American Public Radio show: Understanding Charles Darwin

Wonderful, but you just know some idiot Congresscritter is going to hold hearings about wasting tax dollars on "atheist propaganda."

Best, Marc

For what it's worth, Speaking of Faith is the only radio show I listen to religiously these days (via podcast). Every episode is well researched and well produced and I think the host has a wonderful interview style.

Looking forward to the show.

Why is it called "Speaking of Faith?" Must we constantly try and remind everyone that there's a 'controversy'? Why not just discuss the science and the history of the development of the the theory - not always focus on the social aspects? If we constantly remind people that there is a so-called 'controversy' we simply can't win: people will always choose their religious/ideological affiliations over some guy talking about what is occasionally quite arcane biological matters.

How do people feel about the possibility that an alternative evolutionary theory e.g. neo-Lamarckism might prove superior to neo-Darwinism?

It seems to me that the Intelligent Design theorists make a fair point when they say that the chances of random mutation proving useful, given the complexity of chemical interactions in the organism, are very remote. However, if we have Interactive Evolution, where the organism interacts with the environment, then mutation may not be random.

Of course natural selection still comes into play but it is choosing between "purposeful" mutations, not random ones.

Mr. Field apparently slept through the last 200 years of biological research.

Good morning!

Unfortunately, Mephisto, with widespread ignorance about the nature of science and evolution still running amok in the general public, it's still useful (even necessary) to emphasize the value and validity of evolution from both scientific and nonscientific vantage points.

How do people feel about the possibility that an alternative evolutionary theory e.g. neo-Lamarckism might prove superior to neo-Darwinism?

— field

It seems to me that the Intelligent Design theorists make a fair point when they say that the chances of random mutation proving useful, given the complexity of chemical interactions in the organism, are very remote.

Why is it called "Speaking of Faith?"

Must we constantly try and remind everyone that there's a 'controversy'?

Sir, a Christian Scientist one time told me that they were not a cult and their beliefs were not a cultish issue. Was I ever surprised to find that they were. Why can we not say the same for Evolution? What beliefs make Evolution not a cult? Why believe in Evolution? What does Evolution have to offer me? Does believing in Evolution help me in getting to heaven? What would Charles Darwin do? What do eyewitness accounts say about Charles Darwin? Do we have any outside proof of his existence? Where can I find a local church in regards to the belief of Evolution? Why do people still worship Charles Darwin's teachings today? Thanks for your time and have a great day.

Honest questions about Charles Darwin:

Sir,
I have a question. Was Darwin a liar, a lunatic or a loser? Was he an idiot?
Question no. 2 Did Darwin go crazy at the Galapogos Islands? Was he hallucinating? What do the experts say?
Question no. 3 Are there any eyewitness accounts of Darwin? What do the eyewitness accounts of Darwin at the Galapogos say? Can we prove through Science that Charles Darwin ever existed?

Thanks for your time sir. Have a good day.

Casey Powell

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo . . . . .

What beliefs make Evolution not a cult?

Why believe in Evolution?

What does Evolution have to offer me?

Does believing in Evolution help me in getting to heaven?

What would Charles Darwin do?

What do eyewitness accounts say about Charles Darwin?

Do we have any outside proof of his existence?

Where can I find a local church in regards to the belief of Evolution?

Why do people still worship Charles Darwin's teachings today?

Was Darwin a liar, a lunatic or a loser?

Was he an idiot?

Did Darwin go crazy at the Galapogos Islands?

Was he hallucinating?

What do the experts say?

Are there any eyewitness accounts of Darwin?

What do the eyewitness accounts of Darwin at the Galapogos say?

Can we prove through Science that Charles Darwin ever existed?

Aton -

I presume you are familiar with recent developments in epigenetic science. I take it you concede there are now proven processes of a non-Darwinian nature that lead to evolution through direct environmental influence. The only issue really is whether they are a minor subset of evolutionary processes or are we just beginning to learn about Lamarckian-style processes?

I didn't say that the IDists were necessarily right. But I do think they have put a case that needs to be answered.

Your argument for complexity offering better prospects for random mutations is ingenious but not I feel very convincing. If we think of a machine - and the physical body is simply a chemical machine - we see that the more complex a machine, the more essential it is that every part is an accurate fit in all senses.

Another argument I would use is that medicinal research shows that nearly all drugs have negative side effects. Any slight change in chemical output outside normal ingestion clearly unsettles the organism.

Another asburdity of neo-Darwinism in my view is that it requires us to believe that random mutation in genes generated specific types of behaviour (because only genes can generate unlearned behaviour). I find it frankly not credible that genes could generate such specific behaviour patterns (e.g. compelx mating rituals) and I have never seen any evidence to show how the proteins in genes achieve this.

I have heard the malaria/blood disease narrative before. Clearly you may be right. But ANY feature of an organism can be explained by natural selection (there are for instance at least 50 competing theories as to why humans have so little hair). But equally we may discover that this is an epigenetic phenomenon with switching mechanisms, allowing humans trade off between the two depending on environmental conditions.

Anyway, this seems like an interesting site where this sort of open discussion is not censored - unlike say "Religion is Bullshit" where, if you don't rant like street corner nutcase, you get kicked off for being too effective in debate. Some call it "Ben's Law".

Thanks Anon_C .....Gee that was fun wasn't it?

