Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

If "survival of the fittest" doesn't conform to the way species really change then it's a very very poor definition.

It does and we have entire threads that have practically become devoted to demonstrating that to you, despite your disinterest in learning from that.

Your "opinions" often resonate with reality because they are founded on the logic of nature as expressed in experiment. Of course opinion is often valuable. Everyone lives their life by it.

The intelligent ones recognize that some of their opinions are stale, weak and need revision.

That's odd you say this today. I usually wake up very quickly (in less than 1 second I know I won't be fully awake until I've had my second cup of coffee). It has always taken me between ten and twenty seconds to fall asleep. Today, however, I realized I was dreaming and waking up 2 or 3 seconds before I actually woke up at 8:05.

I think he was referring to your claim regarding consciousness being switched off and on like a light Or coming online instantaneously in other living things which is sort of the implication of your light switch model. I don't know the precise moment I fall asleep or wake up. It is a process with much nuance like speciation or aging.

 

[Little Dragon]

If "survival of the fittest" doesn't conform to the way species really change then it's a very very poor definition.

Fittest, for that particular ecological system. Organisms, that have adaptations, that give them a slight edge in a particular ecology, will be, on average, more likely to survive and reproduce, in that ecological system or those like it. They are fittest in the sense that they better fit the lock of that ecology and unlock that niche.

If that ecology is wiped out, then those organisms, even the fittest of them, will have to try their fortunes elsewhere, and if they cannot adapt to new ecological habitats, they go extinct.

 

[cladking]

But I still don't know what consciousness is to you, since you've said all life is conscious.

Consciousness is the only tool given to living things to aid in their survival. In homo omnisciencis it is experienced as thought but no other species "think". Other species experience reality directly in terms of their knowledge and the logic of their "brains". Their genes define their consciousness which is individual, determines all behavior, and is based on experience and knowledge which will include any hard wiring. Animals don't act on instinct as all modern humans believe, they act on knowledge which can become secondary to their hardwiring at times.

You really can't be human and experience consciousness because we are like sleepwalkers. We act out dreams that are models and beliefs. All we can do to experience consciousness is to model it. It's impossible at this time to live in our model of consciousness but this is probably possible if a natural language for thought can be invented. We can't have models without language and our language can not sustain the direct perception of reality.

The only thing our species is certain to understand about consciousness is that all life is individual and all individuals are conscious. Nothing can be not alive and conscious at this time but I believe there soon be machine intelligence and about the third iteration of this can be said to be "conscious".

 

[cladking]

I think he was referring to your claim regarding consciousness being switched off and on like a light

Oh... If you're correct he misinterpreted my intent.

I meant that either something is conscious or it is not. There isn't really anything in between. All living things are conscious and NOTHING else is.

 

[cladking]

Fittest, for that particular ecological system.

So back to the subject.

Do these fittest individuals have fitter than average offspring or do they not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Consciousness is the only tool given

Given? Are you talking your religious opinion or do you have some evidence of this transfer from source to subject?

to living things to aid in their survival. In homo omnisciencis

There it is again. A reference to a personal nomenclature that is not established or defined. Reference to it tells us nothing. You have added it to your syncretic belief system to give it the patina of science without benefit of actual science. I think you use it to give yourself the sense of authority that you don't actually have.

it is experienced as thought but no other species "think".

I disagree. There is evidence that other species do think. I believe this is more evidence of a syncretic belief system borrowed from the view of exceptionalism seen in Abrahamic religions.

Other species experience reality directly in terms of their knowledge and the logic of their "brains".

Now you are saying other creatures do think and claim they experience reality while we do not. It doesn't make any sense. Some people get these wild gut ideas and then pull them up into their head and evaluate them and discard what is really wild. You seem to declare even the wildest to be valid without reason or evaluation and start telling us all the "good news".

Their genes define their consciousness which is individual, determines all behavior, and is based on experience and knowledge which will include any hard wiring. Animals don't act on instinct as all modern humans believe, they act on knowledge which can become secondary to their hardwiring at times.

Your personal opinion not based on a knowledge of genetics, consciousness or study of these animals. Your belief system it seems. There is no reason in here for me to believe any of it and much to declare it a baseless, incoherent narrative of belief.

You really can't be human and experience consciousness because we are like sleepwalkers.

There is no evidence of this or that it has any useful meaning. Maybe you feel this way, but you are not everyone or the model for everyone.

