Board index ‹ God

[Jesse James]

How can we trust thoughts if they are the product of a consciousness evolved through mutation? Because thoughts are a product of our brains, which are pattern recognition machines that evolved. A nervous system that can conceive of predictive models and act in its own interest based on those models. If a primitive human had a thought that it's ok to grab hot coals out of a fire, that is poor pattern recognition. The organisms with good pattern recognition and reasoning would be selected by the environment. Gods are the predictive models that we came up with when we were relatively ignorant of the way the world is. Belief in gods were very helpful in aligning collective goals of tribes, and reinforcing family and community bonds. In this way, belief in gods were helpful in terms of survivability.

What is guiding selection? The environment. The environment at any given time is what selects beneficial mutations to be passed on and spread through a population. What's fascinating here is that each mutation that is selected changes the environment. When a bee inherits a tendency to be attracted to colorful flowers, the flowers at some point have a mutation that makes them more colorful and attractive to bees, which aid in pollination. If those bees were not present in the environment, a flower could have had a random mutation to be more colorful, but in that case it would not aid in survivability or reproduction, so there is nothing in the environment that selects it. Whatever mutation happens to work best in a given environment is selected. White fur is selected in a snowy environment. A predator's ability to run fast is selected when its prey runs fast. I understand that this concept can be difficult to understand when you've spent your life seeing intention behind everything, and I may not be using the best examples in my attempts to explain it. When I finally understood it, though, it was a very powerful moment for me. I think we may have actually reached the core paradigm difference between those that see biological evolution through natural selection as a fact, and those that see a guiding force or intention, i.e. intelligent design, as a fact. I don't see intention as a necessary explanation for the way we see the world today. I see it as an idea that appeals to our primitive nature. Similar to how, I'm sure, the early users of fire assumed some supernatural being intended for them to have it, when in reality its' a perfectly natural chemical reaction that was probably stumbled upon by accident by primitive humans.

You do ask an interesting and profound question, though. From where did our intention/consciousness arise? This is one of the wonders of the universe. Carl Sagan said, we are the way for the universe to know itself. It illustrates the idea that we were spawned OUT OF the universe, rather than being brought INTO it. I'm not an atheist that says with conviction that nothing happens after we die. Nobody can say that with anymore certainty that a christian saying with certainty that they will join God in heaven after they die. The point is, I don't know. It's unknowable, which to me is fascinating. We are so infinitely lucky to be here. So many things could have happened differently since the big bang that would not have allowed you or me to exist and have this discussion. My parents could have decided to date other people. My great ancestors could have just as easily caught some horrible illness and perished before reproducing. Some direct descendant of us both could have been eaten by a predator. I'm filled with wonder when I try to contemplate how lucky I am to exist, against the backdrop of such improbability. But, that's just the way it happened

It's been a pleasure, I look forward to a response if you are interested. I'll start a separate thread about the bible. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that.

[jimwalton]

My problem with consciousness evolving through mutation is examining the players in the system. I'll use two (inadequate) analogies. Suppose there is a traffic light that changes at random intervals. It has always been random because there was no programmer to tell it "every 30 seconds". How long do you think it will take for this traffic light to learn to recognize your car and give you a green light? Obviously, never. First of all, "random intervals" is the only choice. Second of all, something mechanistic can never develop consciousness.

Second faulty analogy. Suppose I have an iPod. It's stuck on "shuffle". I get great songs one after another, but can I reasonably expect that some day the iPod will give me a sequence of my favorite songs, of all metal music, or an awesome sequence of stuff? Yes, I can reasonably expect that one day it just might do that, but I can't expect it to happen again. It was an accident, and the only element in the system is "shuffle". How long will it take the iPod to figure out what I like and select it for me? Never. Something mechanistic has no hope of developing consciousness, and "intent" will never be an outcome of a sequence of songs. They will never have meaning, and even if they did accidentally, the machine would be incapable of learning from that and selecting it again.

Back to naturalism. The only player in the system is mechanics: chemicals, physical laws, random progression or regression. How long will it take for consciousness to develop? Never. Something mechanistic can never develop consciousness. "Shuffle" is the only choice. I think we use regressive logic to interpolate back into the system a possibility that we know to be reality, not recognizing that intent can never be a result of "selection" unless there is something rational in the system. But "shuffle" is the only choice in the system.

