Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[soldierofGod]

Each Prophet warned his people of the Antichrist (in this case, the Nordic peoples probably). Odin is one-eyed, that is, Satan is one-eyed. In other words the Nordic knew Satan as Odin. The Ragnarrok is the war of the end times (World War III) known by the ancient Nordics. The last Prophet, Muhammad, warned of the signs of the end times.

I haven't found the original video (maybe deleted) but I found this video of a Catholic picked up by him (video reaction).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hIvVvPe-y4

I love the way one religious group tries to equate the myths of an older religious group with the imaginary evil of their own beluefs systems.

Smells of...


...desperation.

😂

Did you watch the video at least?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello Mr Breezy!

Thank you for your reply.

Currently doing my best to keep up with the thread.

Soo.... what then do you say of organisms that have eyes but do not have neurons, so no brains and hence probably no discernable consciousness?

Cheers.

I would ask to see what specific organism you have in mind to better answer that question. But most of the time, organisms have some other way of making use of that sensory information. In bacteria the energy produced by light sensitive pigments goes straight into powering their flagella for example. In my view, such a bacteria has successfully evolved a functional system, that works for its needs in its environment. It has no eye, no brain, etc. So clearly, organisms can find pockets where sensation, perception, and behavior, are all balanced at any given stage of evolution. There are many such pockets inhabited by many different species. My issue is with accounts that ignore the balance between components that are needed for survival. when they talk about how an organism evolved.

Different species have different biological needs to survive in their environment. Our species needs neurons and consciousness, take that away in any increment you want, and the medical literature is full of examples of what happens.

So you are aware of organisms that have a level of environmental reactivity. Cool.

Sorry, it's just that most of your previous posts were entangled with brains and vision.

That organisms function quite well without brains/neural bundles but still react (Interact?) with their environment, such as the Australian box jellyfish, is a step forwards in our conversation at least.

Cheers.

[Cod]

Sure, why not?  Is that what your position is?  You’d accept the theory of evolution by natural selection in its entirety if it wasn’t for that pesky human eye business? Please, do clarify.

Probably not, theories are tools. They don't require our beliefs or acceptance, only our understanding an attention. If the pesky human eye business, and all the issues in evolutionary psychology are resolve for example, then I'll be more inclined to use the theory for the formulation of hypotheses an other observations of interest. Sorry, I just have no interest in joining any evolution cults.

Cults make you do naughty things. Explanations for the eye do not.

[The Grand Nudger]

John was primarily concerned, with regards to vision and consciousness, that there was no evolutionary explanation for their function and relationship.

Faced with the reality of this being a misapprehension, he’s become primarily concerned with not facing that.

There are, ofc. He may not agree with them, but they exist. He doesn't agree with modern synth, either...which also exists.

[John 6IX Breezy]

At work.

I would ask to see what specific organism you have in mind to better answer that question. But most of the time, organisms have some other way of making use of that sensory information. In bacteria the energy produced by light sensitive pigments goes straight into powering their flagella for example. In my view, such a bacteria has successfully evolved a functional system, that works for its needs in its environment. It has no eye, no brain, etc. So clearly, organisms can find pockets where sensation, perception, and behavior, are all balanced at any given stage of evolution. There are many such pockets inhabited by many different species. My issue is with accounts that ignore the balance between components that are needed for survival. when they talk about how an organism evolved.

Different species have different biological needs to survive in their environment. Our species needs neurons and consciousness, take that away in any increment you want, and the medical literature is full of examples of what happens.

So you are aware of organisms that have a level of environmental reactivity. Cool.

Sorry, it's just that most of your previous posts were entangled with brains and vision.

That organisms function quite well without brains/neural bundles but still react (Interact?) with their environment, such as the Australian box jellyfish, is a step forwards in our conversation at least.

Cheers.

I wouldn't say they're entangled with brain and vision, they're rather focused on it. A jellyfish is able to function the way it does, because its a jellyfish. Its environment and behavioral repertoire are balanced with its internal infrastructure. But if a jellyfish is ever going to evolve anything like the human visual system, it needs to maintain that balance throughout that process. A Dawkins' account that focuses on one aspect wouldn't work.

[The Grand Nudger]

And yet it’s still evolving. Balance doesn’t seem to mean anything you used it to support before in reference to destinations.

Meanwhile, Dawkins account, complained about earlier in thread, explicitly referenced eyes and brains.

[LadyForCamus]

Sure, why not?  Is that what your position is?  You’d accept the theory of evolution by natural selection in its entirety if it wasn’t for that pesky human eye business? Please, do clarify.

