Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

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

Did I say "hotter"? No?

You're a student of psychology, right? Do you remember what it takes for a theory to be a good scientific theory?

Are you saying the theory of evolution is not a good scientific theory?

---

L-cones might be sensitive to the wavelength of light we perceive as red, but you would be incorrect to suppose these cells contain the qualia of redness. If for no other reason than because perception certainly does not occur in the retina.

Here's a secret for you:

Organisms do NOT need qualia to detect "red" or any other color.

Cool, and once they do, it needs to be accounted for.

The theory of evolution is a great theory, specially for psychological explanations, very good at highlighting where not to look for answers.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I must admit to not quite grokking the term 'Qualia'.

[Fake Messiah]

L-cones might be sensitive to the wavelength of light we perceive as red, but you would be incorrect to suppose these cells contain the qualia of redness.

Wood also doesn't contain phlogiston and yet it burns. That's why cone cells have pigments, at least bother to read a wiki article: "Cones are normally one of the three types, each with different pigment, namely: S-cones, M-cones and L-cones. Each cone is therefore sensitive to visible wavelengths of light that correspond to short-wavelength, medium-wavelength and longer-wavelength light."

I mean this is a shout out to every person that reads creationists books: If your only knowledge about evolution is from creationists books then DO NOT think that you know evolution or human anatomy or how to world works. You have to read science books in order to know what evolution really is.

At least within psychology, evolutionary theories offer the worst possible explanations for behavior;

Just the opposite. Evolution is really good in explaining the Bible, because we see how it was written with the primitive tribal mentality. I mean take the Decalogue as a perfect example, where the first three Commandments are inherently abject to anything not involving utter worship of the male leader, and the rest of his property. Killing, stealing, and wanting your neighbor's wife are thrown in practically as an afterthought.
We have an excellent indication of the man-made extent of the Ten Commandments, and flagrant signs of the evolution of the human animal and the "morality" that evolved with us.

[GrandizerII]

Did I say "hotter"? No?

You're a student of psychology, right? Do you remember what it takes for a theory to be a good scientific theory?

Are you saying the theory of evolution is not a good scientific theory?

---

Here's a secret for you:

Organisms do NOT need qualia to detect "red" or any other color.

Cool, and once they do, it needs to be accounted for.

Why does evolution need to account for qualia exactly? Regardless of what the true theory of consciousness is, evolution works just fine with a number of them. If the mind is directly a causal product of the complex brain, evolution makes sense just fine. If the world somehow is panpsychist or even dualistic, evolution can still operate on consciousness indirectly by acting on the physical biological structures that consciousness is contingent on or linked to. So, no problem there. The problem that you think is there is in your head.

The theory of evolution is a great theory, specially for psychological explanations, very good at highlighting where not to look for answers.

You got that right. Evolution, as a basis, is a good way to explain a lot of our biases. You've done psychology and should be aware of the various types of cognitive biases, I hope.

---

At work.

I must admit to not quite grokking the term 'Qualia'.

Qualia refers to the subjective experience/awareness of that which is being observed or reacted to or what have you.

[chimp3]

"An eye that evolves through the stages presented by Dawkins, without simultaneously evolving the neural accessories for processing that information, and the behavioral capacity to make use of that information, should not be able to experience the types of selective pressures that allows for its evolution.

In other words, Dawkins' narrative (which I believe he recounts in one of his books) focuses on the sense organ exclusively, as if it evolved in isolation. My concern is that the narrative is too simple, to the point of being misinforming."




 

Again, John, I ask you to support this statement. You are proficient enough in shifting the burden of proof. Please explain why the eye and the neural network must evolve simultaneously in order to convey any advantage. This is your claim.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Wood also doesn't contain phlogiston and yet it burns. That's why cone cells have pigments, at least bother to read a wiki article: "Cones are normally one of the three types, each with different pigment, namely: S-cones, M-cones and L-cones. Each cone is therefore sensitive to visible wavelengths of light that correspond to short-wavelength, medium-wavelength and longer-wavelength light."

I mean this is a shout out to every person that reads creationists books: If your only knowledge about evolution is from creationists books then DO NOT think that you know evolution or human anatomy or how to world works. You have to read science books in order to know what evolution really is.

