WASHINGTON - Scientists have traced the origin of eyes back to a transparent blob of living jelly floating in the sea about 600 million years ago.
That creature, the distance ancestor of a modern freshwater animal known as a hydra, could only distinguish light from dark.
But that was such an advantage that it was passed on from generation to generation of the hydra's cousins and their myriad descendants. It was the precursor of the wildly different, ever more complex eyes of fish, ants, flies, giraffes, and people.
The hydra work was reported last month in the journal PLoS ONE by biologists David Plachetzki and Todd Oakley, of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
It helps solve one of the puzzles of Darwinian evolution, the process by which a complex organ such as an eye could arise by random genetic mutations and natural selection.
"These results are significant in advancing our understanding of the early evolution of sight in animals," said Jerry Cook, a program director at the National Science Foundation, which financed the work.
In their research, Oakley and Plachetzki discovered that a gene, opsin -- after the Greek word "ops," meaning "eye" -- exists in hydras but not in sponges, an even more primitive animal.
The scientists calculated that the opsin genes appeared about 600 million years ago, because that's when the evolutionary branch that led to modern hydras split from the line that led to sponges.
Opsin genes direct the production of light-sensitive proteins, also called opsins, that coat the surface of a hydra, especially around the mouth. The opsin proteins would help these simple animals tell night from day and perhaps help them find food.
"Hydra probably uses its light sensitivity to find prey," Oakley said.
According to Oakley, the opsin proteins must have evolved from earlier "signaling" proteins that send chemical messages to other proteins. Signaling proteins exist in all living creatures, from single-celled bacteria to humans.
Other biologists commended Oakley's work. "It makes sense that oceangoing animals such as [the hydra's ancestors] would use light detection to orient themselves or regular a body clock," said Sean Carroll, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison
That is the full text of the article, re-typed by me. If there are errors in it, it was probably my mistake when typing it up.
<hr>
Anyway, I thought it was pretty neat that scientists are tracking down the origin of such complex things as eyes. I wonder what other amazing things will be discovered in the future about the past . It's awesome also because hopefully over time we can get rid of some of the creationist bullshit about the difficulty of evolving something like an eye.
Of course the main reason I actually posted the article here rather than just seeing it in the paper and remarking "cool!" to myself was... <img src='http://teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/Zicon_small.gif'>
<hr>
Oh, and yes, the journal really is called PLoS ONE, that wasn't some bizarre typo by me.
I don't understand the link between this thing and our eyes (and all other animals yes)..Its a combination of mutliples evolutions or it means this thing was the origin of everything? (the "blob" evolved in fish and so..)
It helps solve one of the puzzles of Darwinian evolution, the process by which a complex organ such as an eye could arise by random genetic mutations and natural selection.
I dont see how finding an extinct creature that could see light from dark explains the process of the evolution of the eye. The whole problem that people have with the evolution of the eye is that it is so amazingly complex, and there are many peices to the eye that would not evolve on their own; the eye would have to evolve all at once in order for it to work.
So this just says: hey heres something that can sense light and dark, and 600 million years later BAM! we got eyes! Its SCIENCE!!!
This isn't to say I don't beleive in evolution (I do believe to some extent). But they are leaving out many important steps in the evolution of the eye (i.e. the part where we actually evolve one).
It helps solve one of the puzzles of Darwinian evolution, the process by which a complex organ such as an eye could arise by random genetic mutations and natural selection.
I dont see how finding an extinct creature that could see light from dark explains the process of the evolution of the eye. The whole problem that people have with the evolution of the eye is that it is so amazingly complex, and there are many peices to the eye that would not evolve on their own; the eye would have to evolve all at once in order for it to work.
So this just says: hey heres something that can sense light and dark, and 600 million years later BAM! we got eyes! Its SCIENCE!!!
This isn't to say I don't beleive in evolution (I do believe to some extent). But they are leaving out many important steps in the evolution of the eye (i.e. the part where we actually evolve one).
Wow, how can you miss such a simple point? The "hydra" could see without a complex eye, showing that rudimentary sight was possible with only light-sensitive proteins.
So your saying because we haven't found every single mutation and step along the 600 million years, it must have just magically formed an eye? - obviously not. The simple eye will randomly mutate, and maybe that mutation will help it to see better, thus allowing it to survive. In a huge number of very small steps, the complex eye we have today formed, and just because we haven't documented what each step is, that doesn't disprove anything.
It's the same thing with all creationists, they lack a basic understanding of how evolution works.
It helps solve one of the puzzles of Darwinian evolution, the process by which a complex organ such as an eye could arise by random genetic mutations and natural selection.
I dont see how finding an extinct creature that could see light from dark explains the process of the evolution of the eye. The whole problem that people have with the evolution of the eye is that it is so amazingly complex, and there are many peices to the eye that would not evolve on their own; the eye would have to evolve all at once in order for it to work.
So this just says: hey heres something that can sense light and dark, and 600 million years later BAM! we got eyes! Its SCIENCE!!!
This isn't to say I don't beleive in evolution (I do believe to some extent). But they are leaving out many important steps in the evolution of the eye (i.e. the part where we actually evolve one).
On November 09 2007 07:07 Steelflight-Rx wrote: The whole problem that people have with the evolution of the eye is that it is so amazingly complex, and there are many peices to the eye that would not evolve on their own; the eye would have to evolve all at once in order for it to work.
Except that here you have that very thing. A piece of modern eyes that is evolving without the full eye, and being so useful that it sticks around and spreads like crazy.
There's an expression that runs: "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." The thing about eyes is that you only have to see better than everything else can see and you have an advantage. It doesn't have to give you vision in the sense we think of it today. It just gets better and better gradually, in tiny little steps, and then you end up with an eye.
I'm sure that now they've found this end of the "string", they'll be able to follow it and trace the evolution of other components of modern eyes as well.
It was the same with legs, and spines, and many other features we ended up with in modern-day land animals, including humans. They started off really basic, and not obviously useful compared to what we have now, but back then they were a big deal to the creatures that had them.