Aaaahhh ....DeLieRAmen ...is what brings me back to PT ...day after day.

The incessant gurgling of Fundy brains flushing themselves in counter clockwise..or is that clockwise? ...One never knows how they decide what the grand cosmic order has ordained which direction their hopelessness circles before disappearing around the porcelain bend.

Wow ...now just in case you all missed that.

The projected contrails of the Fundy mind writ large on "golly godot's" king size stratospheric bed sheet by economy class budjet transport to heaven (which is about as close as they will get..then its back to the Wall Mart parking lot).

Observe dear reader..(now any answer will do, after all that's how Identity Demagoguery works)

What beliefs make Evolution Turkey neck eefangulist not a cult?___________

Why believe in Evolution Turkey neck eefangulists ?___________

What does Evolution Turkey neck eefangulists have to offer me?___________

Does believing in Evolution Turkey neck eefangulists help me in getting to heaven?___________

What would Evolution Turkey neck eefangulists do?___________

Do we have any outside proof of Turkey neck eefangulists DOG's existence?___________

What do eyewitness accounts say about DOG?___________

Where can I find a local church in regards to the belief of Evolution?(EVERY CHURCH EXCEPT POOR FUNDY TRASH)___________

Why do people still worship Charles Darwin's Turkey neck eefangulists teachings today?___________

Was Darwin IS DL a liar, a lunatic or a loser?___________

Was DimRabot an idiot? (Now DL is obviously not British)___________

Did Darwin go crazy at the Galapagos Islands dEarl Ahmen's son go crazy at the Gas Station?________

Was DreamyLamba hallucinating?________(My favorite....pink finches in fishnets crawling over my body)

What do the Turkey neck eefangulists say?___________

Are there any eyewitness accounts of Darwin DOG?_________(this is what it's ALL about you can love DOG but he never writes, or sends flowers .....Bastard. And the whole scientific method gives DL the cold shudders)

What do the eyewitness accounts of Darwin at the Galapagos Galloping God's say?

Can we prove through Science that Charles Darwin ever existed? Not applicable...snicker.

Now what we have here is an existential failure,
on the one hand a man- presumably, who completes the wonderful illustration of the power of the alpha-preacher from Christ's Own Drive in Presbytery to convince the hoi poloi to change from FORD to GM(WINDOWS to LINUX, APPLE to ORANGE), and on the other someone when he sees his face in the mirror, fails to realize a conversation with it is not with another person.

Yea.. it is said in the Year Of Our Microsoft 0031 that the one true believer in kant will simply tell the whole world his own delusion, without the slightest hint of self reflection.

Unawareness like that just cannot be bought.

Hey ...DeliRomer ....wake up and smell the coffee...the answers ARE obvious.

Another asburdity of neo-Darwinism in my view is that it requires us to believe that random mutation in genes generated specific types of behaviour (because only genes can generate unlearned behaviour). I find it frankly not credible that genes could generate such specific behaviour patterns (e.g. compelx mating rituals) and I have never seen any evidence to show how the proteins in genes achieve this.

If we think of a machine - and the physical body is simply a chemical machine - we see that the more complex a machine, the more essential it is that every part is an accurate fit in all senses.

I have heard the malaria/blood disease narrative before. Clearly you may be right. But ANY feature of an organism can be explained by natural selection (there are for instance at least 50 competing theories as to why humans have so little hair).

But equally we may discover that this is an epigenetic phenomenon with switching mechanisms, allowing humans trade off between the two depending on environmental conditions.

I presume you are familiar with recent developments in epigenetic science. I take it you concede there are now proven processes of a non-Darwinian nature that lead to evolution through direct environmental influence.

— field

Your argument for complexity offering better prospects for random mutations is ingenious but not I feel very convincing. If we think of a machine - and the physical body is simply a chemical machine - we see that the more complex a machine, the more essential it is that every part is an accurate fit in all senses.

Another argument I would use is that medicinal research shows that nearly all drugs have negative side effects. Any slight change in chemical output outside normal ingestion clearly unsettles the organism.

Another asburdity of neo-Darwinism in my view is that it requires us to believe that random mutation in genes generated specific types of behaviour (because only genes can generate unlearned behaviour). I find it frankly not credible that genes could generate such specific behaviour patterns (e.g. compelx mating rituals) and I have never seen any evidence to show how the proteins in genes achieve this.

I have heard the malaria/blood disease narrative before. Clearly you may be right. But ANY feature of an organism can be explained by natural selection (there are for instance at least 50 competing theories as to why humans have so little hair).

But equally we may discover that this is an epigenetic phenomenon with switching mechanisms, allowing humans trade off between the two depending on environmental conditions.

I didn't say that the IDists were necessarily right. But I do think they have put a case

Wow! Is THIS the Casey Powell that "Dr" Morgan Greenwood was so impressed by? Well, I suppose he IS the Dalai Lama.

Anton -

You make some interesting points. Unfortunately don't have time to answer them all at the moment. Let me clear up one point though - I am not arguign against evolution. I am arguing against certain dogmas of certain evolutionists.

One point you make is clearly wrong - to suggest that African Americans weren't in malaria infested conditions in the Americas. Even now I believe malaria is known in the USA. Furthermore no one suggests these mechanisms necessarily switch on and off from one generation to another. The "starvation response" noted by epigenetic scientists persists even when food becomes abundant in the next generation.

