Evolution Is Just An Emergent Property Of the Action Of Consciousness

[Steve Klinko]

The Evolution of Animal life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience. Any organism that experiences Pleasure will seek out that Pleasure. Any organism that experiences Pain will try to avoid that Pain. Without the existence of these basic Conscious experiences there would be no motivation for any organism to react. There's nothing like a little Pain to motivate you to adjust what you are doing. This applies to simple organisms and to Humans. It would seem that Evolution is directly guided by Conscious experience. Using this perspective we might be able to say that Evolution does not even exist as a Thing in Itself, but rather Evolution is just an Emergent Property of the Action of Consciousness in the Universe.

 

[exchemist]

The Evolution of Animal life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience. Any organism that experiences Pleasure will seek out that Pleasure. Any organism that experiences Pain will try to avoid that Pain. Without the existence of these basic Conscious experiences there would be no motivation for any organism to react. There's nothing like a little Pain to motivate you to adjust what you are doing. This applies to simple organisms and to Humans. It would seem that Evolution is directly guided by Conscious experience. Using this perspective we might be able to say that Evolution does not even exist as a Thing in Itself, but rather Evolution is just an Emergent Property of the Action of Consciousness in the Universe.

You have just demonstrated you don't understand how evolution works. I wish this came as a surprise.

Evolution has no effect on any individual organism. It operates on a population of organisms in which there is variation, when there are factors in the environment that cause some members of the population to reproduce more successfully than others. So there is no "motivation", "reaction" or "adjustment to what you are doing" by any organism involved, conscious or not. It is purely a matter of how successfully they reproduce.

Why do you come here to talk crap without bothering to study any science?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Conscious experience.

Any organism that experiences Pleasure

Without the existence of these basic Conscious experiences there would be no motivation for any organism to react.

It would seem that Evolution is directly guided by Conscious experience

Using this perspective we might be able to say that Evolution does not even exist as a Thing in Itself, but rather Evolution is just an Emergent Property of the Action of Consciousness in the Universe.

some years ago i watched a few science documentary's which covered this aspect
the concept you 'suggest' as a 'possible driving force' (?) was offered as a possible theory as personal speculation by one of the scientists as they hosted it & was also refereed to by a couple of others as basic thinking probable concepts of basic science theory.

purists may suggest your confusing principals here

Darwinian evolution is not an either/or like a christian or Muslim pop quiz concept
Darwinian evolution is a process driven concept of scientific method
versus
core drivers of intelligent life evolution at a cellular receptor level.

survivalist concepts around selection by the habitat define absolute terms
you cant offer those absolute terms as a comparative alternative when they are an intrinsic law of causative reality.

if your serious then you need to give a general idea of where receptor process over rides environmental selection via predation & survival aspects
which i think you will clearly read, as you read this
to be at odds.

this is part of the problem of entire society's going to war against science & infecting generations of people through schooling(usa intelligent design and the war against science via anti climate change war on mainstream science)

it looks like you are mistakenly mixing 2 different basic scientific theory's which are both backed by hard science

Receptor process of neurological developmental evolution
Darwinian natural selection

these are 2 completely different science facts

 

[Steve Klinko]

You have just demonstrated you don't understand how evolution works. I wish this came as a surprise.

Evolution has no effect on any individual organism. It operates on a population of organisms in which there is variation, when there are factors in the environment that cause some members of the population to reproduce more successfully than others. So there is no "motivation", "reaction" or "adjustment to what you are doing" by any organism involved, conscious or not. It is purely a matter of how successfully they reproduce.

Why do you come here to talk crap without bothering to study any science?

You have just demonstrated that you don't understand that this is the On the Fringe Alternate Theories Forum. You are ignoring the Perspective shift that I have setup. Evolution might not have any effect on individual Organisms, but the premise of the post is that Consciousness CAN affect individual Organisms. The collective effect of of Consciousness on individual Organisms drives what the Emergent Property of Evolution appears to be doing. This is perfectly reasonable as an Alternative Theory.

