Is Evolution Conscious (Some amazing points about evolution)

[Robert.Evans]

I disagree. Instead of creating a comforting fantasy based on wishful thinking, it's better and more honest to just admit that we currently have no idea.

I don't see you saying that , least not when you speak to me.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Therefore, more would be likely to hatch and become young fish. This trait became common among cichlids. Later, a cichlid with a lesser tendency to eat its own young, as most fish would, was also at a selective advantage, as more of its young would survive.

Thanks for the reply.
You are saying that most fish ate their young. It is hard to imagine then that any would not do that, as it is a easy form of food. And to have young around also means there is less food around for the parent fish.
I think that when we get to the understanding that there is safety in numbers, there would be a tendancy to save the young. Do you agree?
Certainly when we become modern humans we can see that progeny means you have a bigger tribe and therefore more chance of staying alive having more male warriors at your disposal. As far as I know, there are still more males born than females. (you might want to check that... they die in battle you see. )

So when we began to fight more and needed more work doing, there was a need for more people, so don't kill the offspring. That makes sense. Of course we need intelligence to see that.

But what of before? I see your explanation, but I don't see why some would stop killing their young, other than it was just luck. Did fish have sufficient intelligence to know that the more fish there are, the more chance of the next meal not being them? I would doubt it. So how then? Got any more answers?

 

[Robert.Evans]

True. Scientists are still scratching their heads on that one. I think one of the explanations they've come up with is life coming in on and comet or asteroid; but that still leaves you with where does the comet come from?



Yep.



my mistake. I suppose I take evolution so for granted that to hear someone question it meant I assumed you favor design or creation. But what's become clear in this thread is how there is legitimate scope for debating it as a mechanism for explaining things especially when you're dealing with the deatils, such as eyebrows.



yeah. Marxists have had a problem with the idea of genetic mutations as the in determinism of it may allow for a theological interpretation as another god of the gaps argument. The sheer complexity of the process and the end result means it's hard to believe that all of our being was determined by evolution. we just don't know yet. Maybe you'll be the one who figures it out? it will happen someday.



I think if you try to figure out what parts of the changes are necessarily the product of evolution, and what parts are accidental to that process (what can't be explained by it)- eventually, you'll have to figure out what made those 'accidents' happen. Are they connected in someway? Creationists use consciousness as an explanation, but science should look for cause. But without knowing the cause, 'god' is the best answer we have (god of the gaps again). The anomalies in any theory eventually lead to a new and better theory which explains more than the previous one. Stick with it.

With the greatest of respect to everyone else answering, I think you seem to be the most open to what I am saying.
People like Amit Goswami as a physicist could explain this a whole lot better. As a believer I see everything as consciousness. So evolution then is no problem. Look at it this way. The Creationist sees the design and says it ain't going to happen with luck. The Evolutionist sees the biology and says, It wasn't designed, it evolved. What if in both being part wrong, they are also part right?

Okay, here comes the Theology part:
What if the design part is within higher-consciousness, (a super-consciousness) something that has already happened, and everything in this unverse is following that earlier print. Then we have a design but we also see it evolve. The universe has to grow up in other words, it has to mature. It is born in the Big Bang and develops like a child into its mature constructive years which we see now. At some point, just as we get old and die, so will the universe.

Because this is intiutive, instinctive, it is not something that is actually 'known' but rather something that is known when it 'arrives'. So there is still no direction in evolution. It is still blind. But when it arrives at whatever it is, a fish or cow for example, then it knows what it is and remains at that level. Everything in that sense, is looking for its own 'Self', its own identity. This gives a direction to evolution, and a pace that it can work at, and a end point. It answers everything on this planet, because it is always trying to find its own exact space to be.

It is not foreknown, nor is it directed, and yet, and this is the fascinating part, within the 'so-called book of this world', the pages that we now assume are already written as the print (the super-consciousness), actually aren't.
Life is writing the pages as it goes.
So the universe has complete autonomy from God (in the greater sense). It is a consciousness which expresses itself within physical traits. It is consciousness expressed in physical terms.

Now does that answer eyebrows? Well the short answer is no; Because I can't say what those eyebrows represent.... and I don't won't to bore you. But I know why we have two eyes, ears, hands, legs etc, and that is because we start from an initial Singularity point of consciousness which divided into two (in simple terms) and so we have: two. Thus, as everything follows that first-principle, 'we' also follow that. So we have two eyes, hands, feet, etc. It is the first simple representation of good and evil. It is even seen in something as simple as a shadow. Now science would explain that differently, but sceince would only be explaining within the physical plane that it exists in, not in the deeper sense.