I haven;t got a study to hand showing that icnreased complexity reduces the opportunities for successful random mutation. But can you refer me to one that proves the opposite? Certainly if we look at things like cars, we see that whereas a modern car may be more reliable than an old Model T Ford, the old Ford was less dependent on smooth functioning of all parts. A simple malfunction in a modern car can disable it, because of the complexities of the electronic systems.

Epigenetic inheritance is certainly non-neo Darwinian because it involves the environment directly affecting genetic inheritance - i.e. with no random mutation. Clearly natural selection - broadly understood - works on epigenetic inheritance as it does on all aspects of inheritance. But Darwin was completely ignorant of how inheritance worked and so what people mean by Darwinism is really neo-Darwinism as propunded by Dawkins and others.

Your point about courtship behaviour shows the problem I have with that approach. You are simply assuming that genes are producing the behaviour. Scientific studies that show correlations between certain genes and certain behaviour are not proof of causal connection.

Would you assume if you came across a tranistor radio that the radio itself was generating the programmes, the voices and music you were hearing? You might if you didn't know about broadcasting and so on.

If you are right then it must be the case that random mutation has produced genes that precisely programme behaviour through various chemical mechanisms. I have never heard anyone describe in detail how that might work and frankly I don't believe it.

You make some interesting points. Unfortunately don't have time to answer them all at the moment. Let me clear up one point though - I am not arguign against evolution. I am arguing against certain dogmas of certain evolutionists.

— field

One point you make is clearly wrong - to suggest that African Americans weren't in malaria infested conditions in the Americas. Even now I believe malaria is known in the USA.

Furthermore no one suggests these mechanisms necessarily switch on and off from one generation to another. The "starvation response" noted by epigenetic scientists persists even when food becomes abundant in the next generation.

I haven;t got a study to hand showing that icnreased complexity reduces the opportunities for successful random mutation. But can you refer me to one that proves the opposite?

Certainly if we look at things like cars, we see that whereas a modern car may be more reliable than an old Model T Ford, the old Ford was less dependent on smooth functioning of all parts. A simple malfunction in a modern car can disable it, because of the complexities of the electronic systems.

Epigenetic inheritance is certainly non-neo Darwinian because it involves the environment directly affecting genetic inheritance - i.e. with no random mutation.

Clearly natural selection - broadly understood - works on epigenetic inheritance as it does on all aspects of inheritance. But Darwin was completely ignorant of how inheritance worked and so what people mean by Darwinism is really neo-Darwinism as propunded by Dawkins and others.

Your point about courtship behaviour shows the problem I have with that approach. You are simply assuming that genes are producing the behaviour. Scientific studies that show correlations between certain genes and certain behaviour are not proof of causal connection.

Would you assume if you came across a tranistor radio that the radio itself was generating the programmes, the voices and music you were hearing? You might if you didn't know about broadcasting and so on. If you are right then it must be the case that random mutation has produced genes that precisely programme behaviour through various chemical mechanisms. I have never heard anyone describe in detail how that might work and frankly I don't believe it.

Anton -

On African Americans I would lay money on them having suffered disporportionately from malaria in the southern USA because their homes were often located in the least desirable areas. But I don't think that aspect of the debate is going to take us very far.

Your reference to compensation is possibly one avenue that needs to be explored. We are all familiar with the way a body can "work round" a muscle injury by bringing other muscles into play - these muscles can then become more developed. Is it really impossible that such "information" (additional "resource use" by the compensating part of the organism) cannot be relayed from generation to the next via some sort of epigenetic process, in the way the starvation response has been proven to?

I accept that random mutation is an environmental influence but that's not the way it is presented in text books. The emphasis is on the gene down route for information. Whether random mutation counts as "information" I don't know. It's more like a destructive act than an information pathway. I think what some epigenetic scientists are saying now is that there is this information pathway to the gene.

I've tried to find out what Dawkins has to say on epigenetics. Strangely nothing on his website despite this being an exciting field of discovery.
Also, one has to recognise that the meaning of epigenetics has really changed and expanded since Dawkins first published his books.

As for your attempt to portray may as a believer in loopy "invisible rays", I think it's time for a Horatio-style riposte, since science hasn't even begun to explain consciousness. Consciousness is the only subject orientated experience we know of. That in itself is extremely odd. The point of my analogy of the radio was that there is no reason why someone unfamiliar with radio broadcasting should not assume every sound being generated is entirely a product of the machine as you assume all unlearned animal behaviour is the product of the gene.

Science has not isolated consciousness and until it has we won;t have a completed understanding of evolution (by which I mean changing of organisms with probable common inheritance over billions of years).

There are many oddities that need explaining. Only recently there was teh case of the parrot (studied by a reputable scientist) with the vocabulary of a two year old child, ability to count and so on. All this on the basis of a walnut sized brain. Only a few years ago scientists were amazed to discover that humans have about half the number of genes they were expecting. In terms of human evolution we have seen incredible co-ordinated changes in the organisms over periods as little as a 100,000 years, perhaps 4,000 generations. These changes were taking place not in huge mega populations of hundreds of millions or billions, but in small bands of hominids with total populations in the tens of thousands. I would be extremely surprised if all that was the product of random mutation and natural selection rather than some sort of direct interaction with the environment.

We've got a long way to go to understand how evolutino works.

Field worte:

"Science has not isolated consciousness and until it has we won;t have a completed understanding of evolution (by which I mean changing of organisms with probable common inheritance over billions of years)."

