When did “consciousness” enter the Universe?

[tas8831]

You would need to argue your assertion with the folks at Berkeley and see if they will back down, I'm certainly not!

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_18

Mutations

Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Random wrt fitness.

I know you can read my posts, but that you ignore them nearly all the times says much. You're not as informed as you want others to think you are.

 

[tas8831]

Four in a row...

I can only repeat: You are simply showing that you don't understand the difference between what evolution is and mutations are.

Surely you have to check before you hit 5.

Has he asked you where the short-necked giraffe is yet?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Four in a row...

I can only repeat: You are simply showing that you don't understand the difference between what evolution is and mutations are.

Surely you have to check before you hit 5.

mutations are proposed to be the source of new genetic information

& mutations are proposed to be random

I don't think you are going to find a way around this Bradskii!


^ Again that is the most common understanding in the modern synthesis of Neo-Darwinism-
there are of course many skeptics who acknowledge the need for something beyond randomness in genetic novelty- some even proposing that certain essential genetic information is pre-existing and only needs switched on at a later date- but Darwinism that aint!

 

[tas8831]

That's too vague a question, a 4 lettered word might appear randomly in your alphabet soup.

Odd that a science expert like you relies on dopey analogies. But then, as a creationist, I guess you have a limited repertoire.

it's a matter of quality and quantity.
It's not entirely impossible for a chimp to accidentally type War and Peace, it's just not happening.

Why to dopey analogies? Did they impress you when you first heard them?

appealing to blind luck to create every new biological form is inadequate.

As inadequate as relying on an ancient middle eastern tribal deity to poof everything from nothing? Glass houses and all that.

Still waiting:


As you are an expert in computer code and information, can you describe the information flow in this system - gain, loss, no net change? And when an adaptive benefit is produced, and the information in the system did not change or went down, what then?

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that over-transcription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."

 

[tas8831]

mutations are proposed to be the source of new genetic information

& mutations are proposed to be random

wrt fitness.

I don't think you are going to find a way around this Bradskii!

Chapter and verse wherein Jesus declares DNA to be behave exactly like computer code?

 

[Astrid]

That's too vague a question, a 4 lettered word might appear randomly in your alphabet soup.
it's a matter of quality and quantity.
It's not entirely impossible for a chimp to accidentally type War and Peace, it's just not happening.

appealing to blind luck to create every new biological form is inadequate.

It's is not vague at all.
Though I must say "it's a matter of quality and quantity" is about as vague as it can get.

I asked if you think it can or cannot happen.

Do you need examples of it happening before deciding if it's possible?

 

[Bradskii]

mutations are proposed to be the source of new genetic information

& mutations are proposed to be random

I don't think you are going to find a way around this Bradskii!


^ Again that is the most common understanding in the modern synthesis of Neo-Darwinism-
there are of course many skeptics who acknowledge the need for something beyond randomness in genetic novelty- some even proposing that certain essential genetic information is pre-existing and only needs switched on at a later date- but Darwinism that aint!

At which point I will leave you to your own devices. I'm not here to explain the difference between evolution and mutation to you. Hell, you don't need anyone to do it. You even have the book in front of you!

You should read it sometime.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's is not vague at all.
Though I must say "it's a matter of quality and quantity" is about as vague as it can get.

I asked if you think it can or cannot happen.

Do you need examples of it happening before deciding if it's possible?

Of course. A gambler can play an 'ordered' hand of a royal flush - dealt entirely by chance
But we know beyond all reasonable doubt that 4 in a row is cheating!

In this case we can base this on entirely objective mathematical probability.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

At which point I will leave you to your own devices.

So who's backing down here?

A short way into chapter VI in the first edition underscores the problem fairly well.

"To sum up, I believe that species come to be tolerably well-defined objects, and do not at any one period present an inextricable chaos of varying and intermediate links: firstly, because new varieties are very slowly formed, for variation is a very slow process, and natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur"

 

[tas8831]

So who's backing down here?

Ummm...
When did “consciousness” enter the Universe?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The larger point of this problem was:

Science and religion can agree here; that consciousness lies at the foundation of the material universe.
Because it's physical form required information, & information is immaterial in the sense of having no inherent physical form- or transcending any physical medium. Information which demonstrates a capacity for anticipation- a phenomena unique to a creative mind, and which cannot be created by non-creative mechanisms. (like random chance)

To put it another way 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'

Credit where it is due!

 

[Astrid]

Of course. A gambler can play an 'ordered' hand of a royal flush - dealt entirely by chance
But we know beyond all reasonable doubt that 4 in a row is cheating!

In this case we can base this on entirely objective mathematical probability.

As if that's not obvious.

Let's add another detail to my question.
Do you deny that order ( no quotation marks) can
consistently arise in predictable patterns, from randomness?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As if that's not obvious.

Let's add another detail to my question.
Do you deny that order ( no quotation marks) can
consistently arise in predictable patterns, from randomness?

order from chaos is possible to the extent it is constrained to by non random-laws

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From a link someone posted earlier

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_18

Mutations

Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Mutations are random (within certain limits). Selection is not. Evolution involves both.