I'll shut up now.

 

[Robert.Evans]

In other words, filial cannibalism simply increases overall reproductive success by helping the other eggs make it to maturity by thinning out the numbers.

Cannibalism (zoology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
________________________________________
Sounds interesting... seems to explain why there is such numbers of offspring born in the first place, including acorns from oak trees. Though it does not explain why some would have bigger broods in the first place. If only small broods were born, the said species would die out. Sounds contrived again or plain lucky, unless of course it could interact in some other way.

The one that died as a young to feed the older in theology was the Saviour. And we also are made in his image and follow his pattern. So we die ultimately to fuel the God of this aeon. This is also reflected in our atoms being reused in the universe.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't see you saying that , least not when you speak to me.

I've said it before. Better to just admit we have no idea than to make stuff up.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I've said it before. Better to just admit we have no idea than to make stuff up.

Make it up, or discuss it? Perhaps you don't want to discuss it. Sounds like a closed midn to me Spiny

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Perhaps you don't want to discuss it. Sounds like a closed midn to me Spiny

I'm not the one trying to prove a personal theory here.

 

[Ouroboros]

Now does that answer eyebrows? Well the short answer is no; Because I can't say what those eyebrows represent....

I'd like to jump into the fray as well.

First of all, yes, consciousness can be involved in evolution. ... and then I'm just waiting for getting slammed for saying that... lol!

I'm not saying that a higher being as a god or outside source necessarily is modifying and changing the genes, but human (and animal) consciousness does have influence on the selection process. It's called sexual selection. In simple terms, it's whatever is the hottest, latest, coolest, viral opinion on what is sexy, that's what people will select for. This is one of the explanations to the peacock's big and colorful tail for instance. It's not a conscious decision people are making, but it does have to do with our minds and at least sub-conscious. We pick what we like. And what we like is based on what other people likes. And so on. Now, this idea of what is the hottest and sexiest, that's a form of "meme" that's shaped by a group of individual, unintentional most of the time, and such "memes" can act as if they had their own lives, ergo, kind'a like a supernatural being of itself acting on its own.

Talking about eyebrows then, there are many suggestions to why it evolved (or didn't devolve), but one of them is sexual selection. Perhaps people just in general thought it looked better with a bride or groom with eyebrows rather the ones without. Just a thought for you to ponder.

 

[Kirran]

I'd like to jump into the fray as well.

First of all, yes, consciousness can be involved in evolution. ... and then I'm just waiting for getting slammed for saying that... lol!

I'm not saying that a higher being as a god or outside source necessarily is modifying and changing the genes, but human (and animal) consciousness does have influence on the selection process. It's called sexual selection. In simple terms, it's whatever is the hottest, latest, coolest, viral opinion on what is sexy, that's what people will select for. This is one of the explanations to the peacock's big and colorful tail for instance. It's not a conscious decision people are making, but it does have to do with our minds and at least sub-conscious. We pick what we like. And what we like is based on what other people likes. And so on. Now, this idea of what is the hottest and sexiest, that's a form of "meme" that's shaped by a group of individual, unintentional most of the time, and such "memes" can act as if they had their own lives, ergo, kind'a like a supernatural being of itself acting on its own.

Talking about eyebrows then, there are many suggestions to why it evolved (or didn't devolve), but one of them is sexual selection. Perhaps people just in general thought it looked better with a bride or groom with eyebrows rather the ones without. Just a thought for you to ponder.

Yeah, right on. Sexual selection's certainly a thing.

Although this begins to beg the question of 'what is consciousness?'

 

[LuisDantas]

So how did it know to have them in your head? It didn't, right?

It did not "know". It turned out that way out of a combination of natural selection and sheer luck of the draw.

So that was luck then? Put it this way, it certainly didn't start in the stomach and move its way up because there was slight advantages.

Probably not. But it just might.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, right on. Sexual selection's certainly a thing.

Although this begins to beg the question of 'what is consciousness?'

Agree. I'm sure scientists who research on the topic have better definitions on what it is, but generally, I've noticed that most people have vague and conflicting ideas about it, including me. I try to think of consciousness as the part of mind which is aware of existing, aware of surroundings, events, memories, etc. And I suspect it's not too far from what scientists say it is, but still, this only describes or defines what it is as a phenomenon, not how it really comes to be or how it works. It's quite strange that it arises from the interaction of some billion biological signal processing units. If we constructed a chip with billions of transistors, would it make it conscious because it can process data? Maybe, maybe not. And what would it mean to process data or information? Could there be other ways this could be done besides brain cells or transistors? Perhaps consciousness can arise from some other system of information processing. Some "mechanics" we're not even aware of yet.