I believe plants can evolve. I don't believe that plants are in any way concious. I don't remember the NEED for discussions about conciousness in my biology class when we looked at evolution.

"Whether random mutation counts as "information" I don't know. It's more like a destructive act than an information pathway."

Most random mutations are neutral. Some aren't beneficial. Some are. Sounds like you're using the old 'entropy (disorder) means evolution wont work' argument.

Re "I would be extremely surprised if all that was the product of random mutation and natural selection rather than some sort of direct interaction with the environment."

Natural selection is a direct interaction with the environment.

Henry

Natural selection is a direct interaction with the environment.

On African Americans I would lay money on them having suffered disporportionately from malaria in the southern USA because their homes were often located in the least desirable areas.

— field

But I don't think that aspect of the debate is going to take us very far.

Your reference to compensation is possibly one avenue that needs to be explored. We are all familiar with the way a body can "work round" a muscle injury by bringing other muscles into play - these muscles can then become more developed. Is it really impossible that such "information" (additional "resource use" by the compensating part of the organism) cannot be relayed from generation to the next via some sort of epigenetic process, in the way the starvation response has been proven to?

I accept that random mutation is an environmental influence but that's not the way it is presented in text books.

The emphasis is on the gene down route for information. Whether random mutation counts as "information" I don't know. It's more like a destructive act than an information pathway. I think what some epigenetic scientists are saying now is that there is this information pathway to the gene.

I've tried to find out what Dawkins has to say on epigenetics. Strangely nothing on his website despite this being an exciting field of discovery. Also, one has to recognise that the meaning of epigenetics has really changed and expanded since Dawkins first published his books.

As for your attempt to portray may as a believer in loopy "invisible rays", I think it's time for a Horatio-style riposte, since science hasn't even begun to explain consciousness. Consciousness is the only subject orientated experience we know of. That in itself is extremely odd. The point of my analogy of the radio was that there is no reason why someone unfamiliar with radio broadcasting should not assume every sound being generated is entirely a product of the machine as you assume all unlearned animal behaviour is the product of the gene.

Science has not isolated consciousness and until it has we won;t have a completed understanding of evolution (by which I mean changing of organisms with probable common inheritance over billions of years).

There are many oddities that need explaining. Only recently there was teh case of the parrot (studied by a reputable scientist) with the vocabulary of a two year old child, ability to count and so on. All this on the basis of a walnut sized brain. Only a few years ago scientists were amazed to discover that humans have about half the number of genes they were expecting. In terms of human evolution we have seen incredible co-ordinated changes in the organisms over periods as little as a 100,000 years, perhaps 4,000 generations. These changes were taking place not in huge mega populations of hundreds of millions or billions, but in small bands of hominids with total populations in the tens of thousands. I would be extremely surprised if all that was the product of random mutation and natural selection rather than some sort of direct interaction with the environment.

Careful you don't use up all your hyphens... ;)

Henry

Anton:

You wrote:

"Not in the last sixty years, because there wasn't any malaria to suffer from."

Yes, but the latest epigenetic research suggests the inherited starvation response persists over several or more generations. So it would be too early to say for sure that this was not an epigenetic phenomenon. I'm not saying it is. But it remains at present an open question I would suggest.

"It's most certainly possible, and we have examples. For instance, the multigenerational locust transformation in grasshoppers that I mentioned. When grasshoppers which are en route to the full locust phase have offspring, those offspring start out already partway there. IIRC the inheritance mechanism there is hormones which are passed into the egg.

There's nothing non-Darwinian about this, though, because the capacity for locust transformation is itself an inherited and selected trait. The environment doesn't instruct grasshoppers how to become locusts when it would be favorable to do so."

Perhaps not - I must admit I have difficulty following your example. As I understand it there a number of epigenetic phenomena. But the starvation response, does seem to be a direct response to the environment and therefore one that could be fairly described as "Lamarckian". The Darwinian idea seems to be to be best summed up in the Dawkiuns phrase "The Blind Watchmaker" i.e. that while the natural selection process is not random, any changes in the organism on which natural selection work are randomly generated and are in no sense "designed". I know this has been slightly modified over the years but that is the kernel of it, and what the latest epigenetic research challenges, since it seems there is a natural "design" element, which - like many organic phenomena - appears to be a v. slow "feedback" loop.

"Epigenetic alterations are in their nature no more or less destructive or informative than mutations."

Lamarck never suggested the organism was consciously trying to modify itself. Only an idiot is going to argue that evolution is a product of conscious design. But you are trying here to dissolve the argument by claiming these evolutionary "feedback" loops are on a par with random mutations. The point is the changes are purposeful. If you are going to argue they are not purposeful, then you are making a philosophical point and you are going to also have to argue that say the flight response - raised heartbeat etc - is not "purposeful".

"And Neo-Darwinism changes and expands to accomodate it."

I note you don't have a killer quote from DAwkins. If you are saying that neo-Darwinism can accommodate Lamarckism then you are saying it can accommodate jsut about any theory including Intelligent Design as long as natural selection comes in at some point.

"Sure, science has begun to explain consciousness---that's a huge and thriving area of research in psychology and neurology. They're just not done. But what does that have to do with the origin and transmission of unlearned behavior?"

