Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Evolution is not a process. Evolution is Time driving Matter forward.


Forums Forums Science and Technology Evolution is not a process. Evolution is Time driving Matter forward.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #334562

    From the cosmic perspective of some 14 billions years of Evolution,

    Evolution has no intent, it has matter, time, motion, outcomes.

    Evolution is not a process – Evolution is a result.

    An under appreciated analogy for “Evolution,” is to recognize that “Evolution” is a result of time’s relentless forward momentum.

    Time is motion.

    The sum total of human knowledge shows us with overwhelming consilience that our “Reality” started at what’s been coined the Big Band some 14 billion years ago, when massive pure energy was released to create out Universe.

    It’s time/motion that pushed this primal energy to coalesce into bundles such as quarks, and it’s time that drove the universe to expand and cool.  It’s time/motion that saw atoms and molecules form.

    Time/motion/gravity is what brought vast clouds of molecular dust together into swirling nurseries for stars to be formed, only to run through their life cycles, with some exploding and producing all the elements heavier than iron.  Time/motion/gravity is what sweeps together those remnants into new stars and planets.

    Here in our corner of the Universe, conditions were promising for something special to happen, and it did.  It’s time/motion/gravity with sunshine and radioactivity that created Earth’s geological turmoil which is the source of life

    Time married Earth’s geology with biology, and it has driven all the changes since.  One second, minute, day at a time.  Resulting in folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity flowing down the cascade of life.

    It’s time/motion together with changing environmental conditions that allowed the most primitive creatures to form.  It’s time/motion/awareness that’s driven Earth’s ever evolving background geochemistry along with biology’s learning cure.

    Evolution never had to condition us, what happened happened and was exploited to the best that current conditions allowed, until something new came along, or not, then things took a different direction.  But always time cracking the whip, keep on moving, no stopping on this ride, even if your time is up, the off-spring will take it from here thank you very much.

    We are creatures that survived by sensing the world and reacting to it.  The better we did that the better we survived, or not.

     

    Keep in mind “survival of the fittest” only covers one aspect of Evolution.

    Often factors besides “fitness” tipped the scales and even the fittest during the best of times are sometimes ruthlessly mowed down, leaving room for the wimps to evolve the new fitness, if environmental conditions were conducive.  If not, something else showed up to try.

    #334596

     

    re. D.H.

    Perceiving reality unfolding around us is not analogous to simplistic computer interface, or games theory, or holograms, it’s orders of magnitude beyond.  Physical Reality is not a product of, nor dependent on, our perceptions and it’s indulgent self-destructive folly to entertain as much.

    I believe that some scholars forget that mathematically elegant formulas and theorems are residents of our brain’s mind, that is our “Mindscapes” – something ephemeral, not exactly of physical reality, it gets complicated.

    It sounds to me like too many very very smart people have lost sight of a simple fundamental reality of our human condition:

    Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape

    Physical Reality is Earth, her biosphere and creatures, our physical bodies, along with the world of atoms and molecules, natural forces and time and stuff and organisms and more evolution and time.

    It is our brain’s, but then when it comes to “me, myself and I”, my ego, sense of self, my thoughts and my mental intellectual library – none of it is tangible. No thought is a physical anything, it is of this reality, energy sure, beyond that who knows, but it’s not of atoms, molecules or any of that.

    Mind is of a class onto itself.

    ~  ~  ~

    D.H. often makes it sound as though evolution were intelligent design and intentional – he get’s applauded for presenting provocative ideas.  In that spirit I share this provocative thought:

    We could get just as philosophical as D.H. and conjecture that humanity is the greatest example of the Universe’s need and desire to know itself.

    We can make that poetic conclusion on the basic fact that taken in whole, and especially when life showed up, evolution has been a fantastical relentless process of evolving ever greater awareness; through sensing, processing, manipulatory abilities, with successes becoming feedback loops.

    It is only through improving senses, absorbing data, processing that input, improving manipulatory abilities, grasping and moving and such, that the universe can be observed.

