Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[The Grand Nudger]

Well still see mistaken beliefs about evolutionary theory.

No, no, don't start. We're clarifying our positions so we know where we disagree, remember? So far, I think evolution has to explain the emergence of function, and you only know that it has done so, so far.

So far, specifically, with regards to you questions about qualia and vision, yes. I have no idea what you may wonder about next or whether there’s a current evolutionary explanation for it, or whether I’m aware of whatever evolutionary explanation, if any, exists for it.

The next step, which is where the OP beings, is me saying that evolutionary narratives of how the eye evolved, which make no reference to the evolution of the rest of the visual system, are simplistic if not misleading. Do you agree?

I do not, and additionally would state that it doesn’t matter, as there are also explanations of the eye as it relates to qualia.

An explanation of the evolutionary pathways eyes have taken will be more accurate with respect to eyes if it focused on eyes than it would be if it jumped all over the place.

That’s why researchers specialize in just one or two facts of a matter.

[John 6IX Breezy]

An explanation of the evolutionary pathways eyes have taken will be more accurate with respect to eyes if it focused on eyes than it would be if it jumped all over the place.

Ok, so as an example of why I disagree with you there, I would point towards Dawkins example that as a patch of light sensitive cells begins to curve into a cup, the organism is able to detect direction. By focusing solely on the evolution on the eye, the assumption is made that the detection of direction occurs directly on the retina, as a consequence of its curvature. In strictly physical term, a curvature does allow for the perception of direction in ways that a patch does not, but it does not produce it. You need some additional mechanism that can process and perceive direction in perhaps a quite sophisticated way. For example, because of the curvature, light coming from the right hemifield, will activate the left side of the retina. So the organism needs to perceive right as left, and up as down, or risk moving towards a predator when it ought to move away, or away from food when it needs to move towards it. 

Not mentioning what goes on behind the scenes, makes it appears as if a curved retina is all thats required to perceive direction. I call that less accurate and misleading.

[GrandizerII]

Is this a tacit admission of trolling, Johnny?

No ma'am, I'll take any blood tests, x-rays, even lie detection tests you need to prove it. Put me in an MRI machine, you'll see no such religious beliefs swimming through my neurons.

So you're admitting that you're being deceptive?

Ok, so as an example of why I disagree with you there, I would point towards Dawkins example that as a patch of light sensitive cells begins to curve into a cup, the organism is able to detect direction. By focusing solely on the evolution on the eye, the assumption is made that the detection of direction occurs directly on the retina, as a consequence of its curvature. In strictly physical term, a curvature does allow for the perception of direction in ways that a patch does not, but it does not produce it. You need some additional mechanism that can process and perceive direction in perhaps a quite sophisticated way. For example, because of the curvature, light coming from the right hemifield, will activate the left side of the retina. So the organism needs to perceive right as left, and up as down, or risk moving towards a predator when it ought to move away, or away from food when it needs to move towards it.

Not mentioning what goes on behind the scenes, makes it appears as if a curved retina is all thats required to perceive direction. I call that misleading.

You can account for perception of direction by appealing to only the physical/biological. But I think where the confusion is happening is that you think perception is only about the subjective experiential aspect of it, but there's also the physical aspect whereby the nerve cells in the brain are fired in a way as to make properties about the object you're looking to be a certain way that makes sense to the brain. But if you're talking about the subjective aspect, and if it is the case that the brain doesn't really cause this type of aspect, it still wouldn't change the fact that evolution accounts for the eye and vision just fine. Whatever consciousness may be, it's still contingent on the brain in some way. If the brain doesn't really cause it, it sure as hell "turns its switch on" or "fires it up" in some way. Therefore, evolution still can operate on this consciousness via operating on the brain.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Hello Mr Breezy!

Uhm...... I don't think neural bundles quite work that way?

There are reforded cases where human brains have been born without requisite neural bundles/pathways/developments and yet the overall development of the systems still have the needed functions.

Unable to provide links atm.

Cheers.

I'm not quiet sure I understood the connection between what you quoted and what you responded.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because that is where the detection occurs in such a simple system as the earliest eyes, yes.

From there, they were and continue to be arranged in the same way in some species, attached to a wide range of other structures. Most of which, not brains.

There is no brain in such a simple organism, past or present. They would follow later, in some cases, but not all.

There is no “behind the scenes”.

In a species with a brain, and perhaps even more developed eyes, and a “behind the scenes”....we refer to explanations specific to those sorts of systems. Explanations like model based control.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You can account for perception of direction by appealing to only the physical/biological. But I think where the confusion is happening is that you think perception is only about the subjective experiential aspect of it, but there's also the physical aspect whereby the nerve cells in the brain are fired in a way as to make properties about the object you're looking to be a certain way that makes sense to the brain. But if you're talking about the subjective aspect, and if it is the case that the brain doesn't really cause this type of aspect, it still wouldn't change the fact that evolution accounts for the eye and vision just fine. Whatever consciousness may be, it's still contingent on the brain in some way. If the brain doesn't really cause it, it sure as hell "turns its switch on" or "fires it up" in some way. Therefore, evolution still can operate on this consciousness via operating on the brain.

Ok, so to simplify lets just throw out subjective experience all together, lets pretend every organism is a zombie, without consciousness. Information still needs to be processed in the same exact way. Activation of the left side of the retina still needs to processed as coming from the right side of the world, and that's not something that happens just by cupping of the eye patch. That's what's not addressed by Dawkins. 

Subjective experience doesn't really processes information anyway, its all processed in the background, and the subject merely "sees" the pretty end result.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would we pretend that? The evolutionary explanations predict that we would have things we call subjective experiences. These are descriptions of the model used to produce fine control. An evolutionarily advantageous and...seemingly, hereditary trait.

[GrandizerII]

You can account for perception of direction by appealing to only the physical/biological. But I think where the confusion is happening is that you think perception is only about the subjective experiential aspect of it, but there's also the physical aspect whereby the nerve cells in the brain are fired in a way as to make properties about the object you're looking to be a certain way that makes sense to the brain. But if you're talking about the subjective aspect, and if it is the case that the brain doesn't really cause this type of aspect, it still wouldn't change the fact that evolution accounts for the eye and vision just fine. Whatever consciousness may be, it's still contingent on the brain in some way. If the brain doesn't really cause it, it sure as hell "turns its switch on" or "fires it up" in some way. Therefore, evolution still can operate on this consciousness via operating on the brain.

Ok, so to simplify lets just throw out subjective experience all together, lets pretend every organism is a zombie, without consciousness. Information still needs to be processed in the same exact way. Activation of the left side of the retina still needs to processed as coming from the right side of the world, and that's not something that happens just by cupping of the eye patch. That's what's not addressed by Dawkins. 

Subjective experience doesn't really processes information anyway, its all processed in the background, and the subject merely "sees" the pretty end result.

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would we pretend that. Do you want to know what evolutionary theories have to say, or do you want to play pretend?

It’s seems to me like the former would be more important than the latter if you wanted to competently criticize evolutionary theory.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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 with selection is a simultaneous co-evolution between the components, not a single-stepped, one at a time process. 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.