I just wanted to second how wrong Steelflight-RX is. And steelflight, if you're going to dismiss the biologists work, you should at least know exactly what they did. One breif news paper article is NOT going to tell you the scope of their research. You need to actually read the scientific paper they published before you can say "So this just says: hey heres something that can sense light and dark, and 600 million years later BAM! we got eyes! Its SCIENCE!!!" Do you really think you can get the full story from a simple newspaper article? You should know better than that.
Also I wanted to add: unfortunately creationists will dismiss the research or just ignore it completely and continue to use the human eye as "proof against evolution." Sad=/
It doesn't matter if the human eye will ever be understood. We don't need to ever understand how evolution could create an eye to believe it over other simply lesser theories. If i was to turn to the idea that god must've created the eye if it was proven that evolution didn't, tell me what logic i would be following? I'd be following the logic that god having created the eye is a reasonable assumption, because there is no better explanation, which might then lead me to search out god. In a world where evolution is a theory without an as of yet perfect array of evidence to back it up, but is still highly plausible, and scientifically there is no reason to believe god exists, that is the same reason evolutionists believe what they do.
I think i might rather read about science articles like this from a scientific magazine so that i know it's not just utter crap on a popular theme, without as necessarily reading the sources and stuff. Seatle times publishes a hugely vague article claiming that the eye's origins have been traced, according to one some guy scientist?
On November 09 2007 09:15 Rev0lution wrote: who says evolution makes you not believe in god? I have tons of christian friends who believe in evolution.
people can say whatever crap comes to their heads, but this does not make the things they say right.
for example: a) you need wings to fly. b) people can't fly because they don't have wings c)someone comes and tells you "I'm a human, but I can fly"
the example kind of sucks, but I hope you get my point.
haha, go to around 23:00 minutes in it says "Evolution and Origin of the eye is likely to remain unsolved!"
~Ouch
I dont see any proof for their claims about the hydra, all just speculation. i will not post anymore im starting to get tired about this discussions. glhf 8/
haha, go to around 23:00 minutes in it says "Evolution and Origin of the eye is likely to remain unsolved!"
~Ouch
I dont see any proof for their claims about the hydra, all just speculation. i will not post anymore im starting to get tired about this discussions. glhf 8/
Try reading their paper then. Of course you won't see any proof for their claims if you don't even look.
This is for those who actually want to read it. Although I must warn you if you arent very framiliar with biology/organic chemistry it's a very tough read
Oh and TesisMech,I'd hate to be condescending (ok not that much ) but seeing as you flat out deny the existance of evolution I'm pretty sure it will be way over your head. However, maybe you could take a look at the enormous complexity of the work they are doing and realize that its far more than simply "specuation". Perhaps you are unaware of the scentific method? Its actually the exact opposite of speculation. If you insist on being ignorant, at least keep quiet about it.
Hydra. They are really fun creatures to feed, I had a jarfull once upon a time, it was an interesting experience.
Really? How do you take care of them? They're probably different from taking care of fish right? I totally want to have a jar of hydras, so whenever my friends piss me off in SC I can open a can of Hydra on their ass, so to speak.
ive read some stuff on evolution...came across this http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.html back a few months ago...it was a very lengthy read, but well worth it...it basically discusses (through science and logic) why evolution is not true...some impressive arguments by my standards (duno if it will be the same for those of you who read it). i must say though, the arguments there were very convincing...
On November 09 2007 12:36 unknown.sam wrote: ive read some stuff on evolution...came across this http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.html back a few months ago...it was a very lengthy read, but well worth it...it basically discusses (through science and logic) why evolution is not true...some impressive arguments by my standards (duno if it will be the same for those of you who read it). i must say though, the arguments there were very convincing...
Disgusting. For god's sake, take some basic college level biology and maybe gain enough knowledge to distinguish pure bullshit from "impressive arguments". The arguments were "convincing" because you don't know shit about the subject. If you'd like to cite a specific example of an argument that impressed you, i'd be happy to rip it apart for you. But I won't bother otherwise. There's far too much bullshit to shovel through.
Here's an except from the writing you linked, this is their answer to "What is Evolution?" The question of evolution, per se, comes in many shapes and definitions. In its most basic form, it is the brainchild of Charles Darwin. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin postulated that all living creatures and, by extension, matter itself had come from previous, simpler substances. The example you may have most often heard is that humans came from apes. It basically purports that life came about by accident—chance—and that there is no evidence of intelligent design.
This is completely incorrect. The author doesn't even know what evolution actually is. How could they hope to provide "impressive arguments" to disprove it when they don't even know what it is to begin with? Disgusting.
Here is the correct answer: 1. What is evolution?
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism's life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution.
This has been observed and repeated many times and is the basis for much of modern medicine and almost all of genetic research. Evolution is a fact. It's like debating neutons laws of physics or chemistry. We know it works like this because we have observed it. Many many times.
haha, go to around 23:00 minutes in it says "Evolution and Origin of the eye is likely to remain unsolved!"
~Ouch
I dont see any proof for their claims about the hydra, all just speculation. i will not post anymore im starting to get tired about this discussions. glhf 8/
Try reading their paper then. Of course you won't see any proof for their claims if you don't even look.
This is for those who actually want to read it. Although I must warn you if you arent very framiliar with biology/organic chemistry it's a very tough read
Oh and TesisMech,I'd hate to be condescending (ok not that much ) but seeing as you flat out deny the existance of evolution I'm pretty sure it will be way over your head. However, maybe you could take a look at the enormous complexity of the work they are doing and realize that its far more than simply "specuation". Perhaps you are unaware of the scentific method? Its actually the exact opposite of speculation. If you insist on being ignorant, at least keep quiet about it.
I dont think its the "exact opposite" scientific method is based on speculations.
On November 09 2007 12:36 unknown.sam wrote: ive read some stuff on evolution...came across this http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.html back a few months ago...it was a very lengthy read, but well worth it...it basically discusses (through science and logic) why evolution is not true...some impressive arguments by my standards (duno if it will be the same for those of you who read it). i must say though, the arguments there were very convincing...
I skimmed through some of it. With those kind of arguments you could probably disprove Calculus
I don't see how you can question evolution if you look at the facts with an open mind. If you really want God to be true you could probably bring yourself to believe some of these kind of arguments though.
haha, go to around 23:00 minutes in it says "Evolution and Origin of the eye is likely to remain unsolved!"