Well I'd be interested what progess has been made in studying this object. If you ask me to study an elephant I can point you to where it is located. If you ask me to study an electron I can give you a reasonable idea of its location. So where exactly is say your subjective experience located in our four dimensional cosmos.

"If you want to argue that invisible rays or morphogenetic fields or patron deities tell animals what to do, you've got to explain how to verify that experimentally. Just saying, "Well, it could be caused by something else we don't know about" is perfectly true but rather unhelpful. What couldn't be caused by something we don't know about?"

There are rational limits to probable causes for any phenomenon.

Well, if two hundred years ago I had said that the sun is fuelled by cheddar cheese supplied by leprechauns, that would be an example of something we could rule out without further inquiry on grounds of reason. Similarly, it would be absurd to claim that all of creation was created in literally six days by a creator deity. For one thing, the claim would be just about meaningless.

However, it would most certainly not be irrational to claim that there might be something like a morphogenetic field or natural feedback loops which might better explain how say hominids evolved so rapidly over such a short timescale.

"Who said we have a complete understanding of evolution? That's why teaching what we have learned about it is so critical."

I've no objection to teaching what we have found out. I object to distortions e.g. present Mendel's experiments as though they illustrate iron laws of heredity.

"As your own examples make clear, when studying nature, surprising or counterintuitive hypotheses are often correct. Intuitive plausibility is a very poor guide to scientific truth."

Another oddity to add to the list. I was wathcing a programme last night on changed behaviour in transplant patients that appears to match their donors' personalities. How a few neurons in the transplanted heart are meant to lead to improvements in spelling, a sudden liking for poetry and so on, is indeed a bit of a mystery on the neo-Darwinian standard model I would suggest. There is certainly room there for the morphogenetic idea. I agree intutitive plausibility is a poor guide to truth. But intuition certainly has a role to play in science. Scientists rarely consider all possibilites as equal.
They follow a path of their own creation. But many scientists know it would do their careers no good at all to follow certain paths.

Anton -

I did write a detailed response to your last post but it got mangled up somewhere in cyberspace. I don't have the time to type it again. I'll content myslef with one further oddity. I saw a programme last night on TV about transplant patients who develop personality traits of their donors. Now it seems to me that the neo-Darwinian model would be hard pressed to explain how a few neuron type cells in the heart can explain such changes(there was a heart transplant patient whose spelling improved and who developed a sudden passion for writing sentimental poetry, depsite previosuly having been a very poor speller and completely unsentimental). However, something like a morphogenetic model might be well placed.

I also pointed out that it is not rational to say (as you claimed) that anything unknown can be explained by anything. It would not have been legitimate 200 years ago to surmise that the sun was fuelled by embers carried there by leprechauns. Such absurd ideas can be dismissed on the basis of application of reason to known facts. Similarly we can dismiss the idea that God created the cosmos in six days. Such a statement has hardly any meaning at all. In as much it does have meaning it can be held to be absurd for all sorts of reasons.

But one cannot at this stage dismiss the idea that the process of evolution might also be taking place outside the four dimensional world as well as within it.

I saw a programme last night on TV about transplant patients who develop personality traits of their donors.

— field

Yes, but the latest epigenetic research suggests the inherited starvation response persists over several or more generations. So it would be too early to say for sure that this was not an epigenetic phenomenon. I'm not saying it is. But it remains at present an open question I would suggest.

Perhaps not - I must admit I have difficulty following your example.

As I understand it there a number of epigenetic phenomena. But the starvation response, does seem to be a direct response to the environment and therefore one that could be fairly described as "Lamarckian". The Darwinian idea seems to be to be best summed up in the Dawkiuns phrase "The Blind Watchmaker" i.e. that while the natural selection process is not random, any changes in the organism on which natural selection work are randomly generated and are in no sense "designed". I know this has been slightly modified over the years but that is the kernel of it, and what the latest epigenetic research challenges, since it seems there is a natural "design" element, which - like many organic phenomena - appears to be a v. slow "feedback" loop.

Lamarck never suggested the organism was consciously trying to modify itself. Only an idiot is going to argue that evolution is a product of conscious design. But you are trying here to dissolve the argument by claiming these evolutionary "feedback" loops are on a par with random mutations. The point is the changes are purposeful. If you are going to argue they are not purposeful, then you are making a philosophical point and you are going to also have to argue that say the flight response - raised heartbeat etc - is not "purposeful".

I note you don't have a killer quote from DAwkins. If you are saying that neo-Darwinism can accommodate Lamarckism then you are saying it can accommodate jsut about any theory including Intelligent Design as long as natural selection comes in at some point.

Well I'd be interested what progess has been made in studying this object. If you ask me to study an elephant I can point you to where it is located. If you ask me to study an electron I can give you a reasonable idea of its location. So where exactly is say your subjective experience located in our four dimensional cosmos.

There are rational limits to probable causes for any phenomenon. Well, if two hundred years ago I had said that the sun is fuelled by cheddar cheese supplied by leprechauns, that would be an example of something we could rule out without further inquiry on grounds of reason. Similarly, it would be absurd to claim that all of creation was created in literally six days by a creator deity. For one thing, the claim would be just about meaningless. However, it would most certainly not be irrational to claim that there might be something like a morphogenetic field or natural feedback loops which might better explain how say hominids evolved so rapidly over such a short timescale.

Another oddity to add to the list. I was wathcing a programme last night on changed behaviour in transplant patients that appears to match their donors' personalities.

