reply to Canute You said, "I wonder where that 'survival of the fittest' phrase came form. Reproduction does not determine fitness, fitness (which includes fitness to survive long enough to reproduce lots) affects reproductive success which affects transmission of genes." The term "survival of the fittest" is more a literary term than a scientific one. It is also tautological. Fitness is ENTIRELY defined by reproductive success. Survival is only a part of fitness as it pertains to reproductive success. This is precisely why traits that DECREASE survival are selected for if they INCREASE reproductive success. There are many many examples of this. Then you said, "Current Darwinian evolutionary does not admit the causal effect of consciousness. For a complete and forceful (and patronising) exposition of this view try Dennett 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea', in which the 'dangerous idea' is that human evolution happens without any input from consciousness." Evolution is a natural phenomenon and needs no consciousness explanation, much like gravity needs no consciousness explanation. Then you said, "It may well be that mind is a pointless excrescence of the brain. However this does not alter the fact that 'red' is not an experience that is ever going to be explained by science. Knowing its neural correlate, should it be possible to ever do so, would tell us nothing of what the owner of those neurons is experiencing, and we would only have his or her subjective and conscious explanation of what is being experienced, no scientific evidence at all." But red can be entirely explained by science as it is measurable in terms of wavelength. All those people who experience red have a shared measurable experience. In another post you stated, "I regard consciousness as being experience. This is woolly but a common definition when dressed up a bit." Your 'conscious' definition is vague. I presume you mean life experience. Else inanimate objects would also have consciousness. Since all life has experience, then all life is conscious. If this is satisfactory, then consciousness can be addressed by biology by observing and measuring behavioral response to environmental stimuli. When you say, "If science cannot explain it does not follow that it does not have an explanation," is different from what I said which was science cannot address it. Scientific hypotheses need to be testable and falsifiable and expalnations need to have predictive power. If these criteria are not satisfied then it can not be addressed by science. However, there are many things science cannot currently explain, but are still science given the above. And, when you say, "Science, metaphysics, ontology, whatever, are all the same thing in the final analysis," is not true. Science has definite characteristics that metaphysics and ontology do not have (see above). For a good explanation of what science is, one can read Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper or Ernst Mayr.
Re: reply to Canute herbert spencer suggested to substitute natural selection with 'survival of the fittest.' He was the spokesman for social darwinism, a social theory based on a struggle for existence. from 'the growth of biological thought' by Ernst mayr. from me:...he was a pathetic loser and everybody who uses the term survival of the fittest to explain evolution is most likely to be mistaken in his view on evolution.
What about the underclass having less chance of survival? Those whom noone will give a job to. Those who have little income to obtain the right nutrients through the right kind of meals/foods. Those who do not have the money to pay for operations (maybe even life saving) and do not get any help from the NHS. Don't these peoples chance of survival have to do with others perceptions of them? Those who agree to give them money for their labour. What about those who simply have the skills that no-body needs? This must effect evolution. With the 'machine age' coming i.e. machines now build what the 'skill-less' ( Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) man built, increasingly the only jobs available are for those with the right kind of skills. Most of these involve literacy: accountancy, computer programming, typing etc. Nearly all jobs now involve some 'form filling''. Typing itself is becoming common place (i would say) for jobs. What about literacy as a standard of elimination from the human gene pool? Which has an evolutionary advantage! This is the same as the case that those creatures without ears have less chance of survival than those with (awareness of others and possible predators). Just a thought: we have eyes and ears etc but is there was no sound would a creature grow ears anyway? (given that evolution is based on random gene mutations). Even if they were pointless would they grow (with the capacity to hear sound it's just that there is none!) If this is the case what about sixth sense? If we do not have the capacity (senses) to recognize a sixth 'plain' (?) then we wouldnt know its was there. Maybe in the future those with a sixth sense will prosper more fruitfully however given that the most 'modern' societies attempt to irradicate violence etc this i cant see how this would be an advantage except maybe mind reading and powers of persuasion. For me consciousness is an awareness of the existence of own being. The awareness that one exists. A tree is not consciouss because you could poke it, kick it, burn it, anything you liike but it will not react becuase it is not aware that it exists. A conscious creature/being is basically aware that it exists: that it can move, escape pain, is aware that it exists in space i.e. knows that it has its own space: occupies space. Even a worm or lowley bug will move when it feels extreme heat! It is aware that it can move and escape the heat. Is anyone aware if Bacteria moves away from heat or will it just stay and die from it? I think I can see your gripe! It is not the individuals fittness that determines survival but it is the environment.? The individuals state of being: skills, adapted biology determines whether it is right for the environment. It is the environment that selected the Giraffe as fit enough to survive in the envronment that it does but if a giraffe began to evolve underwater it would be this environment that decided that it was suited for survival?