 

[Steve Klinko]

some years ago i watched a few science documentary's which covered this aspect
the concept you 'suggest' as a 'possible driving force' (?) was offered as a possible theory as personal speculation by one of the scientists as they hosted it & was also refereed to by a couple of others as basic thinking probable concepts of basic science theory.

purists may suggest your confusing principals here

Darwinian evolution is not an either/or like a christian or Muslim pop quiz concept
Darwinian evolution is a process driven concept of scientific method
versus
core drivers of intelligent life evolution at a cellular receptor level.

survivalist concepts around selection by the habitat define absolute terms
you cant offer those absolute terms as a comparative alternative when they are an intrinsic law of causative reality.

if your serious then you need to give a general idea of where receptor process over rides environmental selection via predation & survival aspects
which i think you will clearly read, as you read this
to be at odds.

this is part of the problem of entire society's going to war against science & infecting generations of people through schooling(usa intelligent design and the war against science via anti climate change war on mainstream science)

it looks like you are mistakenly mixing 2 different basic scientific theory's which are both backed by hard science

Receptor process of neurological developmental evolution
Darwinian natural selection

these are 2 completely different science facts

My post is about Conscious Experience itself, not some Mindless Electro/Chemical/Mechanical Receptor Process. At our Human level we can talk about the Experience of Redness, or the the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste. These Conscious Experiences are not Explained by Science yet. They exist in the Manifest Universe as part of what our Minds can do and maybe as part of what our Minds are. This is not Religious thinking, but rather this is just Thinking. The Existence of these Conscious Phenomena propels me to delve deeper into the Nature of these things, just as a matter of Intellectual Curiosity. On a more primitive level there is the Experience of Pain and Pleasure. Who is to say that Pain and Pleasure were not around in the Universe from the beginning. How can anyone be sure that Single Cell Animals cannot have Motivational Experiences (Pain and Pleasure) at some level? I am not suggesting some kind of Religious Spiritual thing, but rather I am talking about what I know my own Conscious Experience is, and applying it at a more primitive level. It is completely reasonable to suggest that the collective effect of Conscious Experience on individual Organisms Emerges as some sort of Evolutionary Effect on the larger populations of these Organisms.

 

[exchemist]

You have just demonstrated that you don't understand that this is the On the Fringe Alternate Theories Forum. You are ignoring the Perspective shift that I have setup. Evolution might not have any effect on individual Organisms, but the premise of the post is that Consciousness CAN affect individual Organisms. The collective effect of of Consciousness on individual Organisms drives what the Emergent Property of Evolution appears to be doing. This is perfectly reasonable as an Alternative Theory.

This thread being in Alternat(ativ)e Theories does not give you carte blanche to talk nonsense without challenge. This is still a science forum, after all.

But OK, if you propose an alternative mechanism for evolutionary change, based on consciousness causing individual organisms to avoid pain and seek pleasure, you need to explain how that behaviour leads to changes in the form of these organisms over time, giving rise to new species. How do you see that working?

 

[Steve Klinko]

This thread being in Alternat(ativ)e Theories does not give you carte blanche to talk nonsense without challenge. This is still a science forum, after all.

But OK, if you propose an alternative mechanism for evolutionary change, based on consciousness causing individual organisms to avoid pain and seek pleasure, you need to explain how that behaviour leads to changes in the form of these organisms over time, giving rise to new species. How do you see that working?

It's simple, if Pain can help an Organism avoid dangerous environments then this Organism will survive more, and eventually it's Form will become dominant.

 

[origin]

It's simple, if Pain can help an Organism avoid dangerous environments then this Organism will survive more, and eventually it's Form will become dominant.

Since all mammals experience pain, then all mammals will become dominant??

 

[Steve Klinko]

Since all mammals experience pain, then all mammals will become dominant??