~Ouch
I dont see any proof for their claims about the hydra, all just speculation. i will not post anymore im starting to get tired about this discussions. glhf 8/
Try reading their paper then. Of course you won't see any proof for their claims if you don't even look.
This is for those who actually want to read it. Although I must warn you if you arent very framiliar with biology/organic chemistry it's a very tough read
Oh and TesisMech,I'd hate to be condescending (ok not that much ) but seeing as you flat out deny the existance of evolution I'm pretty sure it will be way over your head. However, maybe you could take a look at the enormous complexity of the work they are doing and realize that its far more than simply "specuation". Perhaps you are unaware of the scentific method? Its actually the exact opposite of speculation. If you insist on being ignorant, at least keep quiet about it.
I dont think its the "exact opposite" scientific method is based on speculations.
No its based on observable data that's tested and re tested. Speculation is only used to form a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested and retested. If it fails then the theory is revised or abandoned. Perhaps you need to retake your elementary school science courses.
On November 09 2007 12:36 unknown.sam wrote: ive read some stuff on evolution...came across this http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.html back a few months ago...it was a very lengthy read, but well worth it...it basically discusses (through science and logic) why evolution is not true...some impressive arguments by my standards (duno if it will be the same for those of you who read it). i must say though, the arguments there were very convincing...
I love how you go to a religious website to learn about evolution.
haha, go to around 23:00 minutes in it says "Evolution and Origin of the eye is likely to remain unsolved!"
~Ouch
I dont see any proof for their claims about the hydra, all just speculation. i will not post anymore im starting to get tired about this discussions. glhf 8/
Try reading their paper then. Of course you won't see any proof for their claims if you don't even look.
This is for those who actually want to read it. Although I must warn you if you arent very framiliar with biology/organic chemistry it's a very tough read
Oh and TesisMech,I'd hate to be condescending (ok not that much ) but seeing as you flat out deny the existance of evolution I'm pretty sure it will be way over your head. However, maybe you could take a look at the enormous complexity of the work they are doing and realize that its far more than simply "specuation". Perhaps you are unaware of the scentific method? Its actually the exact opposite of speculation. If you insist on being ignorant, at least keep quiet about it.
I dont think its the "exact opposite" scientific method is based on speculations.
No its based on observable data that's tested and re tested. Speculation is only used to form a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested and retested. If it fails then the theory is revised or abandoned. Perhaps you need to retake your elementary school science courses.
Then how can you apply succesfully the scientific method on hydra evolution without the experiment step?
haha, go to around 23:00 minutes in it says "Evolution and Origin of the eye is likely to remain unsolved!"
~Ouch
I dont see any proof for their claims about the hydra, all just speculation. i will not post anymore im starting to get tired about this discussions. glhf 8/
Try reading their paper then. Of course you won't see any proof for their claims if you don't even look.
This is for those who actually want to read it. Although I must warn you if you arent very framiliar with biology/organic chemistry it's a very tough read
Oh and TesisMech,I'd hate to be condescending (ok not that much ) but seeing as you flat out deny the existance of evolution I'm pretty sure it will be way over your head. However, maybe you could take a look at the enormous complexity of the work they are doing and realize that its far more than simply "specuation". Perhaps you are unaware of the scentific method? Its actually the exact opposite of speculation. If you insist on being ignorant, at least keep quiet about it.
I dont think its the "exact opposite" scientific method is based on speculations.
No its based on observable data that's tested and re tested. Speculation is only used to form a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested and retested. If it fails then the theory is revised or abandoned. Perhaps you need to retake your elementary school science courses.
Then how can you apply succesfully the scientific method on hydra evolution without the experiment step?
The paper the scientists published details all the experimentation done. I even gave you the link and told you to read it, or at least skim it to realize how clueless you are(call it a hunch). It says exactly what they did, the results they found and also provided references to simular experiments. All of which reached the same conclusion. Just because you're too stupid to know what they're talking about doesn't mean they based it on "speculation".
On November 09 2007 12:36 unknown.sam wrote: ive read some stuff on evolution...came across this http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.html back a few months ago...it was a very lengthy read, but well worth it...it basically discusses (through science and logic) why evolution is not true...some impressive arguments by my standards (duno if it will be the same for those of you who read it). i must say though, the arguments there were very convincing...
educate yourself please, the link you just posted is more rehashed creationist crap that has been shot down by scientist a million times. Go read the origin of species and come back for a meaningful discussion.
Here go read this, It seems you have very little understanding of what evolution is.
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.
On November 09 2007 09:15 Rev0lution wrote: who says evolution makes you not believe in god? I have tons of christian friends who believe in evolution.
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.
What would "explaining conciousness" entail exactly? And how are Darwinists "fooling themselves"? Darwinism does not in any way prevent religion from existing. The two can co-exist perfectly fine. Darwinism only directly conflicts with creationism. Not religious belief. It's really difficult to find the actual point of your post.
this is my first time reading a religion thread (i was lured because i didn't expect it to turn into one) and i'd like to remark on how embarrassingly stupid some people are
On November 09 2007 13:45 intrigue wrote: this is my first time reading a religion thread (i was lured because i didn't expect it to turn into one) and i'd like to remark on how embarrassingly stupid some people are
that's it
Like who!? Name names! And honestly you really shoulved expected it to turn into one Creationists have been using the eye as a counter to evolution forever now (of course they stole it right out of Darwins book...but hey, they aren't exactly smart )
Consciousness is very interesting, many philosophers think consciousness simply is our thoughts and makings of decisions that is going through our head, so that there really arn't nothing to explain. Dan Dennet has a great book called "understanding consciousness in humans and other animals" about some of these things. Tim Crane's "The mechanical mind" is also interesting.
edit:Hmmm I think Dennet's title on origninal language is "Consciousness explained"
The physics of conciousness is another one. Although it's not all that well written, the information presented is solid. It's really interesting to me that conciousness depends (of course its only a small part) upon a small electrical current for every thought and action we take.
I'm not religious myself, but I think "designing" the complex and subtle universal laws that lead to processes like evolution is much more impressive than designing things in a more direct sense. I think creationism rather devalues the idea of God.
