Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Anomalocaris]

So John Breezy is a pigeon. I saw that on the first post. The avalanche of evolutionary facts are like fleas to his overwhelming ignorance. Heh, social sciences like psychology are useful, my suster is a psychologist and she's doing a fine job helping people overcome addictions at work. She even invited me to do a lecture at her work, because of my past recovery from drug use. That's good tech job right there.

I learnt many things about that weak science with her, she doesn't accept qualia as decent work in psych research and she is a christian (catholics are christian, right?)

So we see, since the old "eye argument" was shot down, our OP decided to move the goalposts. God of the Gaps.

Any word that is somewhat mysterious and vaguely Latin sounding is good enough to accept as a righteous trope for god.

[The Grand Nudger]

I fail to see how anything you just said explains the relationship between vision and consciousness. I didn’t ask for a description of blind sight, I was already aware.

It seems to me that if johnism is going to be a credible theory it ought to have explanations for these things. Like evolutionary theory does, with model based control.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I fail to see how anything you just said explains the relationship between vision and consciousness.  I didn’t ask for a description of blind sight, I was already aware.  

It seems to me that if johnism is going to be a credible theory it ought to have explanations for these things.

My apologies, your post made seem as if you wanted a description of blind sight. Certainly, when you see the color red you are experiencing that in consciousness. Not to sound condescending but the relationship between vision and consciousness seems self-explanatory, so I'm not what you're asking for specifically?

[LadyForCamus]

Yes, and it turned out to be wrong when scientists came up with better explanation ...

No, I'm sure it turned out to be wrong when it became inconsistent with observations. Theories are not disconfirmed by hotter theories.

Why didn’t you answer my question? Do you believe that Jesus is the son of god, died for your sins, and was resurrected by God the Father? Is a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. You call yourself a Christian, yet here you are on an atheist forum afraid to admit to your beliefs.

[The Grand Nudger]

If it seems self explanatory, then how could it be a gap in any account, including an evolutionary one?

No. No. You think it’s something that requires explaining. Additionally, you think theories like those -should- have such explanations. Well, evolutionary biology has a credible explanation for it, johnism has a gap.

What should we make of that? Shall I refer to your other previous statements for inspiration?

[GrandizerII]

IF (and the key word here is "if") consciousness is not biological at the core, then biological evolution has nothing to do with it. It makes no sense to use the theory to make it account for its existence. If, on the other hand, consciousness is really just the complex brain functioning in a way that allows for such vivid self-experiences then evolution accounts for that perfectly through the proper understanding of how the neurons work together to yield consciousness. Again, where is the problem exactly?

Another mistake you're making is equivocating consciousness with life. Not all living organisms are necessarily conscious. Unless you think bacteria do ...

I guess I'm not understanding why, if consciousness isn't biological, that's not problem for evolution? It would perhaps even be a problem for every physical science we have.

Because evolution is to do with the biological aspects of the world, not the non-biological. You can't undermine the theory with something it's not meant to account for.

Why would consciousness being something different from what is normally accepted be a problem for every physical science?

That's not an equivocation I've made. It doesn't matter if not all living organisms have consciousness, as long as only living organisms do.

But there's nothing to suggest that the organically "nonliving" can't ever have consciousness. AI might one day have what we could reasonably call consciousness, you never know.

[Nay_Sayer]

So John Breezy is a pigeon. I saw that on the first post. The avalanche of evolutionary facts are like fleas to his overwhelming ignorance. Heh, social sciences like psychology are useful, my suster is a psychologist and she's doing a fine job helping people overcome addictions at work. She even invited me to do a lecture at her work, because of my past recovery from drug use. That's good tech job right there.

I learnt many things about that weak science with her, she doesn't accept qualia as decent work in psych research and she is a christian (catholics are christian, right?)

So we see, since the old "eye argument" was shot down, our OP decided to move the goalposts. God of the Gaps.

A lot of people are unaware that psychologists study the brain, and only a subset are clinicians and therapists. So its nice to see someone knows the difference between clinical and experimental aspects of psychology.

---

It's customary. Unless your M.O is to run into random forums flailing your arms around.

Ah its customary. I like customs. Well, since I'm new can you send me the link to your introductory post? It'll help me have a reference for when I write my own.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-59494.html

I see you are proficient in whataboutism.  I'll be praying for you.

Blessings. RAmen

[The Grand Nudger]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-da...ist_Church

[Abaddon_ire]

Evolution has a destination, and a limited number of paths it can get there (too limited in my opinion)

Well, that is a flat out lie.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If it seems self explanatory, then how could it be a gap in any account, including an evolutionary one?

No. No.  You think it’s something that requires explaining.  Additionally, you think theories like those -should- have such explanations.  Well, evolutionary biology has a credible explanation for it, johnism has a gap.

What should we make of that?  Shall I refer to your other previous statements for inspiration?

Referring me to previous statements would be helpful, since its easy to lose track of the different conversations. 

Again, I don't know what you're requesting when you ask for the relationship. That being said, evolutionary biology doesn't try to explain how these relationships work necessarily, just how they came about. So I can explain to you perfectly how a given system works, and it still falls on the shoulders of evolutionists to explain how it came to be. They're two separate things.