When did “consciousness” enter the Universe?

[Guy Threepwood]

"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

It varies case by case but I will give you two contrasting examples:

Dawkin's 'Weasel' program, uses randomly generated characters to create the sentence 'me thinks it looks like a weasel'

This is possible because the entire sentence is provided as a 'fitness function' to select the closest match at each new generation

i.e. the 'laws' in this case constrain the result to one single specific outcome which is guaranteed.
Without this constraint the program would never create such informational content in any practical period of time

Natural selection on the other hand has very little constraint- it in no way constrains a single celled bacteria to one day develop into a human being- a means by which the universe may contemplate it's own existence!

Within this weak constraint, there are an infinite number of potential outcomes which utterly fail to achieve this result- including an infinite number of complete extinction-of-all-life scenarios.

And so more laws would be required to constrain 'random mutations' into a specific result with such volumes of functional informational content. (in DNA)

 

[Astrid]

It varies case by case but I will give you two contrasting examples:

Dawkin's 'Weasel' program, uses randomly generated characters to create the sentence 'me thinks it looks like a weasel'

This is possible because the entire sentence is provided as a 'fitness function' to select the closest match at each new generation

i.e. the 'laws' in this case constrain the result to one single specific outcome which is guaranteed.
Without this constraint the program would never create such informational content in any practical period of time

Natural selection on the other hand has very little constraint- it in no way constrains a single celled bacteria to one day develop into a human being- a means by which the universe may contemplate it's own existence!

Within this weak constraint, there are an infinite number of potential outcomes which utterly fail to achieve this result- including an infinite number of complete extinction-of-all-life scenarios.

And so more laws would be required to constrain 'random mutations' into a specific result with such volumes of functional informational content. (in DNA)

I didn't see any "non random law" identified.

Your bacteria-to- man, infinity and extinction of all
life describes nothing I can connect to the theory of
evolution, or "non random laws" or any other sort
of law.

Perhaps if you use non imaginary terms and examples I
would get your idea.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Evolution is a massively parallel process. Every new individual offspring has many random mutations, so every individual in every generation has a unique genome with novel variations. The more successful individuals will contribute a greater than average proportion of their genetic novelty to the next generation, who will also each have their own unique set of mutations. So the variety available for selection doesn't decrease.

In sexually reproducing creatures you also get the remixing of the parental genes, IOW quite literally and directly combining existing genetic elements in new ways - the essence of creativity.

 

[Bradskii]

Natural selection on the other hand has very little constraint...

Survival. It's the 'preservation of favoured races'. Look at the front of your book. You don't even have to open it. Organisms that, due to a variety of reasons, are a better fit for their environment, survive. And pass on their genes. The 'improvement' is the better fit.

In many years of talking to creationists/IDers, I find they fall into one of three camps. They'll make a comment and the response will vary as to which camp they're in:

Good point. I'll admit that needs further investigation.
Good point. But here's why you're wrong.
I'm afraid you don't seem to understand the subject.

You are firmly encamped in the third example.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I didn't see any "non random law" identified.

Your bacteria-to- man, infinity and extinction of all
life describes nothing I can connect to the theory of
evolution, or "non random laws" or any other sort
of law.

Perhaps if you use non imaginary terms and examples I
would get your idea.

'natural selection' would be the 'law' that some propose to constrain random mutation into non random results.

This is true, but as Dawkin's program points out, the specificity of the law determines the specificity of the outcome.

Natural selection in no way specifies humanity and in no way 'outlaws' an infinite number of possible outcomes that would result in complete extinction

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm afraid you don't seem to understand the subject.

sticks and stones. If you feel you can present a substantive argument, I'm happy to hear it.


Now look above 'preservation of favoured races'.- (how does a race first become favored to preserve?)

it says 'Origin of Species by means of natural selection' origin by selection!

Again clearly you cannot select into existence what has not already been created or 'originated' somehow- there is no way around this. It is a contradiction in terms and logical fallacy from the title page.