no, these things do not affect human evolution. This is a response to a quote from Canute, not me, so I will allow him to respond. Natural selection can direct adaptation and evolution given such adaptations increase fitness (i.e. reproductive success) and given the starting material. Just because one can envision some purportedly advantageous trait does not mean a trait will evolve (i.e. humans with wings). If you are interested in evolution and how it works there are many text books that can illuminate you. I am also willing to discuss any aspects of evolution with you.
Re: reply to Canute Reply to pualsamuel This seems to agree with what I said. No, gravity needs a gravity explanation, although quite who is going to explain it to whom is a puzzle. One might just as easily and logically say that consciousness is a natural phenomenon and needs no evolutionary explanation. The evidence from science does not yet decide the matter if it is looked at impartially. This is not meant as an anti-scientific statement, it is just a description of our current state of scientific knowledge.
paulsamuel - I disgaree with most of what Neville said but it cannot be said that performance in the workplace or the social ladder does not affect human evolution. This would directly contradict Darwin.
It must do Canute! Those who have less chance of survival generally have less chance of reproduction (given that they do not have a long life span). This is especially true for the 'social monkeys' that we are i.e. is a person who does not work likely to be able to afford the money to go to bars, clubs etc or even gain entry to other social spheres where people are likely to find partners. Will a person who doesnt work have access to the internet?! Human beings now decide who will survive and who will not (Doctors turn away lung cancer victims who have refused to stop smoking). People make decisions about others and it is these decisions that influence that persons chances for survival. While the Law may punish offenders and lock them up (giving them no chance for reproduction!) those who live outside the Law but do not get caught have an increased chance for survival given the money and lifestyle that they will (may!) have. There are many other ways that humanity effects evolution/natural selection etc.
educated rich people have on average less people than poor uneducated people in western countries. Hence having money to go to social events probably isn't a factor. Poverty might actually be a positive selective factor.
Quite possibly. Poverty is a good example of how income and status impact on human evolution, and thus also on the natural world at large.
I would have thought poverty had to have a social cause, especially since it's measured by social comparisons.
reply to Canute Not at all. You said originally, which is, as I stated, not true. Next you say, which is crap. You seem to think that natural phenomena are dependent somehow on human explanations, which is, of course, not true. What, do you think that before Newton explained gravity that things didn’t fall to the ground, planets didn’t orbit the sun? Natural phenomena exist independently of human thought, consciousness or existence, which makes gravity, evolution and all other natural phenomena independent of of human thought, consciousness or existence. Then you say, The properties of light, such as wavelength, are natural phenomena and are completely independent of perception, consciousness or human experience. As natural phenomena, they can be be addressed using scientific methodology and, as such, are science. As for the rest of your post (I won't quote it), your reasoning is vague and tautological. I will say this, consciousness, as you are expounding it, does not exist, and has no more meaning than any other belief or belief system, such as a belief in god or a belief that giant invisible pink elephants are orbiting the earth. This difference between belief and reality (natural phenomena) is the crux of the difference between physics and metaphysics, existence and ontology, consciousness and biology. The first term in each pair has no place in a scientific discussion and should more rightly be considered religion. Finally, in response to some of your (and neville's) posts concerning human social and cultural affects on human evolution: there are, at minimum, 2 requisites, 1) there must be a genetic basis (heredity) and since there is none (i.e. no genetic basis for performance in the workplace or access to the internet) there's no affect on human evolution 2) must have a relative affect on reproductive success and since there is none (i.e. no differential reproductive success between those who have access to the internet and those who do not) there's no affect on human evolution
Yeah but this still affects evolution/natural selection! Yeah but those with money do have a better chance of survival given that those people will be able to afford better/more adequate heating, food nutrition and haven for themselves and those around them i.e. better areas=less crime. Also the rich are less likely to end up in prison because their crimes are harder to detect (fraud) and those crime's have weaker penalties. The rich will also be able to afford better lawyers whether they have committed a crime or not. You still think that humans have no affect on evolution? What about the fact that non-westerners are probably likely to be involved in a war soon and have a chance of being 'wiped out' while those who reject their native countries to join the west have less chance of 'fitting in' (i would say) and less chance of passing on their genes (imo). This may not be strictly true however the point is that humanity does play a part in natural selection (imo).