[quotes]Probably not, theories are tools. They don't require our beliefs or acceptance, only our understanding an attention.

 
That’s not quite right. Scientific theories are bodies of facts that describe, to the best of our current knowledge, the mechanism of action for a particular phenomenon. Science is the tool that allows us to collect the data that goes into building a theory. You and I are free to accept or not accept any theory, (scientific or laymen’s) for any reason, but it doesn’t follow that those reasons are necessarily sound.

If the pesky human eye business, and all the issues in evolutionary psychology are resolve for example, then I'll be more inclined to use the theory for the formulation of hypotheses and observations. Sorry, I just have no interest in joining any evolution cults.

You’re a Christian. Do you think there is a well-evidenced case for your assertion that Yahweh created the universe, and Jesus is his son who died for your sins and came back to life three days later? I’m just curious if you apply the same strict standards of evidence you use for evaluating the theory of evolution to your religious beliefs. You said earlier that if there is insufficient evidence to accept a theory, that doesn’t mean we have to replace it with something else. Do you, personally, have a replacement hypothesis in mind if evolution fails to meet your standards of evidence? If your answer is yes, what is the hypothesis, and what compelling evidence has lead you to think it’s a possible, or even probable alternative?

[The Valkyrie]

I love the way one religious group tries to equate the myths of an older religious group with the imaginary evil of their own beluefs systems.

Smells of...


...desperation.

😂

Did you watch the video at least?

I don’t watch propaganda videos.

Point me to a non-biased, peer reviewed paper that backs up your claims and I’ll read it.

[GrandizerII]

At work.


So you are aware of organisms that have a level of environmental reactivity. Cool.

Sorry, it's just that most of your previous posts were entangled with brains and vision.

That organisms function quite well without brains/neural bundles but still react (Interact?) with their environment, such as the Australian box jellyfish, is a step forwards in our conversation at least.

Cheers.

I wouldn't say they're entangled with brain and vision, they're rather focused on it. A jellyfish is able to function the way it does, because its a jellyfish. Its environment and behavioral options are balanced with its internal infrastructure. But if a jellyfish is ever going to evolve anything like the human visual system, it needs to maintain that balance, throughout that process. A Dawkins' account that focuses on one aspect wouldn't work.

Maintaining internal balance is what homeostasis is about. It's what organisms with the better adaptive skills are conditioned to achieve.

As for vision, there's the physical biological aspect of it (handled by the nerve cells in your brain) and possibly there's the subjective aspect to it. Whatever the case may be, evolution operates on the biological aspects. If there does happen to be something about our consciousness that is qualitatively of a different nature or essence, then evolution would probavly operate on it indirectly.

And eyes can function just fine with a basic nervous system to detect and react. A high level perception will require the brain, or something akin to it, and lo and behold thanks to the many millions of years of the evolution of the nervous system, we now have a system that can output such advanced perceptive reactions.

[John 6IX Breezy]

[quotes]Probably not, theories are tools. They don't require our beliefs or acceptance, only our understanding an attention.

 
That’s not quite right. Scientific theories are bodies of facts that describe, to the best of our current knowledge, the mechanism of action for a particular phenomenon. Science is the tool that allows us to collect the data that goes into building a theory. You and I are free to accept or not accept any theory, (scientific or laymen’s) for any reason, but it doesn’t necessary follow that those reasons are sound.

If the pesky human eye business, and all the issues in evolutionary psychology are resolve for example, then I'll be more inclined to use the theory for the formulation of hypotheses and observations. Sorry, I just have no interest in joining any evolution cults.

You’re a Christian. Do you think there is a well-evidenced case for your assertion that Yahweh created the universe, and Jesus is his son who died for your sins and came back to life three days later? I’m just curious if you apply the same strict standards of evidence you use for evaluating the theory of evolution to your religious beliefs?  You said earlier that if there is insufficient evidence to accept a theory, that doesn’t mean we have to replace it with something else. Do you, personally, have a replacement hypothesis in mind if evolution fails to meet your standards of evidence? If your answer is yes, what is the hypothesis, and what compelling evidence has lead you to think it’s a possible, or even probable alternative?

Theories are usually formulated to explain bodies of facts (I prefer the term observations), but I wouldn't say theories are themselves defined as bodies of facts. That's an important distinction to keep in mind.

And for the purposes of this thread I'm no longer Christian. Sorry. You can safely dispose of that label. I temporarily (or perhaps permanently) de-converted.