Religion, reasonably defined, entails a belief that human life is more than just a hyper-complicated roundabout vehicle through which DNA replicates itself, and which only came to exist by random mutations. You can't be religious or even not flat-out nihilistic and agree with Darwinists that evolution explains everything.
Moreover, according to Darwinist worldview there is no obvious reason why there should be consciousness in the first place. The fact that it is logically impossible to demonstrate that animals other than yourself ARE conscious proves this. It may be, for all you know, that they are only reacting to stimuli in a mechanical, plant-like manner. Consciousness seems completely unnecessary to the functioning of life, no matter how complex, from the biological point of view.
On November 09 2007 14:02 Rev0lution wrote: It's really painful to watch creationist say evolution is not even a theory.
Scientist try and try hard to explain really difficult things in lay terms to the public and people just don't appreciate it.
Evolution is really difficult to understand. Just read that journal and you will be completely lost unless you have an undergrad in biology.
Ya it's sad really. I'm a biology major, and the paper was still difficult to follow at some points. People like TesisMech(read as: people who believe in creationism) can never hope to even begin to grasp it because they are unwilling to gain the scientific knowledge necessary to do so(note: I'm not implying that people who believe in creationism are too stupid to understand the concepts, they are simply unwilling to learn). I truly believe that if creationists were aware of the full body of scientific knowledge they would absolutely not believe creationism to be possible. If only...=/
On November 09 2007 14:02 Rev0lution wrote: It's really painful to watch creationist say evolution is not even a theory.
Scientist try and try hard to explain really difficult things in lay terms to the public and people just don't appreciate it.
Evolution is really difficult to understand. Just read that journal and you will be completely lost unless you have an undergrad in biology.
I think it's really easy to understand the basic principles, and once you do, everything in nature fits in with that explanation so well. Almost any question you can ask about living organisms can be answered by arguments from evolution.
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.
In that case, religion can be true... as long as the religion is Buddhism.
On November 09 2007 14:07 HnR)hT wrote: Religion, reasonably defined, entails a belief that human life is more than just a hyper-complicated roundabout vehicle through which DNA replicates itself, and which only came to exist by random mutations. You can't be religious or even not flat-out nihilistic and agree with Darwinists that evolution explains everything.
Moreover, according to Darwinist worldview there is no obvious reason why there should be consciousness in the first place. The fact that it is logically impossible to demonstrate that animals other than yourself ARE conscious proves this. It may be, for all you know, that they are only reacting to stimuli in a mechanical, plant-like manner. Consciousness seems completely unnecessary to the functioning of life, no matter how complex, from the biological point of view.
Most darwinists don't belive that evolution explains everything. It simply offers an explanation for the developement of life on earth. The meaning behind life is left to religion. Science only explains how/what/where/when. It does not explain why. This is the role of religion. As you may have noticed from this thread, I emphatically believe in evolution. However, I do not deny the possibility that god set the phenomenon of evolution in motion. Or that god is responsible for the meaning in our lives. Evolution merely describes the method for our existance. Not the cause.
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.
HeadBangaa, what basis do you have for your claim that evolution needs more substantiation? Thousands of biologists, who work with these things for a living are in agreement about evolution, I don't see what makes you question them since you are no biologist.
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.
How exactly, can an intelligent person deny macro evolution as the explanation for species diversity? It's much more difficult than you might think. If you can do it here, I would commend you. There is no mob mentality, but yes there is name calling, a simple side effect of passionate debate.
As to your second point, I completely disagree. Perhaps you did not read the actual paper they published? Essentially the scientists have found a gene in the hydra that is also found in humans that is the basic gene for absorbing and recognizing photons.
Your last sentence would be true, if it weren't for the two things: Fossils and carbon dating. That pretty much destroys your last statement. It is not an assumption. It's based on evidence.
Once again I'd love to see you deny macro evolution with a logically scientific basis,but you must admit that micro-evolution is, of course, undeniable. Oh and READ THE PAPER. These scientists are not simply pulling theories out of their asses. They are examining the genes on a molecular level and noticing simularities in the way they interact with proteins used to detect photons. There is no circular logic being employed here. I await your reply.
On November 09 2007 14:16 HeadBangaa wrote: 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.
Your arrogance and the speed with which you dismiss a Theory which has undergone more scrutiny than any other in the history of science and has still remained the accepted Theory are what baffle me.
On November 09 2007 14:07 HnR)hT wrote: Religion, reasonably defined, entails a belief that human life is more than just a hyper-complicated roundabout vehicle through which DNA replicates itself, and which only came to exist by random mutations. You can't be religious or even not flat-out nihilistic and agree with Darwinists that evolution explains everything.
Moreover, according to Darwinist worldview there is no obvious reason why there should be consciousness in the first place. The fact that it is logically impossible to demonstrate that animals other than yourself ARE conscious proves this. It may be, for all you know, that they are only reacting to stimuli in a mechanical, plant-like manner. Consciousness seems completely unnecessary to the functioning of life, no matter how complex, from the biological point of view.
Most darwinists don't belive that evolution explains everything. It simply offers an explanation for the developement of life on earth. The meaning behind life is left to religion. Science only explains how/what/where/when. It does not explain why. This is the role of religion. As you may have noticed from this thread, I emphatically believe in evolution. However, I do not deny the possibility that god set the phenomenon of evolution in motion. Or that god is responsible for the meaning in our lives. Evolution merely describes the method for our existance. Not the cause.
If God set evolution in motion, then it is debatable whether that's still Darwinism since it's no longer random... In fact that's more like intelligent design. And if God played no role in our creation whatsoever, then the question of the existence of God (however defined) loses its relevance, so God might as well not exist. But then there can't be any transcendent meaning to life so it's back to nihilism.
On November 09 2007 14:07 HnR)hT wrote: Religion, reasonably defined, entails a belief that human life is more than just a hyper-complicated roundabout vehicle through which DNA replicates itself, and which only came to exist by random mutations. You can't be religious or even not flat-out nihilistic and agree with Darwinists that evolution explains everything.
Moreover, according to Darwinist worldview there is no obvious reason why there should be consciousness in the first place. The fact that it is logically impossible to demonstrate that animals other than yourself ARE conscious proves this. It may be, for all you know, that they are only reacting to stimuli in a mechanical, plant-like manner. Consciousness seems completely unnecessary to the functioning of life, no matter how complex, from the biological point of view.
