| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
2. Evolution deals with the natural, not the metaphysical. 3. Consciousness has to be a product of gradual evolution. Makes sense to me. Unless you deny this and assume the opposite. Consciousness is not a natural process and therefore is best explained by metaphysics. | ||
|
Waves
Australia185 Posts
From the point of view of the Theory of Evolution, consciousness is a trait that, once developed, is likely to be highly advantageous. There's nothing inconsistent or outside the theory about that. It's also not necessary to develop human-level consciousness in order to reap the benefits. Just as with vision, there are many intermediate steps along the way that provide an advantage. You don't have to be Einstein to get ahead. You only have to be smarter than whatever you're competing against. It seems self-evident to me that our ability as humans to have so much control over our environment has lead directly to our success as species. No other top-level predator/omnivore has ever reached a population of 6 billion. It also seems self-evident that our ability to manipulate our environment stems from consciousness, and the enhanced understanding and communication it delivers. As far as I can tell, the thing about consciousness that HnR)hT thinks hasn't been explained by the Theory of Evolution isn't something the Theory of Evolution is intended to explain. It's outside the scope. It would be like complaining that the Theory of Evolution didn't explain the way water flows across rocks. That's explained by the Theory of Fluid Dynamics (or whatever). | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 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... In 'disproving' evolution (which apparently to him is just about the genesis of life, universe, chemicals, etc) he invoked the first and second laws of thermodynamics. He used the first to state that the Big Bang could not have happened because energy was created out of nothing... That is not true because the potential energy was all contained before so the acual energy of the universe is at the expense of that potential energy. Then he went on the classical entropy argument. He totally bulshitted his way through that one (how can one not?). First lets start with that entropy is not exculsively a measure of disorder which he totally didn't mention. But granted it usually is. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that he knows little science, 90% of his points--after you remove the dress up--come down to that two scientists (often not even specializing in evolution) disagree therefore it can't be true. In any case, his entropy argument is flawed when we recognize that the planet Earth is an open system. That's where it ends. Proving it for open systems under very certain conditions means nothing unless the Earth is one such system, so that was just a useless line of text. The "information" argument is also bullshit. It's just obviously false. Weather patterns, for example, are not designed and yet they're complex. Various crystallization patterns occur without any kind of information. You can make something like the Mandlebrot Set without actually designing its form. Energy alone is enough to create complexity. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On November 10 2007 11:59 Waves wrote: A fundamental assumption that's at issue here is that HnR)hT sees consciousness as something special and "other" in a way that most of the people arguing against him/her don't. From the point of view of the Theory of Evolution, consciousness is a trait that, once developed, is likely to be highly advantageous. There's nothing inconsistent or outside the theory about that. It's also not necessary to develop human-level consciousness in order to reap the benefits. Just as with vision, there are many intermediate steps along the way that provide an advantage. You don't have to be Einstein to get ahead. You only have to be smarter than whatever you're competing against. It seems self-evident to me that our ability as humans to have so much control over our environment has lead directly to our success as species. No other top-level predator/omnivore has ever reached a population of 6 billion. It also seems self-evident that our ability to manipulate our environment stems from consciousness, and the enhanced understanding and communication it delivers. As far as I can tell, the thing about consciousness that HnR)hT thinks hasn't been explained by the Theory of Evolution isn't something the Theory of Evolution is intended to explain. It's outside the scope. It would be like complaining that the Theory of Evolution didn't explain the way water flows across rocks. That's explained by the Theory of Fluid Dynamics (or whatever). You're failing to address something very important. There is no evidence that there any benefits to consciousness. Whether organisms experience what they are, or just go through the motions... objectively there is no difference, at least that science has shown.. In fact, if I were to become a theistic man, the rise of consciousness would be the reason. | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
Well, I guess it depends on the definition of consciousness. I'm thinking of abilities like foresight, long-term planning, etc. and to me they seem obviously beneficial. And you have to admit that consciousness goes hand-in-hand with having the best animal body on Earth for tool creation and use. The two traits together are far greater than the sum of each alone. There's also the fact that the current most dominant species on Earth, by far, has conscious thought  . | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On November 10 2007 16:07 travis wrote: Why is consciousness required for foresight, or for long-term planning, etc? Yeah. I don´t think so. Why should animals not be conscious? Several species can recognize themselves in mirrors. To be honest I think conciousness is not what makes us unique on this planet, but other traits like language or our dexterous hands. | ||
|
ManBearPig
Belgium207 Posts