You give the environment almost a consciousness to select. Sure, in the winter, white has a better chance of survival. But in the summer that rabbit has a better chance of getting killed unless it figures out pretty quickly how to be brown in the summer and white in the winter. But if there are thousands of years in the development of that mutation, you're making a logical and reasonable leap that this can happen over and over again, when "shuffle" is the only player in the system, and life is a brutal place of kill or be killed. Running fast, white fur, long necks, camouflaging patterns, metamorphosis—you give a lot of credit to a mechanistic system devoid of rationality, intelligence, and purpose.

I'll look forward to more conversation.

[Jesse James]

The difference between genetics and the traffic light and iPod comparisons is that those examples don't self replicate. Also, the mutations that just happen to be helpful are self perpetuating. It’s not as if ALL the genetic information is shuffled every generation. Genes self replicate through reproduction, thereby allowing the next generation to inherit those beneficial random mutations. If a particular mutation gives the organism a better chance of survival and reproduction than it's peers, within relatively small number generations, the entire population will have that mutation/trait, because those that have it out-compete those that don’t. Even if, by chance, the beneficial gene mutates for one individual organism, the rest of the populations will still be carrying the original beneficial mutation. So the one unlucky organism would have to compete with the rest of the population for survival and reproduction. As long as that mutation never becomes harmful in the context of the environment it will not be selected out. This population of organisms will continue on, and somewhere down the line another random mutation that happens to be helpful will occur, adding to the last helpful mutation. But if a harmful mutation happens, it only happens to one individual. It is then selected out before it has a chance to replicate further because it has to compete with the rest of the population. Think of all the species that have gone extinct.

When you refer to the "players in the system" being unable to produce consciousness, are you thinking in terms of the law of conservation of energy? If so, this rule does not apply, because the earth is not a closed system. It receives incoming energy from the sun and other cosmic rays from the universe. This is energy is responsible for all kinds of combinations of and changes to the elements that are/were present here on earth. And specifically, these forms of energy are known to cause genetic mutations. As far as adding information to the genome, scientists have observed populations of yeast adding information multiple times in only 450 generations. The trend in biological evolution is always towards complexity and diversity. Random mutation is basically the process of guess and check. Random mutations continue to happen until one is beneficial, and simply by the nature of being beneficial it becomes self-perpetuating.

Why couldn't consciousness be developed through a mechanical process? Do either of us even know what consciousness is? Watch that show ‘brain games’ you’ll see how our brains are simply pattern recognition machines that can be easily tricked if you understand how they work. Look at our physical brains. We have a reptilian brain responsible for the basic functions of our bodies, then a mammalian or limbic brain responsible for the emotions, and a neocortex that gives us the ability to reason. One layer built upon the last. When you look at the fossilized remains of our earlier primates descendants we are able to see a chronological growth in the size of the cranium. There is an unbelievable amount of data to back this up. There are NO fossils that contradict the theory of biological evolution. http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/ ... r_her.html
Again, I have to go back to the puddle in the pothole reference. You're point of view keeps assuming that the way things are is the way they were intended to be. When in actuality the way things are are completely explainable in the context of natural unconscious processes. Life fills in the gaps. Wherever random mutation and opportunity meet, that's where life goes, because those gaps are where life can self perpetuate.

Not to mention this is all has been observed by scientists in labs observing flu viruses and how they change, so they can give us an effective vaccine next year. Some deniers like to say “well, that’s just microevolution." Microevolution isn’t something different than biological evolution. It’s just on a shorter time scale. We can extrapolate from there and compare those extrapolations to the fossil evidence we see, and the way we see genes themselves behave when replicating and randomly mutating.

Take care

[jimwalton]

Your first paragraph: I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you said.

> When you refer to the "players in the system" being unable to produce consciousness, are you thinking in terms of the law of conservation of energy?

No, I was thinking of the natural processes of evolution under the understanding of no guiding intellect behind them.

> The trend in biological evolution is always towards complexity and diversity.

A curious statement. My garden goes to chaos. : ) Are you saying that biological evolution is always on the advance? Just wondering. It sounds like you're saying that the direction of biological evolution is by default in the direction of improvement.

> There are NO fossils that contradict the theory of biological evolution.

I haven't said anything to contend that I didn't believe in the possibility of evolution. What I am arguing is that there are a lot of things about biological evolution that don't add up.

> When in actuality the way things are are completely explainable in the context of natural unconscious processes.

This is one of many places we do actually disagree with each other.

> Not to mention this is all has been observed...

I haven't said anything to contend that I didn't believe in the possibility of evolution. What I am arguing is that there are a lot of things about biological evolution that don't add up.