We act out dreams that are models and beliefs. All we can do to experience consciousness is to model it. It's impossible at this time to live in our model of consciousness but this is probably possible if a natural language for thought can be invented. We can't have models without language and our language can not sustain the direct perception of reality.

More of what you believe is reality. Given the duration of your stay here and the empty support, it isn't something you can demonstrate anyway.

The only thing our species is certain to understand about consciousness is that all life is individual and all individuals are conscious.

Life is individual is an apparent fact stated without meaningful reason. Humans are a composite of many millions of individual cells. The evidence doesn't show that all individuals are conscious. My heart cells don't exhibit consciousness. They don't just decide to do what they want or with any evidence of consciousness.

Nothing can be not alive and conscious at this time but I believe there soon be machine intelligence and about the third iteration of this can be said to be "conscious".

Lots of living things are alive with no evidence of consciousness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh... If you're correct he misinterpreted my intent.

I meant that either something is conscious or it is not. There isn't really anything in between. All living things are conscious and NOTHING else is.

I don't know that your latter statement is true either. Considering that you mention that we don't know consciousness, it seems a bold declaration.

 

[cladking]

I don't know that your latter statement is true either. Considering that you mention that we don't know consciousness, it seems a bold declaration.

I understand your point. You're thinking that if an oak tree is conscious then why not a galaxy or star cluster. But the reality is life has many shared characteristics like the ability to reproduce and to consume resources. Life needs something to assure success so we get an amygdala to help us appreciate life and consciousness to keep us alive. And of course many individuals are virtually driven by sex (at least some of the time).

There's no reason to presume consciousness would be of any benefit to a stone or a star.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So back to the subject.

Do these fittest individuals have fitter than average offspring or do they not.

What do you hope to gain by repeating this question? What means do you have at your disposal to properly evaluate the answers.

The next generation of people have 50 to 100 mutations that their parents did not. There is no predictive means to determine what mutations might occur or what that effect on phenotype might be. There is also zygosity and allelic dominance that you seem to be unaware of or at least not taking into account. Of course this reflects your lack of knowledge of the subject that you are making sweeping declarations about.

If the genotype and phenotype of the offspring do not carry their genes into future generations, they are less fit than their parents. If they continue on average like their parents, then the environment is stable and protecting the status quo. If the encounter an environment that favors their particular genes and get more of them into future generations, they have saved some of their parents contribution as well as the novelty that makes them more fit.

Your expectation seems based more on magical thinking than any understanding of what is going on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand your point. You're thinking that if an oak tree is conscious then why not a galaxy or star cluster.

You might be. I wasn't. I was thinking that there are a lot of living things that are not found to possess a consciousness.

But the reality is life has many shared characteristics like the ability to reproduce and to consume resources.

And...so what?

Life needs something to assure success so we get an amygdala to help us appreciate life and consciousness to keep us alive.

We may have one, but appreciation of life is likely a secondary effect and not a selection mechanism driving the evolution of brain structures.

And of course many individuals are virtually driven by sex (at least some of the time).

And...so what?

There's no reason to presume consciousness would be of any benefit to a stone or a star.

I have not presumed that or even thought about it. It has nothing to do with the discussion of consciousness to my knowledge and seems like mention of it is a sore toe in a bag of elbows. There by no reason or sense.

 

[cladking]

What do you hope to gain by repeating this question?

The last several pages are an obfuscation by believers in Evolution to avoid recognition of the fact they believe that species are continually improving. This implies the weak and sick should be left behind for the benefit of the species. It implies we should be murdering the less fit and less volved for the benefit of the species and nature.

Like much of the belief in Evolution it is magical thinking and many here seem to think I'll forget the subject being avoided.

There's a lot of irony in Evolution beliefs held by the holiest of all thous; believers in Peers and Science.

 

[cladking]

We may have one, but appreciation of life is likely a secondary effect and not a selection mechanism driving the evolution of brain structures.

Humans are always the odd man out.

Every animal will fight to live until it is completely and sincerely dead. Even rational people will die for a good cause. Irrational people will try to fly from a 30 story building (that has the 31st floor right at the top because the 13th is missing).

Only homo omnisciencis is illogical and reasons in circles.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

ItAin'tNecessarilySo just said survival of the fittest is true by definition

What I said was that the claim that what survives is fit and what is fit is that which survives is not a circular argument or any kind of an argument or even a bare claim at all, but a definition.

so continuous improvement in species is likewise true by definition.

That doesn't follow.

If "survival of the fittest" doesn't conform to the way species really change then it's a very very poor definition.