How a few neurons in the transplanted heart are meant to lead to improvements in spelling, a sudden liking for poetry and so on, is indeed a bit of a mystery on the neo-Darwinian standard model I would suggest.

They follow a path of their own creation. But many scientists know it would do their careers no good at all to follow certain paths.

it got mangled up somewhere in cyberspace

science hasn't even begun to explain consciousness

Also, I can't remember who, someone has said that "absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence".

That you have never seen the evidence is not a solid argument.

Field said:

"If you ask me to study an electron I can give you a reasonable idea of its location."

Wow. How would you overcome the problems of uncertainty in order to do that? Are you friends with Scotty?!? Could you ask him to build a transporter for me? :)

Anton -

I think really you are resorting to semantics to try and uphold a claim that epigenetic inheritance is not purposeful. Dawkins, although it seems you don't read him, is quite clear that while mutations are random, natural selection is not. Natural selection chooses things for a purpose (selection advantage). You seem to be claiming that behaviour only has a purpose if I consciously select it. So you are claiming that there is no such thing as an unconscious purpose. I can assure you when I am driving I am not thinking "I must depress the brake pedal by 50% in order to achive a reduction of 10 mph over the next 100 metres". All these processes are going on unconsciously but they are quite purposeful.

I think any fair minded observer can see there is a world of difference between a gene being changed by radiation/ a chance passing chemical on theone hand and on the other a set of repsonses governed by the behavioural interaction between the organism and its environment. The latter is clearly a kind of intermediate step between traditional neo-Darwinian evolutino and cultural evolution.

I don't know why you are suggesting that I think epigenetic inheritance is a threat to evolutionary theory. I believe in the theory of evolution. I'm simply querying some of the dogmas that the mainstream adhere to rigidly.

(This is for Popper as well)- If you are sayign that mental phenomena have no position then you are saying that there is this one class of
I was careful to say a reasonable idea of position e.g. if I say want to discuss electrons in atoms I can point to a particular atom and say inside the four dimensional space of those atoms can be found teh electrons. But when science studies the subjective experience known as consciousness, it can make no such claim. No electronmicroscope is going to find any four dimensional subjective thoughts or feelings. If you have information to the contrary I will be pleased to hear it - and no doubt Nature woudl be interested in publishing such an astounding discovery.

I will see what I can do re your request for papers. Can't access yours owing to computer.

Field, are you trying to say that modern neuroscience is being held back by evolutionary dogma because nobody has been able to see abstract concepts of thought under a microscope?

"I was careful to say a reasonable idea of position e.g. if I say want to discuss electrons in atoms I can point to a particular atom and say inside the four dimensional space of those atoms can be found the electrons."

Darn, I guess I'm not gonna get that transporter...
(Hyperspace is just too darn slow, doncha know.) :(

(This is for Popper as well)- If you are sayign that mental phenomena have no position then you are saying that there is this one class of

I say want to discuss electrons in atoms I can point to a particular atom and say inside the four dimensional space of those atoms can be found teh electrons.

No electronmicroscope is going to find any four dimensional subjective thoughts or feelings.

no doubt Nature woudl be interested in publishing such an astounding discovery.

I think really you are resorting to semantics to try and uphold a claim that epigenetic inheritance is not purposeful. Dawkins, although it seems you don't read him, is quite clear that while mutations are random, natural selection is not. Natural selection chooses things for a purpose (selection advantage).

— field

You seem to be claiming that behaviour only has a purpose if I consciously select it. So you are claiming that there is no such thing as an unconscious purpose. I can assure you when I am driving I am not thinking "I must depress the brake pedal by 50% in order to achive a reduction of 10 mph over the next 100 metres". All these processes are going on unconsciously but they are quite purposeful.

I think any fair minded observer can see there is a world of difference between a gene being changed by radiation/ a chance passing chemical on theone hand and on the other a set of repsonses governed by the behavioural interaction between the organism and its environment. The latter is clearly a kind of intermediate step between traditional neo-Darwinian evolutino and cultural evolution.

I don't know why you are suggesting that I think epigenetic inheritance is a threat to evolutionary theory. I believe in the theory of evolution. I'm simply querying some of the dogmas that the mainstream adhere to rigidly.

(This is for Popper as well)- If you are sayign that mental phenomena have no position then you are saying that there is this one class of I was careful to say a reasonable idea of position e.g. if I say want to discuss electrons in atoms I can point to a particular atom and say inside the four dimensional space of those atoms can be found teh electrons. But when science studies the subjective experience known as consciousness, it can make no such claim.

Anton -

Will respond in full as soon as possible - but here is a link which I think fairly sums up some recent epigenetics research and shows that some scientists do think that Lamarckian rather than just Darwinian processes are at work.

https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b360905554fdb7d985256ec5006a7755?OpenDocument

Will respond to your other stuff but I would comment that your examples of "properties" are rather varied and need to be examined closely - but of course with the exception of colour (which some would define as a product of consciousness) they are not examples of subjective phenomena: they are all - with possible exception of fractal dimensions - in fact relate to objective phenomena (i.e. fundmental particle exchanges) and these are names for our subjective experiences of those objects, not for the experience itself. In the final analysis something like "entropy" does not exist objectively - it is simply a short hand description for some complex fundamental particle exchanges/movements.

