsimons, posted 02-03-2004 11:20 AM Skeptick has not replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 2 of 14 (82563)
02-03-2004 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Skeptick
02-03-2004 11:06 AM


I see. Two quick questions: Is evolution a string of events that are random or designed? Is evolution accidental or intentional?
These questions are along the line of "When did you stop beating your wife?". In other words, false dichotomies. The events that lead to us are not all random and were probably not designed, but there are other type of events than just those two.
Mutations could be considered random events, but natural selection on those mutations is not random and is most certainly not designed. A mutation that is neutral or that aids the organism so that it can pass on more of it's genetic material to the next generation will be selected for.
Some processes of evolution are "accidental" but I wouldn't characterize all of evolution that way. Evolution as a process has no master plan or purpose so I would say evolution is not intentional.
Just my two cents worth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Skeptick, posted 02-03-2004 11:06 AM Skeptick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 12:15 PM kjsimons has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 3 of 14 (82582)
02-03-2004 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by kjsimons
02-03-2004 11:20 AM


Mutations could be considered random events, but natural selection on those mutations is not random and is most certainly not designed. A mutation that is neutral or that aids the organism so that it can pass on more of it's genetic material to the next generation will be selected for.
Some processes of evolution are "accidental" but I wouldn't characterize all of evolution that way. Evolution as a process has no master plan or purpose so I would say evolution is not intentional.
I'd like to learn more about what you've just said here. I am a layman and nobody seems to discuss "natural selection" with me.
Natural selections on a mutation?
What makes the selection? - I s it biological?
Biologically I'm doomed - bare with me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by kjsimons, posted 02-03-2004 11:20 AM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 02-03-2004 2:16 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 5 by truthlover, posted 02-03-2004 2:38 PM mike the wiz has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 14 (82627)
02-03-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz
02-03-2004 12:15 PM


Hi Mike!
A detailed answer to your question here would seriously derail this thread. So, in a very brief nutshell, natural selection is the second step of the two-step process of evolution. It's something like panning for gold - water washes away the sand leaving the heavier gold flakes to naturally settle out of the mixture. Or you can think of it as a seive filtering out less-optimum traits. The environment (all the different biological and non-biological aspects that effect the individual organism) is what does the selecting.
If you'd like more detail, we'll need to open a new thread, I'm afraid. Good to see you back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 12:15 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 2:39 PM Quetzal has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 5 of 14 (82633)
02-03-2004 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz
02-03-2004 12:15 PM


Mike,
If I may try a brief explanation that worked well for me.
Darwin coined the term natural selection in contrast to what breeders do. Breeders (of doves, cattle, and dogs, for example) choose traits they like in an animal and they breed it with an animal with similar traits.
That's artificial selection, man choosing. It can create a chihuahua from a wolf in a couple thousand years.
Natural selection is nature choosing, and nature chooses by who survives and has children. The fittest survive the most and thus have the most offspring. For example, the slowest gazelles or zebras in a herd might be eaten, so nature is selecting the faster gazelles and zebras to breed.
Mutations are by chance, and they provide raw material for nature to select from. Negative mutation and the individual dies. Nature selected not to go with it. A positive mutation that gives the individual benefit, and he and his progeny may survive better, reproduce more, and transform the whole population. Nature selected him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 12:15 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 2:42 PM truthlover has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 6 of 14 (82634)
02-03-2004 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Quetzal
02-03-2004 2:16 PM


Thanks Quetzal,
You confirm my suspicions when you say:
Or you can think of it as a seive filtering out less-optimum traits. The environment (all the different biological and non-biological aspects that effect the individual organism) is what does the selecting.
So effectively - the selecti's from the random mutations means that despite the mutations being random - selection isn't.
Bare with the poor creo!
panning for gold - tee hee hee, now your talking - good analogy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 02-03-2004 2:16 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Asgara, posted 02-03-2004 5:25 PM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 14 (82637)
02-03-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by truthlover
02-03-2004 2:38 PM


Thanks Truthlover
That helps me understand this better. It seems far easier to ask a person than to look over information with a certain question in mind.
So basically , nature is the selector.....suspicions confirmed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by truthlover, posted 02-03-2004 2:38 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by truthlover, posted 02-03-2004 10:20 PM mike the wiz has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 8 of 14 (82751)
02-03-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
02-03-2004 2:39 PM


So effectively - the selecti's from the random mutations means that despite the mutations being random - selection isn't
FINALLY, someone who gets it....you don't know just how many people can't figure this one out.