Yes, Dominant in the the sense of surviving, at a higher rate than an Animal without Pain. Since all Mammals have Pain, it looks like Pain is Very Very Important in the Evolution of Life.

 

[Dicart]

The Existence of these Conscious Phenomena propels me to delve deeper into the Nature of these things, just as a matter of Intellectual Curiosity. On a more primitive level there is the Experience of Pain and Pleasure. Who is to say that Pain and Pleasure were not around in the Universe from the beginning. How can anyone be sure that Single Cell Animals cannot have Motivational Experiences (Pain and Pleasure) at some level?

Evolution is, in my opinion, the most difficult domain in science and many talk about, but very few have real comprehension of it.
Therefore and to avoid the first pitfall most are falling into : Evolution theory is merely a concept, it is not a definite mecanism.
There is not only one mecanism that explain the evolution of a lineage, but there are numerous mecanism.
Bacteria dont evolve like arthropodia who do not evolve like a tree or the mammals.

So, about your hypothesis, at some degree, you are talking about some Lamarckism mecanismus.
Its says that the individuals do things during his lifetime and therefore his lineage evolve to perform the need of the ancestors.
The simple example is the giraff whose neck is becoming longer because it need to attain food on the trees.
This hypothesis has been refuted at the time of Darwin (not for scientific reason...) because the british society found here in the darwinian theory a well accepted explaination for the domination of the rich uppon the poors.
So well, the theory was not wrong and further science advance like the knowledge of the ADN showed that this was a good "theory".

But... like i precised at first, it is much likely a concept and not a mecanism.
So, lamarckian mecanismus could be right without contradicting the darwinian "theory".

And i think you are right, there is probably a mecanismus that implie, not only pain or pleasure as such, but also complaining and contemptment (some emotional feeling), that have an action on the sexual cells.
So yes, this sort of mecanismus do not apply to bacteria.
In this case, we could say that the consciousness and the emotional feeling are accelerating the evolution processes.

Lamarckism, also known as Lamarckian inheritance or neo-Lamarckism,[1] is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime. It is also called the inheritance of acquired characteristics or more recently soft inheritance. The idea is named after the French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the classical era theory of soft inheritance into his theory of evolution as a supplement to his concept of orthogenesis, a drive towards complexity.

Introductory textbooks contrast Lamarckism with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin's book On the Origin of Species however supported the Lamarckian idea of use and disuse inheritance, and his own concept of pangenesis implied a Lamarckian soft inheritance.[1][2]

...

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species proposed natural selection as the main mechanism for development of species, but did not rule out a variant of Lamarckism as a supplementary mechanism.[6] Darwin called this pangenesis, and explained it in the final chapter of his book The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (1868), after describing numerous examples to demonstrate what he considered to be the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Pangenesis, which he emphasised was a hypothesis, was based on the idea that somatic cells would, in response to environmental stimulation (use and disuse), throw off 'gemmules' or 'pangenes' which travelled around the body, though not necessarily in the bloodstream. These pangenes were microscopic particles that supposedly contained information about the characteristics of their parent cell, and Darwin believed that they eventually accumulated in the germ cells where they could pass on to the next generation the newly acquired characteristics of the parents.[7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

 

[Steve Klinko]

Evolution is, in my opinion, the most difficult domain in science and many talk about, but very few have real comprehension of it.
Therefore and to avoid the first pitfall most are falling into : Evolution theory is merely a concept, it is not a definite mecanism.
There is not only one mecanism that explain the evolution of a lineage, but there are numerous mecanism.
Bacteria dont evolve like arthropodia who do not evolve like a tree or the mammals.

So, about your hypothesis, at some degree, you are talking about some Lamarckism mecanismus.
Its says that the individuals do things during his lifetime and therefore his lineage evolve to perform the need of the ancestors.
The simple example is the giraff whose neck is becoming longer because it need to attain food on the trees.
This hypothesis has been refuted at the time of Darwin (not for scientific reason...) because the british society found here in the darwinian theory a well accepted explaination for the domination of the rich uppon the poors.
So well, the theory was not wrong and further science advance like the knowledge of the ADN showed that this was a good "theory".

