Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[GrandizerII]

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 possible 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.

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 ...

[The Grand Nudger]

Goodness. The problems you have with modern synth amount to not including your fantasies.....and not explaining, literally, everything.

One wonders if any explanation of anything could satisfy those conditions.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why, why would it be s problem? If we discover some new fact that won’t make every other fact immediately false. That’s not how facts work.

In any case, we don’t know how consciousness or qualia work. None of our best explanations contain anything troublesome for evolutionary theory.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Why, why would it be s problem?  If we discover some new fact that won’t make every other fact immediately false.  That’s not how facts work.

In any case, we don’t know how consciousness or qualia work.  None of our best explanations contain anything troublesome for evolutionary theory.

To suggest that consciousness isn't biological, is to suggest it doesn't fall under any physical property biological organisms can possess. It would unravel most of our theories because they all account for only things that are strictly physical or biological. Its a little ironic that, even though I'm the theist, you guys are suggesting consciousness isn't biological for the sole purpose of protecting evolution from it lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it wouldn’t. We’d just find some new thing that’s also true. Two things can be true, lol.

This is another fantasy of yours. The hope that one thing really can prove too much, overturning all of the things that irk you about...all of the things.

Doesn’t work that way.

In mere reality, there’s no need to protect evolutionary biology from consciousness. The point of assuming your wishes and dreams is to show that even if they came true, that wouldn’t justify the assertions you’ve made from that hypothetical base.

That -is- how this works.

---

For example, assume that we (somehow) discover not only that were are created beings...but that any fact which could have established this was so well hidden from us it could only be the work of some intervening god.

It would still be the case that the observations we made regarding how organisms evolved were true, and that discovery itself would show why we were well within reason to believe the thing that reality was turned into a giant trick to present itself as.

The theory that bunches your panties wasn’t full of any holes, reality was intentionally hull bored so that we couldn’t help but see it the way we did.

This is the ridiculously implausible but friendliest outcome of discovering some silly god. It is far, far more likely that if we ever discovered a god, it wouldn’t change our understanding of evolutionary development at all. Put simply, it would only show us that people told tall tales about real divinity.

I’m sure this won’t be hard for you to accept as an Adventist. Your beliefs, fantasies, wishes, and dreams will forever remain as much in the absence of evidence...and if you ever came across any evidence, it would still have to contend with whatever else is already in evidence. Things like modern synth.

[John 6IX Breezy]

---

For example, assume that we (somehow) discover not only that were are created beings...but that any fact which could have established this was so well hidden from us it could only be the work of some intervening god.

It would still be the case that the observations we made regarding how organisms evolved were true, and that discovery itself would show why we were well within reason to believe the thing that reality was turned into a giant trick to present itself as.

The theory that bunches your panties wasn’t full of any holes, reality was intentionally hull bored so that we couldn’t help but see it the way we did.

This is the ridiculously implausible but friendliest outcome of discovering some silly god.  It is far, far more likely that if we ever discovered a god, it wouldn’t change our understanding of evolutionary development at all. Put simply, it would only show us that people told tall tales about real divinity.

I’m sure this won’t be hard for you to accept as an Adventist.  Your beliefs, fantasies, wishes, and dreams will forever remain as much in the absence of evidence...and if you ever came across any evidence, it would still have to contend with whatever else is already in evidence.  Things like modern synth.

Discovering that we're created and that there's an intervening God, would not affect evolution the way discovering that consciousness is not a biological process would. So you're using a bad analogy.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

You have zero interest in finding out the unknown.   Your interest in the unknown lies primarily in the sanctuary of ignorance they seem to you and your needy and wishthinking ilk to provide for your god.    If what you imagine to have been a nice protective unknown is becoming known, you would stoop to any dishonesty to resist the discoveries and their implications in order to avoid acknowledging that your god is being driven out of yet another hideout.

So give us a break, don’t wax lyrical about “mild interest in unknown”.   Your interest in the unknown is not a worthy interest for anyone with any genuine intellectual honesty, nor are our interest in the unknown of a kind you would have the moral strength to embrace.

[The Grand Nudger]

Discovering that we're created and that there's an intervening God, would not affect evolution the way discovering that consciousness is not a biological process would. So you're using a bad analogy.

There is no necessary effect at all, in either case. Discovering that consciousness is some other-x process will not change the observed facts of evolutions biological processes.

[Fake Messiah]

So topic about eye turned into discussion about conciousness - go figure.