 

[Kirran]

Thanks for the reply.
You are saying that most fish ate their young. It is hard to imagine then that any would not do that, as it is a easy form of food. And to have young around also means there is less food around for the parent fish.
I think that when we get to the understanding that there is safety in numbers, there would be a tendancy to save the young. Do you agree?
Certainly when we become modern humans we can see that progeny means you have a bigger tribe and therefore more chance of staying alive having more male warriors at your disposal. As far as I know, there are still more males born than females. (you might want to check that... they die in battle you see. )

So when we began to fight more and needed more work doing, there was a need for more people, so don't kill the offspring. That makes sense. Of course we need intelligence to see that.

But what of before? I see your explanation, but I don't see why some would stop killing their young, other than it was just luck. Did fish have sufficient intelligence to know that the more fish there are, the more chance of the next meal not being them? I would doubt it. So how then? Got any more answers?

The cichlids were often in an environment small enough where it impacted their reproductive success if they were to eat their young. Too crowded, they'd eat too many. OK, less food around the parent fish, but it's genes are in its offspring, and natural selection works at the level of the gene, not the individual. This is a very important point, which I apologise for not making earlier.

On whether I agree about safety in numbers - yes, that exists, sure. But its applicability varies by situation.

You seem to have a couple misapprehensions about the nature of Paleolithic human society, we weren't always going to war, and we were bands as opposed to tribes. None of this warrior caste stuff, that's Neolithic onwards, practically modern day . But yeah, I'm aware more men are born than women, by a small margin, as men tended to have higher death rates.

I disagree with your statement that a being needs intelligence to do things like not kill its young. You have heard of instinct, I take it? The fish don't have to 'know' how this works. They don't have to have a working knowledge of Mendelian genetics and game theory as it relates to evolution if they want to get by in day to day life. This is why I kept talking about 'greater tendencies to do things' as opposed to culture etc, which is what you seem to be conflating it with.

 

[Kirran]

Agree. I'm sure scientist who research on the topic have better definitions on what it is, but generally, I've noticed that most people have vague and conflicting ideas about it, including me. I try to think of consciousness as the part of mind which is aware of existing, aware of surroundings, events, memories, etc. And I suspect it's not too far from what scientists say it is, but still, this only describes or defines what it is as a phenomenon, not how it really comes to be or how it works. It's quite strange that it arises from the interaction of some billion biological signal processing units. If we constructed a chip with billions of transistors, would it make it conscious because it can process data? Maybe, maybe not. And what would it mean to process data or information? Could there be other ways this could be done besides brain cells or transistors? Perhaps consciousness can arise from some other system of information processing. Some "mechanics" we're not even aware of yet.

You may find this interesting to look into. A fascinating project, which is already showing real progress.

 

[Kirran]

In other words, filial cannibalism simply increases overall reproductive success by helping the other eggs make it to maturity by thinning out the numbers.

Cannibalism (zoology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
________________________________________
Sounds interesting... seems to explain why there is such numbers of offspring born in the first place, including acorns from oak trees. Though it does not explain why some would have bigger broods in the first place. If only small broods were born, the said species would die out. Sounds contrived again or plain lucky, unless of course it could interact in some other way.

The one that died as a young to feed the older in theology was the Saviour. And we also are made in his image and follow his pattern. So we die ultimately to fuel the God of this aeon. This is also reflected in our atoms being reused in the universe.

What's important to remember, is that very few strategies work universally. In owls, the two older chicks will eat the younger in hard times. However, acorns are incapable of cannibalism. In many other cases, it wouldn't help anything.

 

[Ouroboros]

You may find this interesting to look into. A fascinating project, which is already showing real progress.

It's the first time I hear about it. Very cool. Thanks for the link.

 

[Kirran]

It's the first time I hear about it. Very cool. Thanks for the link.

If they're successful, I think it could have a massive impact globally.

 

[Ouroboros]

If they're successful, I think it could have a massive impact globally.

Then we'll have Skynet.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm not the one trying to prove a personal theory here.

I wasn't. I wanted an answer to a question. that's all.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I disagree with your statement that a being needs intelligence to do things like not kill its young. You have heard of instinct, I take it? The fish don't have to 'know' how this works

But why would instinct do that? Surely eating makes one full and that would be the first in the queue when it came to thought processes, however basic. I see no reason why instinct would make one not eat food.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Perhaps one day we will not even be flesh and blood. Perhaps we sill be synthetic or machines... now that would be evolution. I wonder if we'd still have eyebrows