But... like i precised at first, it is much likely a concept and not a mecanism.
So, lamarckian mecanismus could be right without contradicting the darwinian "theory".

And i think you are right, there is probably a mecanismus that implie, not only pain or pleasure as such, but also complaining and contemptment (some emotional feeling), that have an action on the sexual cells.
So yes, this sort of mecanismus do not apply to bacteria.
In this case, we could say that the consciousness and the emotional feeling are accelerating the evolution processes.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

My OP was about certain types of Conscious Experience increasing the survival rate of Organisms and Animals. I don't understand your Lamarckian implication of what I have said.

 

[Dicart]

My OP was about certain types of Conscious Experience increasing the survival rate of Organisms and Animals. I don't understand your Lamarckian implication of what I have said.

You say that "conscious" experience explain the evolution.
Ok, but what are the details ?
Here i only see words.

I say, no, we know that evolution is driven by plenty of mecanism (you cant sweep this point away).
Perhaps the mecanismus you could propose (if you detail the concept you talk about) is valid (and it looks like the one proposed by Lamarck) but you can not deny the other mecanism whe already well know (covid evolve too and we are fully aware of it).

Also, in neuroscience, consciousness is defined, and it is not what you talk about.
Only few organism (and surely no plants and trees) are conscious of their body, so you should use some other words to talk about the consciousness you talk about (i proposed emotional feeling instead).

Therefore, if you want to propose an alternativ theory, you can not misuse words coming from well defined science domains, mixing them together and say "hey i have a new theory !".
This would not be science but pseudoscience.
To be sure we understand together, i dont say you want to do pseudoscience, and i dont even say that this subject (generaly speaking), "evolution driven by the emotional state of the indivuals" is not pertinent (i am almost sure it is right... as an opinion) but we need more scientific details to agree that you present a scientific hypothesis (yes it is only a hypothesis , not a theory).

 

[DaveC426913]

Pain has little to do with consciousness. Earthworms have the sensibility to avoid rough, sandpapery surfaces. Spiders will run away if poked.

They don't need to be conscious to do so, they simply need to be the "normal amount of alive". Again, 'response to external stimuli' is a minimum requirement for life.

 

[origin]

Since all Mammals have Pain, it looks like Pain is Very Very Important in the Evolution of Life.

But that trivially obvious. Here is another one, animal species that find sexual reproduction unpleasant won't survive. Or how about this, animal species that like to eat poisonous plants won't survive.

 

[Steve Klinko]

You say that "conscious" experience explain the evolution.
Ok, but what are the details ?
Here i only see words.

I say, no, we know that evolution is driven by plenty of mecanism (you cant sweep this point away).
Perhaps the mecanismus you could propose (if you detail the concept you talk about) is valid (and it looks like the one proposed by Lamarck) but you can not deny the other mecanism whe already well know (covid evolve too and we are fully aware of it).

Also, in neuroscience, consciousness is defined, and it is not what you talk about.
Only few organism (and surely no plants and trees) are conscious of their body, so you should use some other words to talk about the consciousness you talk about (i proposed emotional feeling instead).

Therefore, if you want to propose an alternativ theory, you can not misuse words coming from well defined science domains, mixing them together and say "hey i have a new theory !".
This would not be science but pseudoscience.
To be sure we understand together, i dont say you want to do pseudoscience, and i dont even say that this subject (generaly speaking), "evolution driven by the emotional state of the indivuals" is not pertinent (i am almost sure it is right... as an opinion) but we need more scientific details to agree that you present a scientific hypothesis (yes it is only a hypothesis , not a theory).