    Universe was not only populated by time and evolution’s creations, it is only through that population’s cumulative individual awarenesses of their little worlds, that the universe has a change to behold itself.  From that perspective no doubt, we are the champions, even if we were too stupid to do anything intelligent with our knowledge – so now we stuck watching as Earth’s biosphere is transitioning into a regime beyond any recognition or surviving as the next decades and century ticks past.

    Then Earth will be left with the eons to settle down, reassemble itself and see what comes next.

    Stuff that in your pipes and puff on it a while.

    Cheers        🙂

     

    #334597

    Okay so it wasn’t a Big Band either, though my mom loved them.

    Big Bang     😉

     

    t~r  what can I say, I miss target keys.

    #334607
    @timb
    Participant

    You are correct about this much:  Evolution is not “intentional” in its actions.  It is a process that operates according to the functional characteristics of organisms within their particular environments.

    That evolution has resulted, for now, in the proliferation of our “intelligent” species, happened, not because of any intent, but because our species was best suited for survival in the particularly rapidly changing environments during our history over the last thousands of years.

    Evolution only occasionally selects for “intelligence”, but it is not “intentional” selection. It is just a matter of the random environmental factors and the characteristics of an organism that help it survive to reproduction within the particular environments.

    No thought is a physical anything, it is of this reality, energy sure, beyond that who knows, but it’s not of atoms, molecules or any of that.

    I suspect that atoms and molecules ARE a component of thoughts. Aren’t there atoms and molecules involved in the electrochemical patterns of firing of neurons and associated reactions what actually comprise thoughts?  What we call neurological correlates of thinking?  Imo, those physical neurological correlates ARE the thoughts.

     

    #334618

    @timb    I suspect that atoms and molecules ARE a component of thoughts. Aren’t there atoms and molecules involved in the electrochemical patterns of firing of neurons and associated reactions what actually comprise thoughts?

    What we call neurological correlates of thinking?  Imo, those physical neurological correlates ARE the thoughts.

    Interesting, isolating “thought” (and the mindscape it creates) as something different from the rest of the material world, really seems to be a challenge.

    Okay, lets look at these ‘neurological correlates’ of thoughts,

    WIKI:   The neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) constitute the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for a specific conscious percept.

    Neuroscientists use empirical approaches to discover neural correlates of subjective phenomena; that is, neural changes which necessarily and regularly correlate with a specific experience.

    The set should be minimal because, under the assumption that the brain is sufficient to give rise to any given conscious experience, the question is which of its components is necessary to produce it.

    a)  “neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for a specific conscious percept”

    b)   “neural changes which necessarily and regularly correlate with a specific experience.”

    c)   “sufficient to give rise to any given conscious experience”

    All three give rise to something, no one has been able to define.

    Next comes,

    “Neurobiological approach to consciousness

    A science of consciousness must explain the exact relationship between subjective mental states and brain states, the nature of the relationship between the conscious mind and the electro-chemical interactions in the body (mind–body problem).

    Progress in neuropsychology and neurophilosophy has come from focusing on the body rather than the mind. In this context the neuronal correlates of consciousness may be viewed as its causes, and consciousness may be thought of as a state-dependent property of some undefined complex, adaptive, and highly interconnected biological system.

    Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness

    that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness,[6] but understanding the NCC may be a step toward such a theory.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

    d)  “relationship between the conscious mind and the electro-chemical interactions in the body (mind–body problem)”

    e)  “neuronal correlates of consciousness may be viewed as its causes, and consciousness may be thought of as a state-dependent property”

    f)  “Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness”

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    g)  “that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness,”

    This is the Mindscape I keep trying to discuss.    🙂

     

     

    Does any of that help?

    #334645
    @timb
    Participant

    Your argument is well presented, and seems to come down to this ultimate assertion:

      “Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness…”

    There is that old bugaboo, “the so-called hard problem of consciousness”.  From your link, I took this link:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astonishing_Hypothesis

    I thought this statement was noteworthy: “Human consciousness according to (Francis) Crick is central to human existence and so scientists find themselves approaching topics traditionally left to philosophy and religion.”