Most darwinists don't belive that evolution explains everything. It simply offers an explanation for the developement of life on earth. The meaning behind life is left to religion. Science only explains how/what/where/when. It does not explain why. This is the role of religion. As you may have noticed from this thread, I emphatically believe in evolution. However, I do not deny the possibility that god set the phenomenon of evolution in motion. Or that god is responsible for the meaning in our lives. Evolution merely describes the method for our existance. Not the cause.
If God set evolution in motion, then it is debatable whether that's still Darwinism since it's no longer random... In fact that's more like intelligent design. And if God played no role in our creation whatsoever, then the question of the existence of God (however defined) loses its relevance, so God might as well not exist. But then there can't be any transcendent meaning to life so it's back to nihilism.
I dont see how god setting something in motion removes the ability for that system to be random. Also your second point is a massive assumption. If god did not create us directly than he must no longer exist? How bold of you. But really I'd like to focus on my first point.
Oh, and one more question directed at the post prior to this one: How would you define "conciousness" exactly? This is crucial when making the claims that you have made in that post.
for all the guys who flamed me, i know what you guys mean...definitely it was wrong of me to just look that one side of the story instead of both...and yeah, i didn't take up bio in college, took up physics instead...so again, my post was just a matter of opinion (at this moment in time, still subject to change in future)...so until i grasp basic college level bio as TheFoReveRwaR said, my previous post should thus be ignored...
On November 09 2007 14:07 HnR)hT wrote: Religion, reasonably defined, entails a belief that human life is more than just a hyper-complicated roundabout vehicle through which DNA replicates itself, and which only came to exist by random mutations. You can't be religious or even not flat-out nihilistic and agree with Darwinists that evolution explains everything.
Moreover, according to Darwinist worldview there is no obvious reason why there should be consciousness in the first place. The fact that it is logically impossible to demonstrate that animals other than yourself ARE conscious proves this. It may be, for all you know, that they are only reacting to stimuli in a mechanical, plant-like manner. Consciousness seems completely unnecessary to the functioning of life, no matter how complex, from the biological point of view.
Most darwinists don't belive that evolution explains everything. It simply offers an explanation for the developement of life on earth. The meaning behind life is left to religion. Science only explains how/what/where/when. It does not explain why. This is the role of religion. As you may have noticed from this thread, I emphatically believe in evolution. However, I do not deny the possibility that god set the phenomenon of evolution in motion. Or that god is responsible for the meaning in our lives. Evolution merely describes the method for our existance. Not the cause.
If God set evolution in motion, then it is debatable whether that's still Darwinism since it's no longer random... In fact that's more like intelligent design. And if God played no role in our creation whatsoever, then the question of the existence of God (however defined) loses its relevance, so God might as well not exist. But then there can't be any transcendent meaning to life so it's back to nihilism.
I dont see how god setting something in motion removes the ability for that system to be random. Also your second point is a massive assumption. If god did not create us directly than he must no longer exist? How bold of you. But really I'd like to focus on my first point.
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".
On November 09 2007 14:46 unknown.sam wrote: for all the guys who flamed me, i know what you guys mean...definitely it was wrong of me to just look that one side of the story instead of both...and yeah, i didn't take up bio in college, took up physics instead...so again, my post was just a matter of opinion (at this moment in time, still subject to change in future)...so until i grasp basic college level bio as TheFoReveRwaR said, my previous post should thus be ignored...
edit: thanks for the PBS link
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?
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.
We can NOT assume, and still be intelligent, that this or any other creature we see today has always existed, discreet from other organisms. The motivation for doing so is called "evidence". Science does not manipulate findings to fit it into theories, theories are modified to explain the evidence.
Yep you're right, this is now completely unscientific I imagine I will never get the chance to speak to god (and almost certainly, it will not happen before this thread dies) so I must admit I do not have an answer. I do however have a question, why wouldn't he? I don't see why it's nonsensical to postulate that evolution is a product of god and randomness. We see randomness in many observable aspects of life (the movement of electrons for example). It's not unfathomable that it could be a part of evolution as well.
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.
On November 09 2007 14:46 unknown.sam wrote: for all the guys who flamed me, i know what you guys mean...definitely it was wrong of me to just look that one side of the story instead of both...and yeah, i didn't take up bio in college, took up physics instead...so again, my post was just a matter of opinion (at this moment in time, still subject to change in future)...so until i grasp basic college level bio as TheFoReveRwaR said, my previous post should thus be ignored...
edit: thanks for the PBS link
I just want to commend you for being open minded and having an actual desire to learn.
On November 09 2007 14:46 unknown.sam wrote: for all the guys who flamed me, i know what you guys mean...definitely it was wrong of me to just look that one side of the story instead of both...and yeah, i didn't take up bio in college, took up physics instead...so again, my post was just a matter of opinion (at this moment in time, still subject to change in future)...so until i grasp basic college level bio as TheFoReveRwaR said, my previous post should thus be ignored...
edit: thanks for the PBS link
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?
Read the last line of his post and leave him alone
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...
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.
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)
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...
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. )
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
On November 09 2007 09:15 Rev0lution wrote: who says evolution makes you not believe in god? I have tons of christian friends who believe in evolution.
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.
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?
On November 09 2007 14:07 HnR)hT wrote: Religion, reasonably defined, entails a belief that human life is more than just a hyper-complicated roundabout vehicle through which DNA replicates itself, and which only came to exist by random mutations. You can't be religious or even not flat-out nihilistic and agree with Darwinists that evolution explains everything.
Moreover, according to Darwinist worldview there is no obvious reason why there should be consciousness in the first place. The fact that it is logically impossible to demonstrate that animals other than yourself ARE conscious proves this. It may be, for all you know, that they are only reacting to stimuli in a mechanical, plant-like manner. Consciousness seems completely unnecessary to the functioning of life, no matter how complex, from the biological point of view.
Most darwinists don't belive that evolution explains everything. It simply offers an explanation for the developement of life on earth. The meaning behind life is left to religion. Science only explains how/what/where/when. It does not explain why. This is the role of religion. As you may have noticed from this thread, I emphatically believe in evolution. However, I do not deny the possibility that god set the phenomenon of evolution in motion. Or that god is responsible for the meaning in our lives. Evolution merely describes the method for our existance. Not the cause.
