Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Anomalocaris]

Ok let's pretend consciousness serves no function. This is for the sake of argument, of course. What is the problem exactly? What is it the brain cannot do to account for "blind" perception? I agree that the eye is not enough for high level perception, so what again is the problem?

Well that's it, basically lol. Thats what the OP was about, that the eye is not enough. And I would like to see an evolutionary narrative that takes the rest of the story into account, because it seems to me the only way to avoid many problems is simultaneous evolution between the components. For example, what selective pressure can cause the eye patch to curve, before the animal is able to perceive direction? Or what would cause the perception of direction, before the eye patch begins to curve? It seems to me they have to evolve in sync.

Sync implies preplanning.    There is no planning.   This is no synchronization per se.    There is only the physical reality of whether particular variation of this trait can or can't interacts with particular variations of that trait, and whether that interaction confers added survival utility, makes no difference to survival, and diminishes chance of survival.   The chance variation of certain configuration of surface cells that enable them to transmit a signal when light shines upon them interacts favorably with the chance variable of certain configuration of nerve cells to enable the organism take another timely action to better survive, so both of these chance configurations are passed on in genes, while other configuration died.   So the configuration that permitted the favorable interaction is not the new base line.   From the new base line, more variation with the light sensing cells, the nerve cells, and other components occurred.   These too are tested to the value of any interaction they have, and those exhibiting yet more favorable interaction is selected, and form yet another base line.  

Seem  simpler in concept than how homeostasis can actually work, doesn't it?   Or do you not really know how homeostasis works in detail but just like to throw around the jargon as if you did.


The development of the numerous traits needed to make organism that not only sees but perceives  takes on the appearance of synchronized no more by plan   than the innumerable ice crystals involved in an snow avalanche appeared to coordinate their paths to thunder down a gully by plan.  Understood?   They all appear to the untutored imagination as developing in synchrony to achieve a common goal of visual perception because they are all under the same survival constraint that favors better response to information carried by light, much as the avalanche all seem to share the goal of reaching the bottom of the gully not because they synchronized but because gravity and shape of the gully constrained them to move in this way,   understood?

No?  Of course not.



Of course not.