| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
Oh so you took physics? Well what about the second half of the article which deals completely with misinterpreting physics? Was that convincing to you as well? honestly, it was believable cause it was the first time a read about it...unless of course you would be kind enough to enlighten me on the part where the physics was misinterpreted... | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The worst thing about these threads is the mob mentality, and the intellectual bullying. An intelligent person can certainly deny macroevolution as the explanation for species diversity; this should not warrant name-calling. It is a disagreement about assumptions. As far as the article, the factual information only supports evolution of the eye if you interpret it in a context where you are already supposing that evolution is true. In which case, this neatly fills in a base condition, yet the rash induction that all the complexity is accounted for by an arbitrarily large amount of time and random drift, is still an assumption, and is still very much in need of substantiating. We can assume, and still be "intelligent", that this creature exists and always has, discrete from other organisms. The only motiviation to not believe so, is to fit it into the existing theory. The circular logic baffles me. This isn't being used at proof of evolution, just something else that seems to "fit." It is already assumed that evolution is true from the abundance of evidence;( I don't recall you pointing out any of the problems you see in evolution, at least not recently:X I asked in another thread, but if you don't want to type them out, then at least link me to a paper or something that is credible. | ||
|
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
On November 09 2007 15:08 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: I just want to commend you for being open minded and having an actual desire to learn. why thank you...i've always wanted to know about these things, but haven't really had the time to do 'research'...rest assured, before i die, i WILL have a conclusion with regards to this subject matter (obviously by looking at both sides)  | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On November 09 2007 15:21 unknown.sam wrote: honestly, it was believable cause it was the first time a read about it...unless of course you would be kind enough to enlighten me on the part where the physics was misinterpreted... don't mind the people bullying you;) You are obviously new to the topic and you have definitely shown an objective interest. If you do decide to read up on evolution ( or creationism for that matter ) I would suggest reading articles from credible sources in the future. ( i.e. scientific journals, extc. ) | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 09 2007 15:06 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: As for the qualia thing. If that is your definition than I believe that animals are certainly capable of conciousness. Especially in creatures like great apes and dolphins. They have demonstrated the ability to communcate with humans, and koko the gorilla has specifically referenced to a "self". There are signs for "me" and "you". So that pretty much destorys your initial argument that it is impossible to tell if animals are capable of conciousness. It's quite clear that at least the higher evolved ones are most certainly capable of it. Well, how do we KNOW that the apes and the dolphins really perceive and feel the way we do? When they communicate with with humans or with each other, we can just say that they're exhibiting extremely complicated behavioral adaptations that they developed because it was advantageous to survival. In principle you can break all animal behavior down to a sequence of physical processes. We can only plausably guess that the animals are conscious by intuition and analogy with ourselves. But you couldn't start with everything we know in biology and deduce that they really have subjective experiences. It's actually worse than that, since science doesn't offer a plausible REASON why there SHOULD be consciousness. It's like we carry our minds along with our brains, but why? The brain can respond to all the stimuli and process information and send signals on its own, without having a "mind" telling it what to do. Put another way, we can fully describe and explain (in principle) the activities of the brain without making any reference to this mysterious thing called a mind. In other words, why is there self-awareness in the universe at all? IMO it's the most compelling reminder that our current scientific picture of the world is very, very far from being complete. | ||
|
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
On November 09 2007 15:26 OverTheUnder wrote: don't mind the people bullying you;) You are obviously new to the topic and you have definitely shown an objective interest. If you do decide to read up on evolution ( or creationism for that matter ) I would suggest reading articles from credible sources in the future. ( i.e. scientific journals, extc. ) thanks for the advice  err, would you happen to know any links by any chance? | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 15:27 HnR)hT wrote: Well, how do we KNOW that the apes and the dolphins really perceive and feel the way we do? When they communicate with with humans or with each other, we can just say that they're exhibiting extremely complicated behavioral adaptations that they developed because it was advantageous to survival. In principle you can break all animal behavior down to a sequence of physical processes. We can only plausably guess that the animals are conscious by intuition and analogy with ourselves. But you couldn't start with everything we know in biology and deduce that they really have subjective experiences. It's actually worse than that, since science doesn't offer a plausible REASON why there SHOULD be consciousness. It's like