I certainly do not accept that the only real thing I know about - my thoughts, perceptions and feelings - are in any meaningful sense a "property" of anything. To go back to my radio example, you might as well say that the DJ prattling away is a "property" of the radio. It would be just as misleading.

The point is that my subjective experience exists objectively - unlike entropy.

Field said:

"I certainly do not accept that the only real thing I know about - my thoughts, perceptions and feelings - are in any meaningful sense a "property" of anything. To go back to my radio example, you might as well say that the DJ prattling away is a "property" of the radio. It would be just as misleading."

No-one would say that. The DJ is NOT a property of the radio. The DJ sits miles away in his radio station and his voice is transmitted using a radio wave. The sound maybe a property of the radio wave, but we humans certainly could never see or hear it until it goes through the converter inside the radio.

Yor thoughts, perceptions and feelings need a material base (aren't I evil and 'materialistic' for saying that! ;) ) for you to experience them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you could identify them under a microscope. Therefore, why COULDN'T they be considered a "property" of our physical bodies?

Will respond in full as soon as possible - but here is a link which I think fairly sums up some recent epigenetics research and shows that some scientists do think that Lamarckian rather than just Darwinian processes are at work. https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b36090...

Will respond to your other stuff but I would comment that your examples of "properties" are rather varied and need to be examined closely - but of course with the exception of colour (which some would define as a product of consciousness) they are not examples of subjective phenomena: they are all - with possible exception of fractal dimensions - in fact relate to objective phenomena (i.e. fundmental particle exchanges) and these are names for our subjective experiences of those objects, not for the experience itself. In the final analysis something like "entropy" does not exist objectively - it is simply a short hand description for some complex fundamental particle exchanges/movements.

I certainly do not accept that the only real thing I know about - my thoughts, perceptions and feelings - are in any meaningful sense a "property" of anything. To go back to my radio example, you might as well say that the DJ prattling away is a "property" of the radio. It would be just as misleading.

The point is that my subjective experience exists objectively - unlike entropy.

Anton -

A discussion from Wilipedia entry:

"Is entropy "real" ?
The thermodynamic entropy (at equilibrium) is a function of the state variables of the model description. It is therefore as "real" as the other variables in the model description. If the model constraints in the probability assignment are a "good" description, containing all the information needed to predict reproducible experimental results, then that includes all of the results one could predict using the formulae involving entropy from classical thermodynamics. To that extent, the MaxEnt STh is as "real" as the entropy in classical thermodynamics.

Of course in reality there is only one real state of the system. The entropy is not a direct function of that state. It is a function of the real state only through the (subjectively chosen) macroscopic model description."

It seems clear to me that entropy is a model of reality and does not point to real phenomena in the way that the word "electron" certainly does.

My point was that consciousness if of a different order. We know that consciousness is, since we are it. What it is is of course another question. The self may be an illusion, but the reality of subjective experience cannot be doubted except if your purpose is to create a form of semantic nihilism.

So I don't think it's been an uphill struggle.

...except if your purpose is to create a form of semantic nihilism

— field

A discussion from Wilipedia entry: "Is entropy "real" ?

— field

My point was that consciousness if of a different order. We know that consciousness is, since we are it. What it is is of course another question. The self may be an illusion, but the reality of subjective experience cannot be doubted except if your purpose is to create a form of semantic nihilism.

The point is that my subjective experience exists objectively - unlike entropy.

I think really you are resorting to semantics to try and uphold a claim that epigenetic inheritance is not purposeful. Dawkins, although it seems you don't read him, is quite clear that while mutations are random, natural selection is not.

Your point about courtship behaviour shows the problem I have with that approach. You are simply assuming that genes are producing the behaviour. Scientific studies that show correlations between certain genes and certain behaviour are not proof of causal connection.

Will respond to your other stuff but I would comment that your examples of "properties" are rather varied and need to be examined closely - but of course with the exception of colour (which some would define as a product of consciousness) they are not examples of subjective phenomena

My burning hatred for Edward Norton is very real, and not at all objective.

Other examples: "Chocolate is preferable to vanilla" is subjective, "I prefer chocolate to vanilla" is objective. "The invasion of Iraq was wrong" is subjective, "I believe the invasion of Iraq was wrong" is objective. Preferences and beliefs are subjective, whether someone has a preference or belief is objective.

I should have added: assuming that whether someone has a preference or belief is a matter of fact, i.e., that people's preferences and beliefs are real.

one's own consciousness is the only thing we can be sure is absolutely real

In this book, a number of different lines of evidence converge on the profoundly scientific but uncomfortably counter-intuitive conclusion that conscious awareness is an extremely narrow bandwidth simulation used to help create a useful illusion of an "I" who sees all , knows all, and can explain all. Yet the mental processes actually driving our behavior are (and need to be) far more vast and process a rich tapestry of information around us that conscious awareness cannot comprehend without highly structuring it first. So the old notion of an "unconscious mind" is not wrong because we have no "unconscious," but because our entire mind is unconscious, with a tiny but critical feature of being able to observe and explain itself, as if an outside observer.

Another oddity to add to the list. I was wathcing a programme last night on changed behaviour in transplant patients that appears to match their donors' personalities.

Sir_Toejam said:

"Why do i get the feeling you would be about to expound on how the SLoT applies to your arguments about now?"