If God set evolution in motion, then it is debatable whether that's still Darwinism since it's no longer random... In fact that's more like intelligent design. And if God played no role in our creation whatsoever, then the question of the existence of God (however defined) loses its relevance, so God might as well not exist. But then there can't be any transcendent meaning to life so it's back to nihilism.
I dont see how god setting something in motion removes the ability for that system to be random. Also your second point is a massive assumption. If god did not create us directly than he must no longer exist? How bold of you. But really I'd like to focus on my first point.
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?
This is quite interesting, tbh. It\'s always intriguing to find out they have identified one of the proteins/beginnings of eye formation, particularly how it fits into the current theories and evidences available for evolutionary biology . I have very little knowledge of the current developments biology, so ye, it's fascinating to me at least.
There's absolutely no evidence supporting creationism whatsoever, everyone can make up an absolutely retarded theory and it will be as valid as creationism is, because they have the same amount of evidence/proof -> none.
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.
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.
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.
I just realized that my overall point can be stated very compactly: science doesn't predict consciousness.
If the life science could do so in principle, it would have to look radically different from what it is now. It won't just be a matter of filling the blanks in out present level of knowledge in neuroscience.
On November 10 2007 00:25 HnR)hT wrote: I just realized that my overall point can be stated very compactly: science doesn't predict consciousness.
If the life science could do so in principle, it would have to look radically different from what it is now. It won't just be a matter of filling the blanks in out present level of knowledge in neuroscience.
Assuming that consciousness is an advantage to those that possess it, and I would say that it is, then Evolutionary Theory predicts that were it to develop it would be passed on. Mutation and natural selection... that's really the extent of the involvement of the Theory of Evolution in this problem
As for understanding the mechanics behind consciousness, and of the human brain, neuroscientists still have a long way to go, but that has very little if any bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution.
On November 10 2007 00:25 HnR)hT wrote: I just realized that my overall point can be stated very compactly: science doesn't predict consciousness.
If the life science could do so in principle, it would have to look radically different from what it is now. It won't just be a matter of filling the blanks in out present level of knowledge in neuroscience.
Assuming that consciousness is an advantage to those that possess it, and I would say that it is, then Evolutionary Theory predicts that were it to develop it would be passed on. Mutation and natural selection... that's really the extent of the involvement of the Theory of Evolution in this problem
This is why I had reservations about posting the above, because people will reply to it instead of refuting the detailed justification I gave in the two earlier posts above. You're the 3rd person to raise this exact point and I feel I've already answered it.
Just a question on conciousness, because it seems to be defined in an ambiguous way (at least to me). What does it entail to be concious?
Would you say, an ability to think ahead is a result of conciousness? So in that case, could we say that any organism capable of thinking ahead for itself is concious?
Maybe it's a bit broad, and definately prone to philosophycal interpretation, but I'm interested in what you guys have to say.
[edit]: put it another way, what are the effects of conciousness on an organism?
On November 10 2007 00:25 HnR)hT wrote: I just realized that my overall point can be stated very compactly: science doesn't predict consciousness.
If the life science could do so in principle, it would have to look radically different from what it is now. It won't just be a matter of filling the blanks in out present level of knowledge in neuroscience.
Ok let me start by throwing out a good definition;o
Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.
I don't think I am repeating what other's said, but if I missed it, I apologize. ( just quote something if you already responded to it.)
I would ask why you think consciousness is "real" in the first place? In your posts you seem to make that assumption. To me, it seems that being self aware, is nothing more then a label for intelligent creatures. You seem to be separating what we as humans experience, and what is physically real. Consciousness is simply a word to describe a very real physical relationship with our brain.
Obviously we as humans are different because our intelligence is high enough to "realize" we are self aware, but there is a difference between being being self ware and thinking about it.
The bottom line is that externally there is no way to distinguish sentient life from mindless biomechanical automata.
An interesting thought is that in all likely hood, consciousness is just a VERY complex form of biochemical automata, controlling what we seem to be aware of and think about.
Anyway, I feel your argument is based on an erroneous assumption that consciousness is something more then just a series of chemical reactions in our brain. To me it seems very similar to when people talk about "free will, the mind, and spirit."
I haven't read up much on any of this, but those are just my first thoughts. I'll go look into this though, it seems interesting.
On November 10 2007 03:03 OverTheUnder wrote: An interesting thought is that in all likely hood, consciousness is just a VERY complex form of biochemical automata, controlling what we seem to be aware of and think about.
^This is the way I see it right now.
Also, I don't think there's a precise border for consciousness. I think animals experience something similar, but just more dumbed down since their brain is less complex.
Are high IQ people more self-aware than dumb people? If so, does this mean their lives are worth more for the same reason a human life is worth more than that of a chicken?
I might make a comprehensive reply later when I'm not trashed on painkillers.
HnR)hT What if consciousness is needed to reach a certain level of intelligence? What if humans and other intelligent animals minds couldnt exist without consciousness? I see consciousness as a sideeffect of having brains developed as far as ours are. I believe the brain = the mind and that every organ in the human body works through chemistry and physics. There is no magic behind it. I cant see why you want to single out the human species from the others on earth and the brain from the other organs and throw away evolution when it has worked so well to explain everything else. Just because we dont understand something yet or cant prove it I see no reason to call for God. If we always called for god whenever we didnt understand something science wouldnt progess far.
On November 10 2007 03:29 HnR)hT wrote: Are high IQ people more self-aware than dumb people? If so, does this mean their lives are worth more for the same reason a human life is worth more than that of a chicken?
I might make a comprehensive reply later when I'm not trashed on painkillers.
I think our conclusion here should be to treat higher standing animals better, not treat dumb people worse. I think it says more about our immoral treatment of animals than about our treatment of humans. But its true in many societys today human life doesnt seem to have much value. There are many places where there is no working healthcare system and where poor people get no help and are left to starve. Im happy I dont live in such a county ._.