Yes they do! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: reply to Canute I said, in full, "Reproduction does not determine fitness, fitness (which includes fitness to survive long enough to reproduce lots) affects reproductive success which affects transmission of genes." You replied "Fitness is ENTIRELY defined by reproductive success. Survival is only a part of fitness as it pertains to reproductive success. This is precisely why traits that DECREASE survival are selected for if they INCREASE reproductive success. There are many many examples of this."[/B][/QUOTE] I understand the problem. I forgot that 'detirmine' has two meanings. I did not mean 'detirmine' in the sense of 'measure. I meant it in the sense of causation. My intended point was that reproduction does not cause fitness, it is a consequence of it, and the way in which we measure it. In other words reproductive success is the measure of fitness, not its cause. Reproductive success cannot cause reproductive success. I appreciate your directness, ahem. You seem to have taken my remarks, which were an answer given in the terms of a different conversation, out of context and read something into them that I didn't actually write. It is not proved that anything exists beyond our consiousness, although I agree with you that it is likely that they do. (But cannot prove it). This is philosophically very woolly. Still, it is possible that you are right. Either way I agree that they are the data of science. I'm sorry that genetics and environmental factors have combined to make you assume this. A scientific proof would win you considerable acclaim. If the universe is self-creating then tautology is a predictable property of any true explanation of it. Many philosophers will be horrified to learn that they are in fact practicing theology. Shouldn't they be told? I'm surprise that you can argue your case so strongly without holding any belief in your views. If we hadn't evolved brains there wouldn't be a workplace. And many hard workers work hard to give their children a good start in life. Are you suggesting that quality of parenting has no effect on the fitness of progeny? Your view seems most unscientific. It's cheating to pick an easy target such as use of the Internet. Personally I find women to be attracted to men with fast cars and good incomes. (Well, not actually personally).
Reply to Canute I'm sorry Canute, I don't know what to say to you. You have started a thread about consciousness and evolution, but it doesn't appear that you know anything about evolution, and you are not willing to learn anything. You have provided us with vague, tautological and varying definitions of consciousness, have not shown any evidence of teleological aspects of evolution, and appear to not know the difference between 'beliefs' and 'reality.' If you really have a point to make, then you should make it, preferably in a didactic manner so that it can be analyzed. A typical example of your confusion; "I do not know what is conscious and what is not. Anything that has the experience of being conscious is conscious, anything that does not is not. Consciousness can be no more than the contents of conscious." Whatver that means. One more example is these two statements (I confess I have never seen a more confused pair of statements on the same subject in my life), first, "Reproduction does not determine fitness, fitness (which includes fitness to survive long enough to reproduce lots) affects reproductive success which affects transmission of genes." then, "reproduction does not cause fitness, it is a consequence of it, and the way in which we measure it. In other words reproductive success is the measure of fitness, not its cause. Reproductive success cannot cause reproductive success." At least you appear to be 'getting it' in the second statement. To make it most clear to you, Fitness is measured by reproductive success, period!
Dear neville, I think you have been infected with the meme of survival of the fittest and this made altered your thought structure into thinking that evolution is about physical survival. Let me comment on your post, otherwise Paulsamuel has to do all the dirty work. I am sure he has more important things to do with his time. It is not about being able to pass genes on, it is about genes selectively being passed on. Since there is no direct correlation between these social factors and genetic makeup, there can be no natural selection for these attributes. If there is no gene for being rich than there can't be any selection for the 'rich' gene.