 

[Astrid]

order from chaos is possible to the extent it is constrained to by non random-laws

"To which it is constrained"

Care to be specific, like what "non random" law and how it affects the topic at hand?

If not it has the look of vaguest of generalizations

 

[SelfSim]

Science and religion can agree here; that consciousness lies at the foundation of the material universe.

Consciousness is a fundamental for anyone to be communicating their ideas, especially about what's real and what isn't.

Because it's physical form required information, & information is immaterial in the sense of having no inherent physical form- or transcending any physical medium

For you to come to that conclusion, your conscious mind was required to assess its concept of information. Information is demonstrably, a conceptual property we attribute to perceptional models of things. The meaning of information can't be shown as some 'thing' floating around in space, which was waiting for us to grab it and start using it, y'know? Its our uniquely human concept .. we created it .. we own it.

Information which demonstrates a capacity for anticipation- a phenomena unique to a creative mind, and which cannot be created by non-creative mechanisms. (like random chance)

For any demonstration, (or any phenomena), there has to be an observer. In this case the observer is your own conscious mind. Your mind comes 'packaged' with creativity and anticipation. How can you possibly separate your own creativity and anticipation from the information you perceive, when your mind is demonstrably assessing that information?

That's like having the defendant sitting on the jury panel.

To put it another way 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'

Don't you mean in the beginning, some mind expressed its conscious perceptions with some audible sound? Such a sound went on to become what we now call the word.

The concept of God however, being much more complex, must have come much, much later. So how could those words have been with God originally, other than by just simply believing that?

The people who came up with the concept you describe there, simply had no knowledge about the history of language development of the very language they were using to express that idea, ie: they completely ignored it. So why are you now continuing to do the same? Where do you think the words and their meanings you're now using, came from?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From a link someone posted earlier

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_18

Mutations

Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Yes; mutations are random, but evolution is not random because: natural selection. I find it hard to believe that you were unaware of this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Science and religion can agree here; that consciousness lies at the foundation of the material universe.
Because it's physical form required information, & information is immaterial in the sense of having no inherent physical form- or transcending any physical medium. Information which demonstrates a capacity for anticipation- a phenomena unique to a creative mind, and which cannot be created by non-creative mechanisms. (like random chance)

Well, no. The evidence points to consciousness being a mode of brain function, and information is a way that consciousness uses to describe how things are arranged in the world.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Consciousness is a fundamental for anyone to be communicating their ideas, especially about what's real and what isn't.
For you to come to that conclusion, your conscious mind was required to assess its concept of information. Information is demonstrably, a conceptual property we attribute to perceptional models of things. The meaning of information can't be shown as some 'thing' floating around in space, which was waiting for us to grab it and start using it, y'know? Its our uniquely human concept .. we created it .. we own it.
For any demonstration, (or any phenomena), there has to be an observer. In this case the observer is your own conscious mind. Your mind comes 'packaged' with creativity and anticipation. How can you possibly separate your own creativity and anticipation from the information you perceive, when your mind is demonstrably assessing that information?

That's like having the defendant sitting on the jury panel.

Don't you mean in the beginning, some mind expressed its conscious perceptions with some audible sound? Such a sound went on to become what we now call the word.

The concept of God however, being much more complex, must have come much, much later. So how could those words have been with God originally, other than by just simply believing that?

The people who came up with the concept you describe there, simply had no knowledge about the history of language development of the very language they were using to express that idea, ie: they completely ignored it. So why are you now continuing to do the same? Where do you think the words and their meanings you're now using, came from?

I agree with most of what you said.

Our creative imaginations are our own, we cannot know the mind of others, that works on an individual basis also- I cannot know what it is like to have your conciousness- that's a subjective experience.

This does not prevent us from correctly identifying the fingerprints of creative intelligence by objective means: archeology, forensic science etc. because as subjective as the experience may be- intelligence still displays capacity that 'natural laws' lack- the capacity for anticipation.

Ultimately this means creative intelligence can act according to a desired future event, rather than merely reacting to past ones- this opens up all kinds of possibilities that are otherwise impossible to account for.

'word' describes information- a 'word' can exist ,as here, entirely independently of sound or any other material substance- and matter requires information to describe it - this information or 'word' must exist before matter can

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes; mutations are random, but evolution is not random because: natural selection. I find it hard to believe that you were unaware of this.

But we are talking about creative capacity- and mutations cannot ask natural selection for any creative help!

Natural selection in any form is merely a selection process, a filtering mechanism, it looks at what mutations have created and picks it's 'favorites'

So you begin with a larger set of possibilities and end with a smaller set. (reverse of Darwinian tree)

You cannot select what does not already exist.
You can select exactly nothing into existence.
It is an inherently destructive process re. the diversity of life.

Natural selection is not unique to Darwinism. It also applies to Lamarckism, Creationism and Intelligent Design, and supplies zero explanation for the origination of new biological form in these theories either.

So the explanatory 'creative' power of Darwinism relies 100% on pure-blind-chance, that is unique to Darwinism here, the appeal to luck is the defining characteristic of Darwinism.