    Iow, there is a strong bias toward trying to explain “consciousness” in more philosophical and/or religious terms.  Well no thanks, Tom Hanks.  Anyway,

    (Crick’s book, 1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis posits that “a person’s mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them.”

    So when you repeat the assertion that

    Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness…”

    I disagree.  It in fact, obviously leads to a straightforward parsimonious theory that consciousness is (potentially objectively observed as) the constantly shifting neurological activity that we refer to as neurological correlates.

    AND it is a product of the interaction of an organism’s perceptions of and impact by its environment.

    (Including, sometimes, that the environment can be somewhat self contained.  e.g., when your thinking leads to other thoughts.)

    Anyway, the rest of the assertion (same sentence continued)

     a theory of consciousness “…<i>that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness…”</i>

    If by not explaining the various intricacies of the types of neural activities and complex interactions of electrochemical activities, then it is true that the theory espoused by Crick and I, does not yet describe the “how of it” with our current technology, then that does not mean that it is an unacceptable theory.

    In fact, I suggest that it is the best current theory that is likely to lead most productively to our knowledge of “consciousness”.

    I do not accept that we need to get all mystical and proclaim that consciousness is something non-physical and inexplicable.

     

     

     

     

    #334668

    I do not accept that we need to get all mystical and proclaim that consciousness is something non-physical and inexplicable

    And I find it inexplicable how you rely on that argument – when it totally misses the entire point of what I’m talking about.

    This isn’t about finding anything mystical about anything!

    It’s not even about saying we’ll never crack the consciousness ‘hard question’ or how ever experts refer to it.

     

    It’s about recognizing something pragmatically fundamental about our human condition.

    Our thoughts are of a different order than the stuff of nature.  From the reality we live exist through.

    The reason this is so important to recognize is because I think it might lend a bit of humility to our hubris.

    After all consider,  one heck of lot more is possible within our florid mindscapes {which is nothing more than the reality that you experience and the thoughts that dance through your mind – and no f’n nothing “mystical” about it –  placing that tag on it, is an intellectual copout.} than is possible within the realm of our actual physical reality.    or?

    #334670

    Oh and it just occurs to me if you want to find idea that are more mystical than science,

    How about arguments that time does not exist.

    {Rather than recognizing it’s fancy complex formulas breaking down.}

    Or the conception that a atom is made of mostly empty space.

    {Rather than recognizing covalent bonds and electron shell for what they are.}

    That’s mystical thinking at the edge of science.

     

    Sure the product of the brain (mind/consciousness/sentience/etc) invite thoughts of mysticism – but that’s not what I’m about,

    this is about simple pragmatic recognizing things for what they are.

    Perhaps enabling new more sober appreciations to blossom from that beginning.      🙂

    #334680

    Mysterious does not necessitate calling it mysticism.

    #334681

    Mysterious does not necessitate calling it mysticism.

    #334689
    @timb
    Participant

    Our thoughts are of a different order than the stuff of nature.  From the reality we live exist through.

    I reject this idea.

    Mysterious does not necessitate calling it mysticism.

    (I guess you can say that again. Actually, you did.)  But the only “mystery” from my perspective, lies in the complexity of neuronal activity, and in neural processes that we (are possibly not yet even aware of) do not have the knowledge and effective technology, yet, to reasonably and reliably accurately to observe or measure.

     

    #334729

    (are possibly not yet even aware of) do not have the knowledge and effective technology, yet, to reasonably and reliably accurately to observe or measure.

    You’re still evading.

    Heck we can detect the signs of life in the Venus atmosphere and water on Mars and below the surface of the Moon, etc, etc. but we can’t detect Consciousness.  That is according to experts in the field, not me.  And you haven’t been able to provide any evidence I’m missing, so that says something.

     

    I wish I could understand what makes that simple leap so difficult.

    It’s a philosophy perception question, not a scientific one.

    It’s not like it requires the rejection of science in any way, shape or form.   Claiming the opposite simply reflects misunderstanding.