I do hope not. I'm very drunk right now, but I made a point of entropy vs evolution argument a while back to our field here. I've never heard a good argument yet as to how the SLoT posed a prob for evolution.

Empirical claims aren't subjective merely because they are about the states of mind of human beings. Those states of mind are surely direct consequences of brain states, which are as objective as the states of any other physical object.

— Popper's ghost

So, why do you hate Edward Norton?

Actually, we can't be sure of that --- it's circular, as it assumes that our notions of self and consciousness are valid and coherent.

Anton (and others)

"Note that all the following was embedded within a discussion of a particular philosophical viewpoint, and it was recognized (within that same article) that entropy can be objectively defined provided one's model of states is explicitly defined."

What do you mean "objectively defined"? I can objectively define the characters in a novel. It doesn't mean they occupy four dimensional space. Perhaps you are under the spell of mathematics and believe that if something is mathematically regular then it is objectively real. That way madness lies. We have had all sorts of mathematical models for the creation of the universe. They can't all be true.

" - "Real" and "objective" are not equivalent terms, however. My burning hatred for Edward Norton is very real, and not at all objective."

Yes, but your thoughts are real and objective - and subjective.

"In any event, sure, one's own consciousness is the only thing we can be sure is absolutely real. If you like, you can deny the existence of the external world (which necessarily entails denying the existence of other consciousnesses) as well as your own past. But assuming you admit the existence of the brain in the first place, there's no reason to reject the classification of consciousness as a property of the brain just because consciousness is "realer." By analogy, we can be more certain of the perception of blueness than the existence of the sky, but that's no reason to deny that the sky is blue."

I am not denying the existence of the external world or the existence of the brain or the role of the brain in generating our subjective conscious experiences.

Let's leave aside the issue of whether the sky is really blue ( or whether simply my perception of it is blue). There are lots of issues like that. When I turn my head from left to right I ought not experience the sensation that the room objects remain where they "are". However, the room does remain a stable reference point thanks to what's going on in my brain (and maybe consciousness). Whether this shows my vision is objective or subjective is an interesting issue.

In order to make my position clear in this discussion I have been working to the following:

1. Objective means something which is observable.

2. Subjective means being on the inside and looking out. We have direct knowledge of only one type of subjective phenomenon - our own consciousness.

3. Real encompasses anything which occupies
four dimensional space. Essentially, science seems to suggest that everything in the cosmos is composed of fundamental particles. Mathematical models and the like are not "real" in the sense that fundamental particles are real.

4. Consciousness is a mystery. However, we know it is subjective (we own it and it is what we use to look at objects in the universe). We also know what we can at least partially observe it (introspection) - so it is also objective. The points made about it being a "construct" of the brain are completely irrelevant to the experience. A train is a "construct" made up of bits and pieces - that doesn't mean it is any less a train as far as we are concerned and if a train coudl feel it wouldn't feel any less "train like" if it found out someone had knocked it together from bits of steel and wood.

Anton -

Sorry - needed to add some further clarification.

We must hold consciousness to be real, or as real as the objects in the universe we observe, since we experience it. However, there is no satisfactory explanation for where this consciousness (i.e. the experience itself, not what might be generating it) can be found in the four dimensional universe. I reach the conclusion, driven by reason, that it must reside outside the known universe.

All other alleged "properties" - of the type you mentioned - apart from consciousness are really sequences. Your entropy for instance is simply a (very complex) sequence of events - which in one sense organic life "reverses". "Colour" likewise is probably best understood as a sequence of events. If one can break down the sequences we see they are composed of the interaction of fundamental particles. But there is nothing "in between" the particles. If we could break down all teh brain-related sequences we will see they all involve movement of atoms, molecules, electrons and so on. We can break down the bigger bits like atoms into smaller fundamental particle interactions.

It seems that it is you rather than me who is saying the brain must contain some mysterious "substance x" - consciousness. A brain's particles are no different from the particles in the rest of the universe. Why should brain bits be imbued with subjective experience? You tell me.

I have to laugh at this thread....simply because the views that Science have explained Consciousness are unsupported by any of the articles that you present here. So not only are you wrong, you're also presenting wrong evidence (rolls eyes). Secondly, I noticed an equivocation of what the word objective truly means.

Objective Truth simply means something that is real. Nothing more. It doesn't necessarily have to be tangible. Let me ask you something....is thought tangible? Can you touch, taste, see, hear or feel it? No! But it exists, and it is existent as an objective truth for all people at all times in all places. Objective, defined on the internet is:

undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable "phenomena"; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"
serving as or indicating the object of a verb or of certain prepositions and used for certain other purposes; "objective case"; "accusative endings"
emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art"
aim: the goal intended to be attained (and which is believed to be attainable); "the sole object of her trip was to see her children"
the lens or system of lenses in a telescope or microscope that is nearest the object being viewed
belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events; "objective benefits"; "an objective example"; "there is no objective evidence of anything of the kind"

Now Phenomena - Occurrences, circumstances, or facts perceptible by the senses.

Your definition of objective is simply incomplete, and it leaves us with an equivocation of the true meaning of what objective truly means.

Is it objectively true that we own our consciousness?

If not, then we don't own our consciousness....if we do, then its an objective measure of something.....

Problemo!

"Gotcha!"

Damn.

They got us. :-/

I suspect Gotcha typed too many syllables--instead of "Problemo," just "Lame-O" might've better expressed his thought processes.

Such as they are.