I like how the wiki quote you paste is basically a mirror of what I already said lol.

---

Why does evolution need to account for qualia exactly? Regardless of what the true theory of consciousness is, evolution works just fine with a number of them. If the mind is directly a causal product of the complex brain, evolution makes sense just fine. If the world somehow is panpsychist or even dualistic, evolution can still operate on consciousness indirectly by acting on the physical biological structures that consciousness is contingent on or linked to. So, no problem there. The problem that you think is there is in your head.

Sadly you're not wrong, evolution is one of those theories that can conform itself to whatever reality happens to be. If consciousness is a useless byproduct, oh well, that's just what evolution does. If consciousness is a needed component for volition and decision-making, oh well, that's because evolution made it so.

Theories that can predict every possible outcome, besides being useless, run into issues of falsification.

---

Again, John, I ask you to support this statement. You are proficient enough in shifting the burden of proof. Please explain why the eye and the neural network must evolve simultaneously in order to convey any advantage. This is your claim.

I wouldn't say they need to evolve simultaneously to convey an advantage, only that both need to be present for the system to work. Evolutionists are great at imagining advantages out of thin air, so for all I know even cancer of the retina has some advantage. So perhaps evolving cones, even without a brain that can represent color, has the advantage of making the eye heavier, even though it has no advantage in terms of color vision (assuming heavier eyes are for whatever reason advantageous, perhaps females love males with droopy eyes, I'm not as creative as evolutionists, sadly).

[GrandizerII]

Why does evolution need to account for qualia exactly? Regardless of what the true theory of consciousness is, evolution works just fine with a number of them. If the mind is directly a causal product of the complex brain, evolution makes sense just fine. If the world somehow is panpsychist or even dualistic, evolution can still operate on consciousness indirectly by acting on the physical biological structures that consciousness is contingent on or linked to. So, no problem there. The problem that you think is there is in your head.

Sadly you're not wrong, evolution is one of those theories that can conform itself to whatever reality happens to be. If consciousness is a useless byproduct, oh well, that's just what evolution does. If consciousness is a needed component for volition and decision-making, oh well, that's because evolution made it so.

Theories that can predict every possible outcome, besides being useless, run into issues of falsification.

But evolution isn't really about explaining consciousness. If consciousness is not physical at the core, then that's a matter that warrants another type of explanation. One of your many mistakes here is that you think biological evolution has to explain everything, lol.

[Mister Agenda]

Couldn't bear t read the whole thing, but it looks like we've moved on to qualia. Is the OP straight on co-evolution of biological structures now? How if some sort of eye improves, any improvement in apparatus to interpret its signals will be highly selected for (or vice versa) if being able to see better is useful to the organism?

[I_am_not_mafia]

I must admit to not quite grokking the term 'Qualia'.

No one does really. It's a bullshit term without a clear definition. A bit like the word 'God' but for scientists.

All it really means is the recognition that we humans experience things. It's a label used by people who try to explain it using a top-down approach when it can only be understood using a bottom-up approach because it is an emergent phenomena. But if you use a bottom-up approach then you don't need the word.

I've always switched off whenever it gets used in a conference or workshop because I know that absolutely nothing of interest will come of the talk. Just a load of questions with no answers.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Sadly you're not wrong, evolution is one of those theories that can conform itself to whatever reality happens to be. If consciousness is a useless byproduct, oh well, that's just what evolution does. If consciousness is a needed component for volition and decision-making, oh well, that's because evolution made it so.

Theories that can predict every possible outcome, besides being useless, run into issues of falsification.

But evolution isn't really about explaining consciousness. If consciousness is not physical at the core, then that's a matter that warrants another type of explanation. One of your many mistakes here is that you think biological evolution has to explain everything, lol.

Well, yes, I'm under the impression that biological evolution should explain everything related to biological organisms. Consciousness is possibly the only thing that conclusively differentiates living organisms from non-living matter. Almost everything else that living organisms do, can be mimicked by non-living technologies. It seems strange to think evolution wouldn't need to explain or account for consciousness.

---

"Just a load of questions with no answers."

Its understandable to switch off; science requires a mild interest in the unknown. Hopefully a passion for it.