Yes, the phrase survival of the fittest is a misnomer, like separation of church and state. In a secular democracy, the church is subordinate to the state, not separate from it. The church functions at the pleasure of the state according to the laws of the state.

Your "opinions" often resonate with reality because they are founded on the logic of nature as expressed in experiment.

Thanks. I try. I'd use different language, however. My worldview and belief set are derived empirically and thus correspond to reality in the sense that they help me anticipate its vicissitudes.

Consciousness is the only tool given to living things to aid in their survival.

That's incorrect. Cacti have thorns. Chameleons have camouflage. Birds and insects have wings. And they all have immune systems.

You really can't be human and experience consciousness

I'd say you can't be fully human without it.

 

[McBell]

You might be. I wasn't. I was thinking that there are a lot of living things that are not found to possess a consciousness.

And...so what?

We may have one, but appreciation of life is likely a secondary effect and not a selection mechanism driving the evolution of brain structures.

And...so what?

I have not presumed that or even thought about it. It has nothing to do with the discussion of consciousness to my knowledge and seems like mention of it is a sore toe in a bag of elbows. There by no reason or sense.

It seems to me they are merely making outrageous claims in an attempt to get someone to engage them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems to me they are merely making outrageous claims in an attempt to get someone to engage them.

That and it also appears to be a defense mechanism to divert from answering questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Humans are always the odd man out.

No idea what that is supposed to mean. Exceptionalism? Self-doubt? Who knows?

Every animal will fight to live until it is completely and sincerely dead.

Another orphan opinion in search of evidence for support.

Even rational people will die for a good cause. Irrational people will try to fly from a 30 story building (that has the 31st floor right at the top because the 13th is missing).

More meaningless pondering from the person that claims science is reductionist and cannot reveal the big picture. I assure you that you are not revealing a bigger picture.

Only homo omnisciencis is illogical and reasons in circles.

As always include reference to a made up species and attribute things to that made up species as if those attributes mean something.

It tells us nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems to me they are merely making outrageous claims in an attempt to get someone to engage them.

I often feel like that is what the entire point of this is. To provide someone that is lonely with attention they crave.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The last several pages are an obfuscation

Sigh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No.

by believers in Evolution

I don't know of any "believers" in Evolution.

to avoid recognition of the fact they believe that species are continually improving.

That is not true. No one here accepting science has indicated they follow a view of evolution that is some great chain of being. You have done nothing to demonstrate that. Saying it is your poorly informed and highly detached opinion.

This implies the weak and sick should be left behind for the benefit of the species.

It could. So what?

It implies we should be murdering the less fit and less volved for the benefit of the species and nature.

It does nothing of the sort. This is your moralistic effort to reject science that fails at every turn just as it has since it was first run up the pole.

You could use the same misguided moralism to reject hammers, because some people have used them to kill.

Like much of the belief in Evolution it is magical thinking and many here seem to think I'll forget the subject being avoided.

Again, I don't know that anyone that accepts the science is believing it like you believe your religious views. You have revealed a lot of magical thinking, but not shown that acceptance of theory requires it or reveals it.

There's a lot of irony in Evolution beliefs held by the holiest of all thous; believers in Peers and Science.

Once again, this is your variant of trash talk and conspiracy thinking that is the bride of magical thinking. You've literally said nothing, but give form to emotions that drive your rejection of science over reason that would lead to acceptance. Magical thinking at its worst.

 

[John53]

It seems to me they are merely making outrageous claims in an attempt to get someone to engage them.

The rodent has been doing a fine job of engaging this morning. I am in awe of his abilities.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The last several pages are an obfuscation by believers in Evolution to avoid recognition of the fact they believe that species are continually improving. This implies the weak and sick should be left behind for the benefit of the species. It implies we should be murdering the less fit and less volved for the benefit of the species and nature.

Like much of the belief in Evolution it is magical thinking and many here seem to think I'll forget the subject being avoided.

There's a lot of irony in Evolution beliefs held by the holiest of all thous; believers in Peers and Science.

You didn't answer my questions about the credentials you believe you have to evaluate the answers you get.

You've told us many times that you don't know much and have no formal education, training or experience in science.

So why should anyone consider your personal opinions and baseless declarations?

That you believe what you say is not in question. I believe you believe this syncretic religion you have created. But it isn't science or fact or have any rational basis outside of the trivial connections of some of included subjects. There is no reason to use what you have preached here to dislodge science from its very useful and productive position.