- Why can't the theory of evolution explain consciousness? Well, an evolutionary explanation goes as follows: At some point, some form of consciousness arose, it entailed some evolutionary advantage, and it grew bigger and bigger through evolution. Or, alternatively, as some people have mentioned already: it does not present any evolutionary advantage, it is merely a side-effect of having a large brain, simply put. Why is this a very unsatisfactory view of consciousness? Well, it is rather unlikely that something as complex and important as consciousness would be a mere side-effect, and would in itself have no effect on the survival of an individual/species. Also, this does not present an explanation. Neither does the above, because there are two major problems about consciousness; - Why would brain-activity, all of a sudden, start to correlate with consciousness, where it did not do so before? - (This one will probably be solved sooner or later) Why would some parts of the brain correlate with consciousness, whereas other parts do not You can see how evolution offers no explanation for especially the first problem. Even if you could convincingly offer an evolutionary advantage for consciousness (there is currently no consensus about this), you would still not have explained why it is there. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On November 11 2007 00:11 ManBearPig wrote: - Why would brain-activity, all of a sudden, start to correlate with consciousness, where it did not do so before? Just like something as complex as the eye didn´t evolve "all of a sudden", the consciousness didn´t evolve all of a sudden. I believe many intellectual capabilities, which we are so proud of in our self-glorification, are already there in some animals on a basic level. I think our new abilities to talk and to manipulate things made the evolution of the brain and the intellect much more efficient. Some sort of "cultural" or "social" evolution could start. Soon an individual, who couldnt express himself properly or wasn´t able to fulfill basic technical tasks was excluded from reproduction. You see that oh so often in the history of evolution, for a long time nothing major happened and then some small new trait opened up a whole new world of possibilities to evolve into. | ||
vGl-CoW
Belgium8305 Posts
On November 11 2007 02:56 Maenander wrote: Just like something as complex as the eye didn´t evolve "all of a sudden", the consciousness didn´t evolve all of a sudden. I believe many intellectual capabilities, which we are so proud of in our self-glorification, are already there in some animals on a basic level. I think our new abilities to talk and to manipulate things made the evolution of the brain and the intellect much more efficient. Some sort of "cultural" or "social" evolution could start. Soon an individual, who couldnt express himself properly or wasn´t able to fulfill basic technical tasks was excluded from reproduction. You see that oh so often in the history of evolution, for a long time nothing major happened and then some small new trait opened up a whole new world of possibilities to evolve into. 1) There is a big difference between the eye and consciousness. Your point is definitely valid for complex organs, such as the eye, but consciousness is a completely different thing. Even if it were possible for consciousness to evolve bit by bit, which I think isn't possible because of what consciousness is (think about it; what would a 'little bit of consciousness' be like?), then you still would have no answer to the question as to why that little bit of consciousness suddenly arose. 2) You're ignoring a point that's already been made by travis, namely the difficulty of connecting an evolutionary advantage to consciousness. Why would consciousness raise your level of intellect? Why would consciousness offer any advantage that you wouldn't have if you were the exact same human with the same brain but without consciousness? As it is very difficult, to say the least, to imagine a human being without consciousness, this question pops up every time you mention a possible evolutionary advantage. Edit: I accidentally used Cow's account, was supposed to use ManBearPig (yes I know him irl, he is in fact my brother. Hail me for my superior DNA.) | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
This video feels relevant to the discussion =) | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
| ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On November 11 2007 03:25 vGl-CoW wrote: 1) There is a big difference between the eye and consciousness. Your point is definitely valid for complex organs, such as the eye, but consciousness is a completely different thing. Even if it were possible for consciousness to evolve bit by bit, which I think isn\'t possible because of what consciousness is (think about it; what would a \'little bit of consciousness\' be like?), then you still would have no answer to the question as to why that little bit of consciousness suddenly arose. 2) You\'re ignoring a point that\'s already been made by travis, namely the difficulty of connecting an evolutionary advantage to consciousness. Why would consciousness raise your level of intellect? Why would consciousness offer any advantage that you wouldn\'t have if you were the exact same human with the same brain but without consciousness? As it is very difficult, to say the least, to imagine a human being without consciousness, this question pops up every time you mention a possible evolutionary advantage. Edit: I accidentally used Cow\'s account, was supposed to use ManBearPig (yes I know him irl, he is in fact my brother. Hail me for my superior DNA.) Ok I´ll address point 2. In my humble opinion the roots of conciousness lie in the need for evaluating situations. Animals have a lot of inborn reflexes, as do we. Now in some situations to follow an inborn reflex can be contra-productive. So you have to have a system, analyzing incoming information, that does evaluate them and chooses the proper answer, the inborn reflex of choice in this situation. This clearly gives an advantage and is the starting point for the evolution of the conciousness. Think of it, our conciousness is similar to the desktop on your computer. You can follow the programs that run on it, watch their status, choose which program to start or to terminate, while not even understanding the complex code behind the single programs. Or do you really know what happens in your brain all the time? While solving complex mathematical problems or playing fast-paced sports, the conciousness is more of a bystander. And to get a grip on emotions seems difficult for it. In this analogy, we may have Windows Vista, but a lot of animals still run on DOS or even more basic things. Although maybe some others have Windows3.1 already | ||
|
Wonders
Australia753 Posts