A more accurate title for the theory would have been 'origin of species by means of blind chance'
but apparently his editor advised against that!

"Organisms that, due to a variety of reasons, are a better fit for their environment, survive. And pass on their genes. "

I get the theory- and it certainly sounds very intuitive in a thought experiment- but in the real world, even this 'truism' fails if you think it through. (Or model it in software which is what put the first cracks in my belief in Darwinism)

e.g. a rabbit born with an incredibly lucky mutation which makes it run twice as fast as it's siblings, may just as likely die of disease before reaching sexual maturity.

It's an important point because it shows that unlike the 'Weasel' program, the law of natural selection is relatively weak in a chaotic real-world application. It in no way specifies that a fitter mutation must survive, or even that the 'fittest' in a generation will necessarily be 'fitter' or even 'as fit as' than the previous- where deleterious mutations vastly outnumber advantageous ones.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution is a massively parallel process. Every new individual offspring has many random mutations, so every individual in every generation has a unique genome with novel variations. The more successful individuals will contribute a greater than average proportion of their genetic novelty to the next generation, who will also each have their own unique set of mutations. So the variety available for selection doesn't decrease.

In sexually reproducing creatures you also get the remixing of the parental genes, IOW quite literally and directly combining existing genetic elements in new ways - the essence of creativity.

The more successful individuals will contribute a greater than average proportion of their genetic novelty to the next generation

This may be true but as above, a successful individual ≠ an individual with fitter genes.

 

[durangodawood]

....e.g. a rabbit born with an incredibly lucky mutation which makes it run twice as fast as it's siblings, may just as likely die of disease before reaching sexual maturity....

But it will be the rabbit that escape predators. And thats worth a lot.

 

[Astrid]

'natural selection' would be the 'law' that some propose to constrain random mutation into non random results.

This is true, but as Dawkin's program points out, the specificity of the law determines the specificity of the outcome.

Natural selection in no way specifies humanity and in no way 'outlaws' an infinite number of possible outcomes that would result in complete extinction

It is better if words such as law and theory
are not assigned new meaning as indicated
by quotation marks. Only the authors knows
what those new meanings

I dontvread Dawkins but I supposevhe said that if you say so.
But so what.

And of course evolution did not have to have produced mankind or any
other species.

Complete extinction-? What does that even mean?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But it will be the rabbit that escape predators. And thats worth a lot.

Not if he doesn't live long enough to meet and fall in love with a lady rabbit!- (who's genes may then nix the advantage altogether anyway)

 

[durangodawood]

Not if he doesn't live long enough to meet and fall in love with a lady rabbit!- (who's genes may then nix the advantage altogether anyway)

He has a better chance of living long if he can outrun predators better than his classmates. Its about probabilities, not certainties.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is better if words such as law and theory
are not assigned new meaning as indicated
by quotation marks. Only the authors knows
what those new meanings

I dontvread Dawkins but I supposevhe said that if you say so.
But so what.

And of course evolution did not have to have produced mankind or any
other species.

Complete extinction-? What does that even mean?

under 'natural laws' nature would be perfectly 'happy' with an entire biosphere of bacteria that ate itself into oblivion long ago. Just one of an infinite number of possibilities that would not lead to us having this discussion.

It's all about reduction of probabilities by laws

The weasel program reduces possible outcomes to 1- that's why it works.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

He has a better chance of living long if he can outrun predators better than his classmates. Its about probabilities, not certainties.

Sure, so it should not be stated as an absolute:

"Organisms that, due to a variety of reasons, are a better fit for their environment, survive. And pass on their genes. "

should read "Organisms that, due to a variety of reasons, are a better fit for their environment, may survive. And pass on their genes. "

And you run into countless statements saying the same thing in absolute terms, which tends to give a misleading sense of certainty to the theory.