we carry our minds along with our brains, but why? The brain can respond to all the stimuli and process information and send signals on its own, without having a "mind" telling it what to do. Put another way, we can fully describe and explain (in principle) the activities of the brain without making any reference to this mysterious thing called a mind. In other words, why is there self-awareness in the universe at all? IMO it's the most compelling reminder that our current scientific picture of the world is very, very far from being complete. edit: This is my last post today, I need to get sleep  In that case, why should we believe that humans are any different? What if we are simply exhibiting extremely complicated behavioral adaptations that they developed because it was advantageous to survival? Either way though if you look up the definition that you provided for conciousness, the definition includes an "awareness of self". Animals and humans have demonstrated this so you MUST, despite any other philosophical arguments admit that we at least share this. What IS this mysterious thing you call a "mind"? I see no reason to seperate the brain and the mind. Why is there self-awareness in the universe at all? I could take the simple way out and say this: If there wasn't, we wouldn't be asking the question in the first place;) Another possible explanation is, it's advantageous for survival to have self awareness. It provides the basis for logical thought to be employed for personal gain. Without it you do not have logical thought, you simply have biological response. Humans, primates, dolphins, and pigs have all demonstrated, through laboratory testing, the ability to calculate and make decesions for personal gain. Those decesions were of course based off a biological response (the desire for food in most cases) but the fact that they demonstrated a calculative thought process is in itself remarkable. The real reason our scientific picture of the world is so far from being complete (and I completely agree with you on that point) is because we understand so little about our own brain and how it works. Your arguement is essentially a philosophical one. It is not limited to human/animals but to thought in general. Is thought simply a biological response encoded in our DNA, or is it something more? The answer is basically impossible to prove with science because our scope is limited. We cannot step outside ourselves and find an answer. | ||
|
fig_newbie
749 Posts
On November 09 2007 13:32 jtan wrote: By the way, on a scientific documentary I saw like a year ago they said eyes evolved independantly over 30 times through history. Couldn't find the documentary, but here's an article on the topic http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n19_v151/ai_19432100 Eyes - in spite of their complexity - confer such an evolutionary advantage that theyre thought to be able to emerge independently over only 100 000 years. Squid eyes for example are biologically unrelated to our own, a product of convergent evolution. I was reading the article posted though (the real scientific one, not the seattle times version - and its discussing not just eye formation, but the evolution of the PROTEIN that makes eye formation possible in the first place. "Origin of eyes" is somewhat misleading, because this is literally super basic stuff, like claiming the origin of life is found when scientists are observing a star system forming. | ||
|
man
United States272 Posts
On November 09 2007 15:27 HnR)hT wrote: Well, how do we KNOW that the apes and the dolphins really perceive and feel the way we do? On a somewhat related note, we know that neandertals cared for their sick and buried the dead, so that makes Homo sapiens seem not so unique. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On November 09 2007 13:39 HnR)hT wrote: If everything about life is in principle explained by evolution by random mutations, like the great majority of biologists claim, then religion can't be true, period. But it is obvious that evolution will never be able to explain consciousness, so these arrogant Darwinists are fooling themselves. i don't see how it would disprove religion. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On November 09 2007 15:27 HnR)hT wrote: Well, how do we KNOW that the apes and the dolphins really perceive and feel the way we do? How do we know humans do? | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?currentpage=1&topic_id=62231 | ||
|
MoNKeYSpanKeR
United States2869 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6712/msho1.png) | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:50 HnR)hT wrote: This is getting really unscientific, but why would God "set evolution in motion" only to leave it to truly random (as opposed to apparently random) chance? Seems to me that either evolution was random, or God had a hand in it. To claim it was a mixture of both would be nonsensical. Similarly for aesthetic reasons I can't fathom the notion that evolution is random and pointless and that God exists at the same time. Seems like a complete waste of the ultimate hypothesis edit: by consciousness I mean the subjective experience of being conscious, what philosophers call "qualia". Haha now you tell god how to create intelligent life with style? Get a grip on yourself lol. Do you realize that a lot of fine-tuning is necessary, so that the laws governing the universe allow the formation and evolution of life in it? And why should evolution be pointless because it is dependent on random chance? | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
| ||
|
HaXxorIzed
Australia8434 Posts
| ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
| ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 09 2007 15:42 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: In that case, why should we believe that humans are any different? Perhaps I haven't articulated my argument sufficiently well. What I'm saying above applies to humans as well. Just as in the case with higher animals, we believe that other humans are conscious for reasons that are non-scientific. What if we are simply exhibiting extremely complicated behavioral adaptations that they developed because it was advantageous to survival? Either way though if you look up the definition that you provided for conciousness, the definition includes an "awareness of self". Animals and humans have demonstrated this so you MUST, despite any other philosophical arguments admit that we at least share this. Ok. It looks like we aren't quite on the same wavelength. The argument I've been trying to make is that it is not possible to demonstrate self-awareness, the fact that you have subjective experiences and streams of consciousness, to someone outside of yourself. You cannot infer consciousness simply from behavior, since all animal behavior, including human behavior, can in principle be explained in purely physical terms. This also pertains to your statement below that higher animals are known to "calculate and make decisions for personal gain". You can explain such behavior biologically - in terms of the adaptations of the organ of the brain to make ever more sophisticated and varied computations in response to an ever more widely-varying and finely distinguished set of stimuli, due to a selective pressure to respond a certain way to a certain situation. For example, everything humans do can be explained by extraordinarily complex adaptations of the brain to improve reproductive success. Here is an example of what I mean. Note how the article pays lip service to consciousness because, well, everyone knows that they possess it, but that none of the evolutionary explanations offered really have any use for consciousness to begin with. On the other hand, you can also explain all behavior physically, as a macroscopically deterministic sequence of chemical reactions. Again, the only reason we believe in consciousness is because we ourselves know that we are self-aware. What IS this mysterious thing you call a "mind"? I see no reason to seperate the brain and the mind. I have no patience for statements of this type. The brain is just a complex organ; the mind contains the totality of subjective experiences, thoughts, perceptions and emotions that make up who we are. Anybody who says that brain = mind is playing little semantic games and denying the obvious. And unfortunately, a lot of philosophers and the vast majority of life scientists are in this category. Why is there self-awareness in the universe at all? I could take the simple way out and say this: If there wasn't, we wouldn't be asking the question in the first place;) That's a common retort made by opponents of the anthropic principle, but it misses the mark for the following simple reason. In general you're responding to "Why 'A'?" by "If not 'A' then not 'B' and 'B' is true". The second statement can only be formally used to prove that 'A' is true - it doesn't explain 'A'. But in this case the question presupposes the truth of 'A' so the response is moot. Another possible explanation is, it's advantageous for survival to have self awareness. It provides the basis for logical thought to be employed for personal gain. Without it you do not have logical thought, you simply have biological response. Humans, primates, dolphins, and pigs have all demonstrated, through laboratory testing, the ability to calculate and make decesions for personal gain. Those decesions were of course based off a biological response (the desire for food in most cases) but the fact that they demonstrated a calculative thought process is in itself remarkable. But again, is logical thought in higher animals ultimately a biological phenomenon or isn't it? If it is, then there is no need to resort to consciousness in order to give the most parsimonious explanation of animal behavior, however complicated - including human behavior (Occam's razor and all that...). Put another way, if logical thought and self-interested behavior can be explained biologically and/or mechanistically, then it is not at all evident that it's "advantageous for survival to have self-awareness". But if it's not biological then what is it? What does it even mean for it to not be biological? And if it's not biological then how could it have evolved by natural selection? In this case we're back to square one: evolution can't explain consciousness. The real reason our scientific picture of the world is so far from being complete (and I completely agree with you on that point) is because we understand so little about our own brain and how it works. Your arguement is essentially a philosophical one. It is not limited to human/animals but to thought in general. Is thought simply a biological response encoded in our DNA, or is it something more? The answer is basically impossible to prove with science because our scope is limited. We cannot step outside ourselves and find an answer. | ||
vGl-CoW
Belgium8305 Posts
On November 09 2007 22:25 HnR)hT wrote: Why do you think consciousness has to have a reason of existence? Evolution is about fitness, not necessity. This means that traits that aren't being helpful in your survival, but aren't weighing you down either, can stick around simply because they're not influential. In this light, consciousness can be seen as a synergy of sorts, that at one point came to be through sufficient complexity of the brain. The brain itself, then, was vital to survival as a processing center to appropriately react to stimuli, while consciousness is more of an extraneous bonus allowing the individual to perceive the self. Of course, your argument is an epistemological one, and you are correct in stating that we can never prove the consciousness of another being other than ourselves. While it is indeed impossible to prove, I think we can nevertheless be "as sure as we can be" that consciousness exists at least in other humans. All in all, I don't think I understand the relevance to the discussion at hand, though. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 09 2007 22:50 vGl-CoW wrote: Why do you think consciousness has to have a reason of existence? Evolution is about fitness, not necessity. This means that traits that aren't being helpful in your survival, but aren't weighing you down either, can stick around simply because they're not influential. In this light, consciousness can be seen as a synergy of sorts, that at one point came to be through sufficient complexity of the brain. The brain itself, then, was vital to survival as a processing center to appropriately react to stimuli, while consciousness is more of an extraneous bonus allowing the individual to perceive the self. Of course, your argument is an epistemological one, and you are correct in stating that we can never prove the consciousness of another being other than ourselves. While it is indeed impossible to prove, I think we can nevertheless be "as sure as we can be" that consciousness exists at least in other humans. All in all, I don't think I understand the relevance to the discussion at hand, though. If you grant that consciousness exists and consciousness is real, then it is a good indicator that the current evolutionary picture is flawed. Let me try to explain. Consider a thought experiment: You discover a window to parallel universe which allows you to observe everything that happens but not be able to influence anything. This universe is very similar to our own with its own physical laws. Let's also say you can travel in space but not in time in a manner consistent with that universe's spatio-temporal structure - essentially you can't go back in time at will. You use clues from what you observe to construct a scientific theory explaining phenomena in that universe: its own laws of physics, its own chemistry, etc. Now say you discover an Earth-like planet populated by a human-like species. Your goal is to come up with a life science for that universe explaining nature and the origin of life on that planet. After a lot of hard work observing and making deductions, educated guesses followed by more observations (and so on), you come up with something very similar to the actual evolution theory, complete with detailed molecular pictures of how organs work, how DNA replicates, etc. Now answer this question: is life on that planet conscious? Your theory, like current evolutionary theory, doesn't rely on the "consciousness hypothesis" to adequately describe and explain everything that goes on, and you have no way of directly checking whether this is the case. The bottom line is that externally there is no way to distinguish sentient life from mindless biomechanical automata. Science endeavors to explain the world as accurately as possible as it is. But your theory for all it's worth can't explain a pretty fundamental question: it cannot, even in principle, distinguish between sentient and non-sentient forms of life. If you were a good scientist you would sooner take the more economical view that the creatures on the planet you observed are just mindless drones, no matter how life-like and impressive their civilization is and no matter what meaning they appear to endow themselves with. No matter how detailed your physical picture of the brain at every stage in its evolution, you can never pinpoint a precise moment and say "aha, this is where consciousness must've began". If you did, you would be kidding yourself since a)complexity in itself doesn't entail consciousness and b)behavior can be explained without resorting to the consciousness hypothesis. Why is all this, then, a major problem for the evolution program? Take an analogy from astrophysics. Suppose that some time in the future, maybe in 50 years, our leading theory on the evolution of the universe is so detailed that we have a clear working picture of when and how every particle appeared and how galaxies and planets and galactic superclusters came into being, and that everything fits together extremely neatly to give a highly plausible model for nearly everything in astrophysics. But then suppose that suddenly someone discovers a completely new kind astrophysical phenomenon or object that, while it doesn't violate the known laws of physics in an obvious way, is completely out of place in the current model of the universe. Obviously scientists would then have to modify the model to account for the new type of phenomenon. But now suppose that, 150 years after this major discovery, the leading model of the universe is still in a nearly-unchanged state such that it is equally compatible with both the existence and the non-existence of the new phenomenon. If scientists were to abandon trying to change the leading theory on the grounds of its compatibility with the new phenomenon even though they don't have a good picture of how it came about and how it relates to everything else, then they would no longer deserve to be called scientists. If minor tweaks in the leading theory are insufficient to provide a satisfactory account of the new phenomenon, the courageous and right thing to do would be to seek a radical shift in some fundamental and till-then unquestioned assumption of the theory. Good scientific theories don't remain agnostic on any relevant bit of observational evidence; a theory purporting to explain the whole of life cannot take a well-known property of life like consciousness as "brute fact" without seeking to incorporate it into a holistic picture. In practice, scientists take one of two ways out of this conundrum. One is to play semantic games by insisting that consciousness and qualia is numerically identical to physical processes; the other is to profess faith in the idea that consciousness will somehow be explained eventually if we just continue to pursue the current course we are on, a proposition rather dubious on its face. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
GSL Code S
GuMiho vs Bunny
ByuN vs SHIN
Road to EWC
Online Event
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