I don't claim it is an official Theory or a Hypothesis. It is my Speculation based on the simple thought that the Experience of Pain will affect the Survival Rate of an Organism or Animal. But this goes beyond just the Pain Experience. All Organisms probably develop Desires like, Hunger and Sex. These are primitive Conscious Experiences that will greatly affect the Survival and, in the long run, the Evolution of Organisms and Animals. Think about the possibilities, with all the other Conscious Experiences that are possible. There is no further development that I need to do with these thoughts. The concept of Conscious Experience controlling the Evolution of Organisms and Animals is the important thing here. It is Obvious. If Evolutionary Literature does not already take this into account as an important aspect of Evolutionary Theory, then the Evolutionary Literature needs a big update.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Pain has little to do with consciousness. Earthworms have the sensibility to avoid rough, sandpapery surfaces. Spiders will run away if poked.

They don't need to be conscious to do so, they simply need to be the "normal amount of alive". Again, 'response to external stimuli' is a minimum requirement for life.

I'm not talking about Intelligence. I'm talking about the basic primitive Experience of Pain. I don't know for sure if Earthworms and Spiders can feel Pain but it is a good Speculation until Science can get a Clue about an Experiential thing like Pain.

 

[Steve Klinko]

But that trivially obvious. Here is another one, animal species that find sexual reproduction unpleasant won't survive. Or how about this, animal species that like to eat poisonous plants won't survive.

It is trivially true, but you are missing the point. The point is about the Experience itself. What is the Experience of Pain? It is some sort of Conscious Experience that exists only in the Mind. What is the Mind? These are rhetorical questions because nobody knows what these things are. But these things seem to exist in the Manifest Universe that we exist in. It is time for Science to get off it's lazy Physicalist Butt and start answering these questions.

 

[DaveC426913]

What is the Experience of Pain? It is some sort of Conscious Experience that exists only in the Mind.

False. There are critters that have no consciousness - and no mind - yet experience pain.

But that trivially obvious.

The OP is insistent that consciousness is the factor that couples pain to survival.

 

[Dicart]

But that trivially obvious. Here is another one, animal species that find sexual reproduction unpleasant won't survive. Or how about this, animal species that like to eat poisonous plants won't survive.

Yet i better understand Steve Klinko's speculation, i agree that saying that intervention of Pain or Pleasure or any other emotional states take part in the evolution process, is trivially true.

It is trivially true, but you are missing the point. The point is about the Experience itself. What is the Experience of Pain? It is some sort of Conscious Experience that exists only in the Mind. What is the Mind? These are rhetorical questions because nobody knows what these things are. But these things seem to exist in the Manifest Universe that we exist in. It is time for Science to get off it's lazy Physicalist Butt and start answering these questions.

Ok, its much more clear and it is an interresting tought.

At some point you are right but the conscious part you talk about is not necessary.
You talk about pain, pleasure and so on, but you could also talk about all perceptions the brain or any brainlike structure permit, seeing, hearing etc and other abilities the brain permit like learning, having some behaviour etc.
So yes, per example the reflex any animal has, if something hurt his body intervien in the evolutionary process, but this is true too with anything that has to do with the neural cells (or cells... because some cells arent neural but permit the perception).

Therefore, if i do a synthesis about what you claim (or speculate), you state that the behavior of the "machinery" of a living body has some impact on his evolutionary process.
Yes, thats true... and trivial.

But now the good news.
You can think that a body is determined, like a machine, to do things, and "you" the observer (conscious about some of your behaviour or part of your body) are only some guest, doing nothing by yourself : You have the illusion of... free will.

But, if you had free will and this would not be an illusion, this would implie that, as you say, you can have an action on the evolutionnary process of your specie (and also on the evolution of the world around you).

Difficult to answer if there is free will or not, in a scientific manner (this implie good comprehension of physic).

 

[origin]

What is the Experience of Pain?

it's that thing that makes you say ouch.

It is some sort of Conscious Experience that exists only in the Mind.

Obviously.

What is the Mind?

I don't feel like having a silly philosophical discussion.