    It about acknowledging limitations that human are loath to recognize.

     

     

    I would suggest that it offers a more sober frame of reference with which to appreciate our existence and place in this Universe.    🙂

    #334752
    @3point14rat
    Participant

    CC, could it be your writing style that causes people to think you’re more mystical than you are? I think I know what you’re saying but also see how it could be hard to find the concrete meaning in your posts above.

    You write very poetically and floridly (I have never used that word before… thanks for using it above). You are an excellent writer, but your style isn’t always optimal for conveying the scientific messages you love. I understand that your style is your style and I know it’s practically impossible to write in a way that doesn’t feel right, but since it seems that in some cases your message is misinterpreted, you might want to find an alternate style when people as smart as these folks don’t see your point. You can go back to your natural way of writing after the point has been understood.

    [This is all my opinion, but I want you to get your cool ideas out there. So don’t take this as anything but an attempt at constructive criticism. And feel free to call the pot black since I’m also regularly misunderstood because of my writing.]

    #334815

    Well thanks for the hint.  But it’s not enough.

    I’m obvious trapped within my own mindscape and engaged interaction is what’s need to get out of it.

    And fuk I’m pissed I have about another 30 seconds for this, so can’t add anything worthwhile – love people but something ………

     

    Or is it all I need to do is write sciencie, like Donald Hoffman, and the world will buy any bullshit my imagination can dream up

     

    Oh and it just occurs to me if you want to find idea that are more mystical than science,

    How about arguments that time does not exist.

    …..  {Rather than recognizing it’s fancy complex formulas breaking down.}

    Or the conception that a atom is made of mostly empty space.

    …..  {Rather than recognizing covalent bonds and electron shell for what they are.}

    That’s mystical thinking at the edge of science.

    #334822

    {okay we’re loaded up ready for a day of cutting wood up in them thar mountains.

    Now slight delay so I have a few minutes.  }

    π I think I make a habit of taking critique seriously, particularly from people I know to respect, as opposed to posers where I don’t do so good.

    I think I also make a point of responding to challenges and questions, not around them, as too many do.

    That’s why I keep grappling with tim and anyone else who cares to engage, trying to figure things out.

    But, I don’t know what’s inside the minds of most, and I am trying to find out.

     

    Why is it important, lots of reasons when it comes to matters of the mind and how people think about things.

    for instance I’m convinced a genuine appreciation for the following is not possible without an appreciate for the difference between our Physical Reality and the product of our minds  . . . . (times up, see ya)

     

    The mind–body problem is a debate concerning the relationship between thought and consciousness in the human mind, and the brain as part of the physical body. It is distinct from the question of how mind and body function chemically and physiologically, as that question presupposes an interactionist account of mind–body relations.[1] This question arises when mind and body are considered as distinct, based on the premise that the mind and the body are fundamentally different in nature.[1]

    wikipedia _ org/wiki/Mind–body_problem

     

     

    google Science vs Religion:

     

    americanhumanist.org › what-is-humanism › war-scien…

    Aug 20, 2020 – Naturalism or material monism is not so much the product of scientific research as it is its starting point. In order for science to work, scientists must …
    Perception of Conflict Between Science and Religion – Pew …
    http://www.pewresearch.org › science › 2015/10/22 › percept…

    Oct 22, 2015 – Those most inclined to see religion and science as generally in conflict are those who, themselves, have no particular religious affiliation or are …
    Yes, there is a war between science and religion
    theconversation.com › yes-there-is-a-war-between-scien…

    Dec 21, 2018 – You must argue that your faith – or any faith – is perfectly compatible with science . And so one sees claim after claim from believers, religious …
    The Intersection of Science and Religion | National Academies
    http://www.nationalacademies.org › evolution › science-and-r…

    Scientific and technological advances have had profound effects on human life. In the 19th century, most families could expect to lose one or more children to …
    Science and religion: Reconcilable differences
    undsci.berkeley.edu › article › science_religion

    Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and … Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), …

    excuse the inevitable typos

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.