It's fairly difficult to deny that consciousness exists, since it is much more establishable as a first principle than mechanical causality. Furthermore I don't see, apart for the purposes of philosophical abstraction, the purposes which theories of inexplicable mechanical complexity serve. From the anthropocentric experience, our ability to experience and even distinguish between those thoughts which exist in our stream of consciousness, and our involuntary reflexes and mental states makes our consciousness a reality from all perspectives apart from that of a perspective which is plainly an imagined projection of consciousness (from which we may assert that objectively consciousness is non-existent.)
Or, better said, it makes sense for sentience to believe it's either sentience or unsentient, but makes no sense for unsentience to believe either, since the fact of its existence requires no subjection to doubt. Basically, barring a large shift in the semantic meaning of the word "conscious," we generally accept this state to be conscious, and if we want to make a connotative shift in the word, we would have to establish it to be philosophically justified.
1) If all stream-of-consciousness is entirely a consequence of mechanistic phenomena, then consciousness itself is epiphenomenal. The "mind = brain" equation rules out freedom, as opposed to the illusion of freedom. But if all thought and sentience is epiphenomenal, then it could not possibly bestow evolutionary advantages. Thus, to believe that consciousness is mechanistic and arose from evolution by random mutations and natural selection is to believe a contradiction.
2) Imagine that Newtonian mechanics had failed to predict the tides, and that the scientific establishment was unphased by, and downright evasive about, the issue. Imagine that physicists responded to criticisms of the theory on this point by issuing statements like "tides are only illusory since everything in mechanics is adequately explained without mentioning the tides." Absurd? As I've pointed out several times, nothing in the life sciences predicts consciousness.
On November 10 2007 04:36 HnR)hT wrote: A couple of quick points:
1) If all stream-of-consciousness is entirely a consequence of mechanistic phenomena, then consciousness itself is epiphenomenal. The "mind = brain" equation rules out freedom, as opposed to the illusion of freedom. But if all thought and sentience is epiphenomenal, then it could not possibly bestow evolutionary advantages. Thus, to believe that consciousness is mechanistic and arose from evolution by random mutations and natural selection is to believe a contradiction.
2) Imagine that Newtonian mechanics had failed to predict the tides, and that the scientific establishment was unphased by, and downright evasive about, the issue. Imagine that physicists responded to criticisms of the theory on this point by issuing statements like "tides are only illusory since everything in mechanics is adequately explained without mentioning the tides." Absurd? As I've pointed out several times, nothing in the life sciences predicts consciousness.
Ok, I can see your argument and the problem is the way you look at consciousness.
Your argument is essentially: let's say all is a consequence of mechanistic phenomena then why do we have consciousness? It's superfluous ->no darwinian explanation
The way I see it is that consciousness IS the mechanic processes in our brain, it's nothing extra that we experience.
To me that seems so ludicrous as to border on the perverse. As I've said,
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.
The assumption that consciousness is superfluous and purposeless (thus preventing it from being an evolutionary advantage) is a hasty one at best, and a stupid one at worst. As it's been pointed out in this thread, by simply looking at organisms other than ourselves, we cannot tell if they possess any level of consciousness. However, we know that we, the human species, possess consciousness. We also know that we are at the top of the food chain here on Earth. To automatically assume that there is no correlation, or perhaps even causation would be a ridiculous thing to do.
hnr)ht had a rather extreme but not unrealistic mechanic view of human physiology, but there's nothing wrong with that. even within science there are no absolutes, and the active debate and branches of thought within the academic community are testaments to this.
however, the increasingly dismissive and narrowminded arguments both sides are making have started to make their posters seem foolish. quite frankly nobody here is at a reasonable level of education to speak knowledgeably about this topic - hell, even people who are qualified still cannot give much beyond theories. while it's respectable to formulate your own theories on new territories because of evidence supporting it, trying to debate it without proper background and inane arguments is a bit embarrassing.
how you guys stubbornly let a 'scientific' argument degenerate like a religion thread is quite remarkable :[
HnR)hT, how can you claim that consciousness presents a flaw in the theory of evolution? It is not a flaw at all, just something our current best theory doesn't (according to you) explain yet.
There is a big difference between something we have yet to explain, and something that actually violates or contradicts our theory.
Furthermore, IMO you are in no position to be dictating whether brain = mind, unless you are secretly researching congnitive science. It is not 100% clear whether the brain is or is not the mind, but most cognitive science researchers believe the two are the same thing. So according to you, the majority of these researchers are "playing little semantic games", "denying the obvious", and believe something that "seems so ludicrous as to border on the perverse"?
Back on the topic of consciousness, I don't think you can blame us for not understanding it very well yet, seeing as how the entire field of cognitive science is currently less than 50 years old. There's not much evolutionary scientists can do about that: they don't have anything better to work with than speculations about what would and would not be beneficial for an animal. So it's only natural that the theory of evolution does not have any explanation for it yet.
Lastly, personally, I think it's obvious how consciousness would be advantageous.
I just remembered: for those of you who are interested in cognitive science but don't have any background in it yet, my Introduction to Cognitive Science professor provides a bunch of notes for the course online:
Week 10 (next week) we will be learning about Consciousness, and I am looking forward to it . IIRC, he will be adding his powerpoint slides for Consciousness on Monday (Nov 12th).
Edit: furthermore, in the notes for week 10 that are currently available, he gives us links to 4 websites for consciousness:
On November 10 2007 07:32 Bill307 wrote: HnR)hT, how can you claim that consciousness presents a flaw in the theory of evolution? It is not a flaw at all, just something our current best theory doesn't (according to you) explain yet.
There is a big difference between something we have yet to explain, and something that actually violates or contradicts our theory.
I already addressed this point here:
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.
The ubiquitous criticism of String Theory, for example, is that, while it may be consistent with what we know, it is not PREDICTIVE. In other words it's not enough for a scientific theory to be consistent with everything we know; the theory also has to predict phenomena that are eminently relevant to what the theory is trying to describe and that are actually observed. It's not just that in its current state biological science can't explain or predict consciousness, but that it seems highly likely that on its current track it will never happen.
On November 10 2007 07:32 Bill307 wrote: Furthermore, IMO you are in no position to be dictating whether brain = mind, unless you are secretly researching congnitive science. It is not 100% clear whether the brain is or is not the mind, but most cognitive science researchers believe the two are the same thing.