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 2:39 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 6:05 PM Asgara has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 9 of 14 (82770)
02-03-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Asgara
02-03-2004 5:25 PM


And I thought I was going to look silly, Asgara babe. I'm glad I get something right for once.
Hope your doing okay. Good to hear from you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Asgara, posted 02-03-2004 5:25 PM Asgara has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 10 of 14 (82886)
02-03-2004 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
02-03-2004 2:42 PM


Great avatar, btw, Mike. Man, I loved that show back when it was on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 2:42 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 02-04-2004 11:46 AM truthlover has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 14 (83027)
02-04-2004 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by truthlover
02-03-2004 10:20 PM


Hehe, it's on everyday over here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by truthlover, posted 02-03-2004 10:20 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by truthlover, posted 02-04-2004 4:40 PM mike the wiz has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 12 of 14 (83078)
02-04-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
02-04-2004 11:46 AM


Every day! I'm sure I still haven't seen all the episodes.
On the other hand, I don't own a TV. And even if I did, they don't have cable here yet. It's close, but not quite. Maybe it will come out on DVD one of these days. They finally got the Andy Griffith show on DVD. I have a teenage friend who just loves Don Knotts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 02-04-2004 11:46 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 02-19-2004 5:31 AM truthlover has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 14 (87435)
02-19-2004 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by truthlover
02-04-2004 4:40 PM


Which came first? Consciousness or Litigation?
I have some questions for all of you. By the way, I have no answers. Only opinions.
1) Was there a defineable point at which animals became humans? In other words, would our ancestors watch Gilligans Island reruns?
2) Do you agree or disagree with my assessment that states that two flows of thought pre eminate: 1) From God. 2) From human consciousness. Just checking!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by truthlover, posted 02-04-2004 4:40 PM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 02-19-2004 8:06 AM Phat has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 14 (87447)
02-19-2004 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Phat
02-19-2004 5:31 AM


Re: Which came first? Consciousness or Litigation?
Hi Phatboy. To answer your questions:
1. No. I can think of two basic reasons off the top of my head. In the first place, humans ARE animals. After all, we don't talk about Phylum Chordata and Phylum Humana. Nor do we talk about class Mammalia and class Humanum. We are inseperable parts of the life that exists on this planet - defined and constrained by the nature of Earth-life itself. In the second place, tracing the rise of humans over time, there is no single identifiable instant where "consciousness" (using the vernacular definition ~ human-level thought processes) appears. We simply can't point to a time, like July 2d, 254,806 BCE, where "consciousness" suddenly manifested itself. What we DO see, however, is a very gradual improvement in tools, for example, from basically natural rocks (among other things) associated with morphologically "non-human" animals through the computer I'm typing this on. IOW, we can very roughly trace the emergence of modern human consciousness by tracing the slow improvement in artifacts - because these artifacts evidence the increasingly sophisticated behaviors that lead to the conclusion that animals were "getting smarter" over the eons.
2. No. Or rather, the existence of thought flow from a supernatural being is unevidenced. It certainly could exist, as the invisible floating red dragon living in my garage could exist (thank you Carl Sagan). However, without some kind of physical evidence of its existence - or some otherwise-unexplainable phenomenon for which the supernatural explanation is the only possibility - in the first place, you're unnecessarily multiplying entities. You're adding additional complexity that isn't required to explain what we see around us.
Hope this answers your questions.
edited to add: OTOH, given my opinion of lawyers, it's entirely possibly that litigation preceeded rational thought.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-19-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 02-19-2004 5:31 AM Phat 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