There's a big difference between woulda-coulda-shoulda and did! The former sounds entirely intuitive because we have that capacity for anticipation, in our minds-'why shouldn't the fittest survive?' In chaotic reality - there are many reasons why they might not.

At the very least it works far better in our 'consciousness' than reality.

 

[durangodawood]

....should read "Organisms that, due to a variety of reasons, are a better fit for their environment, may survive. And pass on their genes. "....

Thats not it either.

Sub in "are more likely to" for "may".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Thats not it either.

Sub in "are more likely to" for "may".

Okay yes, I'll accept that- both modifications are least are technically accurate now!

So an individual's advantageous genes being passed on in greater numbers is not a given-
which means the algorithm doesn't work unless the law outweighs the chaos.
It comes down to the numbers- the devil is in the details...

Obviously a rabbit being 2x as fast with no disadvantage.. an is an improbable mutation- and it is acknowledged, particularly by Darwin that evolution must proceed in slow incremental steps. So we have a Catch-22

For example a female gorilla can expect to have 3 offspring in her life (I believe that is being generous)

So how much of a 'slight' 'incremental' genetic advantage must she have over her siblings, by percentage, whereby all else being even, she raises this probability to 4 instead of 3? quite a bit.

Otherwise her lucky mutation has caused zero additional offspring- no superior genes have been favored this generation, no 'survival of the fitter' has prevailed, and hence no evolution has taken place.

 

[Astrid]

under 'natural laws' nature would be perfectly 'happy' with an entire biosphere of bacteria that ate itself into oblivion long ago. Just one of an infinite number of possibilities that would not lead to us having this discussion.

It's all about reduction of probabilities by laws

The weasel program reduces possible outcomes to 1- that's why it works.

You sure come up with some weird ideas.

 

[durangodawood]

Okay yes, I'll accept that- both modifications are least are technically accurate now!

So an individual's advantageous genes being passed on in greater numbers is not a given-
which means the algorithm doesn't work unless the law outweighs the chaos.
It comes down to the numbers- the devil is in the details...

Obviously a rabbit being 2x as fast with no disadvantage.. an is an improbable mutation- and it is acknowledged, particularly by Darwin that evolution must proceed in slow incremental steps. So we have a Catch-22

For example a female gorilla can expect to have 3 offspring in her life (I believe that is being generous)

So how much of a 'slight' 'incremental' genetic advantage must she have over her siblings, by percentage, whereby all else being even, she raises this probability to 4 instead of 3? quite a bit.

Otherwise her lucky mutation has caused zero additional offspring- no superior genes have been favored this generation, no 'survival of the fitter' has prevailed, and hence no evolution has taken place.

Yes, I think you are applying thoughtful skepticism here. So what do biologists say in response to this concern of yours?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This may be true but as above, a successful individual ≠ an individual with fitter genes.

Evolution applies to populations rather than individuals. In evolutionary terms, success broadly means producing more viable offspring than the population average. In the population as a whole, the main contributions in this respect will come from the genetically fitter individuals. That's basically what evolutionary fitness means.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For example a female gorilla can expect to have 3 offspring in her life (I believe that is being generous)

So how much of a 'slight' 'incremental' genetic advantage must she have over her siblings, by percentage, whereby all else being even, she raises this probability to 4 instead of 3? quite a bit.

Otherwise her lucky mutation has caused zero additional offspring- no superior genes have been favored this generation, no 'survival of the fitter' has prevailed, and hence no evolution has taken place.

The idea that the fittest produce more viable offspring is a broad generalisation - it doesn't necessarily mean they produce more offspring (for more complex creatures like mammals, it's often about the number of offspring that get to reproduce out of a set number per 'family'), and it doesn't apply to all. A few species, particularly the more cognitively sophisticated creatures, do have very small numbers of offspring because of the amount and length of post-natal care they require. In these cases, fitness will tend to be more complex, often having social aspects, perhaps involving reproductive dominance hierarchies.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You sure come up with some weird ideas.

Thanks Estrid, you too!