Unless I've missed some huge discovery that must've been all over the news, it is still the case that cognitive science has NOTHING TO SAY on this matter - which, incidentally, renders the opinions of cognitive scientists highly irrelevant. Like I already acknowledged in a previous post,
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.
So you aren't exactly englightening me by bringing this fact up now. Add to that the scientists' notorious inability to reason with philosophic rigor and that plenty of philosophers disagree with them, and you can see what their authority on the question amounts to. Again, the mind = brain equation strikes me as absurd, like saying a giraffe and a monkey are really the same thing. It would take extraordinary evidence to demolish such a basic and obvious-seeming intuition.
ht your post doesn't actually explain how consciousness presents a flaw in the theory of evolution If anything, evolution currently supports the rise of consciousness(at least more than any other theory, because I have heard of none).
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).
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...
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.
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.
On November 10 2007 07:32 Bill307 wrote: Lastly, personally, I think it's obvious how consciousness would be advantageous.
I am curious.
So please explain !
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 .
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.
I feel some stuff has been adressed rather vaguely.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.)
- 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.
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
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:
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.
: ] i am actually currently working on a grant proposal investigating consciousness, still in the research process of first trying to link it to animal behavior though
- 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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
"Consciousness arising out of a network of nodes creating patterns of information for all the other nodes to draw meaning from, is the same principle of how meaning arises out of a dictionary by each word in that dictionary only being defined with other words in that dictionary. A dictionary is a closed network of self-consistent meaning. If you don't know a single word of Chinese, a Chinese dictionary has 0 meaning to you. But a Chinese dictionary certainly has meaning unto itself, just not outside of itself."
My taking on a similar stance of those arguing against evolution as the source of human dominance (ie, if you are wrong, therefore I'm right)
Christianity(for arguments sake, I assumed no muslim/other religion in this thread), or the concept of one God, appeared at most a couple thousand years ago. Human domination of the world started long before that. Please explain.
And no, I don't believe consciouness as defined by most in this thread constitude a great advantage in competition. On the other hand, we can never know the success of animals displaying 'consciousness' seeing in recorded history humans have been the detriment for all other advanced forms of life on Earth, we wouldn't know had humans not existed, crows and giant octopuses would've gained a significant advantage in the wild.
Well, I am now doing an essay on consciousness. Now, this is probably going to come down to semantics and definitions, but this paper I'm reading illustrates that certain mental tasks require consciousness, and therefore I conclude that animals must be conscious. Furthermore, it is clear that consciousness is not the big mystery that HnR)hT seems to make it out to be. It is actually possible to conduct scientific experiments on consciousness.
The definition of consciousness being used here is, basically, the kind of consciousness you have when you use conscious thought. If you guys are using it to mean anything else then I suggest you pick a different, more precise words (e.g. "self-aware") =P.
Beginning at section 3.3 (page 8), it talks about three mental tasks that require consciousness: 1. maintaining information for more than several hundred milliseconds; 2. overriding automatic, unconscious computations; and 3. "intentional behaviour" (I haven't read this part yet so I won't go into detail about it, unless people really want to know).
Firstly, there is a lot of evidence showing that when we are exposed to new information, any information we do not think about consciously is lost at an exponential rate. After a few seconds, we forget anything that wasn't consciously attended to. In short, without consciousness, we would not be able to remember anything that happened more than a few seconds ago.
One particularly interesting example given in the paper is a situation where subjects are shown two objects of the same size, however one of them appears to be smaller due to an optical illusion. The subjects are asked to pick up one of the objects. If they are asked to pick one of the objects up as soon as it is unveiled, they will be able to grasp both objects equally well. However, if they are asked to wait before reaching for the object, then the longer they wait, the less and less accurate their grip becomes when they reach for the apparently-smaller object. Therefore, if they go for the object immediately, they are able to act on accurate information processed unconsciously that is unaffected by the optical illusion. However, if they wait, their movement becomes more and more influenced by their subjective, conscious perception of the illusion, showing that they lose the ability to use the more accurate but unconscious information they had initially. I think that the first example given in the paper makes for a stronger argument, however I personally found this example more interesting.
I believe the same rule must apply to animals as well, since their brains are essentially subsets of our own, and if they had another way of remembering information without consciousness, then we ought to have it too. Since they can clearly remember information beyond a few seconds, they must be conscious.
The second task... well, I think it is best explained by way of example. An experiment was performed where subjects were asked to classify objects as either "green" or "red". Before each object was presented, the subjects were first shown a "prime", a word that they would see and process consciously and/or unconsciously. This "prime" was the word "GREEN" or the word "RED". This situation normally results in the "Stroop effect": when the "prime" matches the actual colour of the object, the subjects respond faster. In particular, when the "prime" is shown in such a way that it is not processed consciously, the Stroop effect is still observed, therefore it is a result of some unconscious computation in the brain: any conscious processing is only supplemental to the unconscious processing. The details of this procedure, "masking" the prime from conscious perception, are explained earlier in the paper. Anyway, an interesting effect happens when the experiment is altered so that 75% of the time, the prime "GREEN" appears before a red object and the prime "RED" appears before a green object. The Stroop effect would cause subjects to respond faster in the 25% of cases where the prime matched the object's colour. If the prime is not consciously perceptible, then this effect is indeed observed. However, when the prime is consciously perceptible, the Stroop effect is inverted: subjects respond faster when the word "RED" comes before a green object and vice-versa.
Therefore, consciousness is necessary to utilize the correlation between "GREEN" and a red object being shown and vice-versa (when the "prime" was only perceived unconsciously, the unconscious mind did not utilize this correlation), and it is also necessary to override the unconscious effect of the "prime" word.
In conclusion, because these abilities require consciousness, and they can be observed in many animals, animals must possess conscious thought as well as humans. Furthermore, I think it is clear how these abilities (especially having a memory longer than 3 seconds) would provide evolutionary advantages.
EPT
. It's awesome also because hopefully over time we can get rid of some of the creationist bullshit about the difficulty of evolving something like an eye. ![[image loading]](http://teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/Zicon_small.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.micrographia.com/specbiol/cnidari/hydrozo/hydr0100/hydra-01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6712/msho1.png)