On November 11 2007 03:25 vGl-CoW wrote: Even if it were possible for consciousness to evolve bit by bit, which I think isn't possible because of what consciousness is (think about it; what would a 'little bit of consciousness' be like?), then you still would have no answer to the question as to why that little bit of consciousness suddenly arose. A "little bit of consciousness" would be like being asleep or very drunk. I am sure that there is no a general consensus among biologists about the evolutionary explanation for consciousness. There doesn't have to be an evolutionary advantage to everything, in particular for consciousness. There's always the possibly that it arose as a kind of emergent phenomenon after a long period of animals developing progressively more advanced thought processes. If you formulate the evolutionary problem of consciousness in this way then it isn't something that you move towards in order to gain more intelligence, just something contingent arising out of the intelligence that you've already gained. The problem is that consciousness isn't even very well defined. It's intuitively obvious what it is, but so far there's no set of 'physical conditions' that generate it. This article is really helpful if you're looking for more about consciousness: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Consciousness/Intro.htm This is the introduction of a book of Susan Blackmore's called Consciousness: an Introduction. It's a bit long but the gist of it is that consciousness isn't a single thing but just the sum of a lot of workings in the brain. | ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
reading so many papers gives me a headache | ||
|
triangle
United States3803 Posts
In that case many intelligent animals such as ravens and chimpanzees have "consciousness". | ||
|
ManBearPig
Belgium207 Posts
On November 11 2007 19:57 Maenander wrote: Ok I´ll address point 2. In my humble opinion the roots of conciousness lie in the need for evaluating situations. Animals have a lot of inborn reflexes, as do we. Now in some situations to follow an inborn reflex can be contra-productive. So you have to have a system, analyzing incoming information, that does evaluate them and chooses the proper answer, the inborn reflex of choice in this situation. This clearly gives an advantage and is the starting point for the evolution of the conciousness. Think of it, our conciousness is similar to the desktop on your computer. You can follow the programs that run on it, watch their status, choose which program to start or to terminate, while not even understanding the complex code behind the single programs. Or do you really know what happens in your brain all the time? While solving complex mathematical problems or playing fast-paced sports, the conciousness is more of a bystander. And to get a grip on emotions seems difficult for it. In this analogy, we may have Windows Vista, but a lot of animals still run on DOS or even more basic things. Although maybe some others have Windows3.1 already The point i was making is that you can't really be sure that consciousness would be a must for a particular evolutionary advantage. Who is to say that consciousness is required for higher intelligence? Don't get me wrong, I think that consciousness probably did have an evolutionary advantage, all I'm saying is that you can only speculate about this, because we don't know why consciousness would be necessary in the first place. | ||
|
ManBearPig
Belgium207 Posts
On November 11 2007 21:14 Wonders wrote: A "little bit of consciousness" would be like being asleep or very drunk. I am sure that there is no a general consensus among biologists about the evolutionary explanation for consciousness. There doesn't have to be an evolutionary advantage to everything, in particular for consciousness. There's always the possibly that it arose as a kind of emergent phenomenon after a long period of animals developing progressively more advanced thought processes. If you formulate the evolutionary problem of consciousness in this way then it isn't something that you move towards in order to gain more intelligence, just something contingent arising out of the intelligence that you've already gained. The problem is that consciousness isn't even very well defined. It's intuitively obvious what it is, but so far there's no set of 'physical conditions' that generate it. This article is really helpful if you're looking for more about consciousness: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Consciousness/Intro.htm This is the introduction of a book of Susan Blackmore's called Consciousness: an Introduction. It's a bit long but the gist of it is that consciousness isn't a single thing but just the sum of a lot of workings in the brain. Actually, I know about Susan Blackmore's book, it is indeed a very good introduction (I study philosophy, had some philosophy of consciousness in an epistemology course). Saying that a little bit of consciousness would be like being asleep or very drunk is just guessing, based on your own experience of consciousness. As I mentioned earlier, explaining consciousness as a side-effect of brain development is rather unsatisfactory because it is such a marvelous phenomenon. It's hard to imagine that it would have no effect on the survival of an individual/species. Of course, this is still a possibility. More importantly, you wouldn't explain why consciousness would start correlating with certain brain activity where it didn't before (as I mentioned earlier). So even if you would be right about this, you would just have said 'it went something like this' and not why. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 10 2007 11:28 HeadBangaa wrote: HnR)ht: Since consciousness exists, it is evidently a result of evolution. It's existence proves that it is a result of evolution. .. this is the circular thought process you're stacked against; my suggestion is to not bother with that, and focus on fundamental assumptions. That's a nice straw man that you have constructed. | ||
|
naventus
United States1337 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs Barracks
EffOrt vs Rush
Monday Night Weeklies
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Alone
Queen vs Bisu
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Cure vs SHIN
Reynor vs Zoun
RSL Revival
Classic vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs Maru
Online Event
BSL Team Wars
Team Bonyth vs Team Dewalt
BSL Team Wars
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
