iNow Posted July 2 Posted July 2 7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: An example? Plasmodium, snakes (lost all limbs), Axolotl... the ostrich, emu, dodo and kiwi bird have lost the ability to fly... yeast, horses lost their thumbs and all but their middle fingers... the examples of evolution favoring simpler over more complex are literally endless. The core point is you're representing a false version of how it works. There is no direction in evolution, and definitely not toward more complex (even though that is one possible outcome). You can dig your heels in all you want, but you're wrong and I'd advise you adapt your understanding to a more accurate one. 8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Higher complexity would not be a direction? Perhaps it is, but it's not one necessarily favored by evolution 1
Luc Turpin Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 Just now, iNow said: Plasmodium, snakes (lost all limbs), Axolotl... the ostrich, emu, dodo and kiwi bird have lost the ability to fly... yeast, horses lost their thumbs and all but their middle fingers... the examples of evolution favoring simpler over more complex are literally endless. The core point is you're representing a false version of how it works. There is no direction in evolution, and definitely not toward more complex (even though that is one possible outcome). You can dig your heels in all you want, but you're wrong and I'd advise you adapt your understanding to a more accurate one. Perhaps it is, but it's not one necessarily favored by evolution 1- You are correct in your examples. Are there nonetheless much more events towards complexity than towards simplicity, which would be an indication of trend or direction? This could be a misconception of mine. 2- All possibilities are on the table, but again, a long time ago complex lifeforms did not exist and now they do! Is this not indicative of something? There are sways from simpler to complex and from complex to simpler, but the overall trend seems to be upward! 3- This time I am not digging my heels; just trying to better understand. 4- Got that; complexity would be a direction if evolution was actually favouring this, but it is not. Complexity is not a bona fide given in evolution. It is not an intrinsic part of it. It might have happened just that way because of the environment and circumstances pushed it that way.
iNow Posted July 2 Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Are there nonetheless much more events towards complexity than towards simplicity, which would be an indication of trend or direction? no
Luc Turpin Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 1 minute ago, iNow said: no Ok then! It is a misconception of mine.
swansont Posted July 2 Posted July 2 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: There are laws to be obeyed, and beyond that, randomness? chance occurences? probabilistic outcome? There is a mix. But deterministic laws mean results are not random; some results are more likely than others, and some are not possible at all. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: If intent there is, would it not only be for the living? You’re the one who keeps bringing up intent, not me. 15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Then there were simple organisms and now more complex ones. But there are still simple organisms. Complexity is favored if it improves odds of survival; if there are no complex organisms then it represents a new niche that could be exploited
CharonY Posted July 2 Posted July 2 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: 1- Agree that that which gets selected for is contingent upon the local environment and circumstances. But, are the circumstances not almost always the same? A defence measure is countered and a new measure is devised to counter the countering measure! More weapons in the arsenal of survival thus engendering more complexity. Outwitting the opposition is also a survival mechanism. Also nope. Sometimes the solution is to go simpler to avoid detection, for example. Or introduce a bit of randomness (e.g. simple point mutations). The mechanisms we see for example to avoid antibiotic resistance is not getting more complicated. Most extreme resistant organisms simply use exporters that pump the drug away from them. They generally do not have huge complicated mechanisms, as there is selective pressure for them to remain efficient. As before, new developments (e.g. an entirely new defence system) can lead to some other developments. Or it can lead to loss of existing functions. Many pathogens (i.e. those specialized in infecting other organisms) have very small genomes and while they may have specialized pathogenicity factors, they often lose other bits and pieces (e.g. traits needed for environmental survival). The way you describe it seems that you think organisms keep accumulating traits of increasing complexity. That is clearly not the case. Edit: it occurs to me that this discussion is getting really far away from the original topic and is more about misconceptions in evolution (and to some degree, biological/ biochemical processes in general).
Luc Turpin Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 2 hours ago, swansont said: There is a mix. But deterministic laws mean results are not random; some results are more likely than others, and some are not possible at all. You’re the one who keeps bringing up intent, not me. But there are still simple organisms. Complexity is favored if it improves odds of survival; if there are no complex organisms then it represents a new niche that could be exploited 1- Understood; 2- Hypothetical question that I was asking you 3- Agree. 4- Understood 2 hours ago, CharonY said: Also nope. Sometimes the solution is to go simpler to avoid detection, for example. Or introduce a bit of randomness (e.g. simple point mutations). The mechanisms we see for example to avoid antibiotic resistance is not getting more complicated. Most extreme resistant organisms simply use exporters that pump the drug away from them. They generally do not have huge complicated mechanisms, as there is selective pressure for them to remain efficient. As before, new developments (e.g. an entirely new defence system) can lead to some other developments. Or it can lead to loss of existing functions. Many pathogens (i.e. those specialized in infecting other organisms) have very small genomes and while they may have specialized pathogenicity factors, they often lose other bits and pieces (e.g. traits needed for environmental survival). The way you describe it seems that you think organisms keep accumulating traits of increasing complexity. That is clearly not the case. Edit: it occurs to me that this discussion is getting really far away from the original topic and is more about misconceptions in evolution (and to some degree, biological/ biochemical processes in general). So, it is more of an ebb and flow process in the sense of evolution. There is no upward complexity mobility, but fluctuations based on environment and circumstance. Coming back to the topic at hand, I have great difficulty with the fact that evolution would not have benefited from the incredible power of intelligence. It provides a sizable advantage to those capable of using it. Is it not our main reason for our evolutionary success? Those that better adapt and control their environment are more destined to succeed? Why would intelligence not play a role in evolution?
iNow Posted July 2 Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Why would intelligence not play a role in evolution? Nobody has suggested it doesn’t
Luc Turpin Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 We are very weak and vulnerable, but our intelligence gave us a great edge in survival did it not? 1 minute ago, iNow said: Nobody has suggested it doesn’t That is a surprise to me as I thought that it had been implicitly excluded from our evolutionary discussion. Then wrongfully, I believed that evolution was solely a matter of good luck you survive and bad luck you die. Then mind in whatever shape or form has a role to play in evolution?
swansont Posted July 2 Posted July 2 38 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: That is a surprise to me as I thought that it had been implicitly excluded from our evolutionary discussion. Then wrongfully, I believed that evolution was solely a matter of good luck you survive and bad luck you die. Then mind in whatever shape or form has a role to play in evolution? Survival is not just a matter of luck, just as chemistry outcomes are not random. If you are stringer/faster/smarter you stand a better chance to survive most situations. With your ever-shifting description of mind, who is to say what role it had, but intelligence can be an advantage, since it affords an opportunity to work smarter, not harder.
CharonY Posted July 2 Posted July 2 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: We are very weak and vulnerable, We really are not unless you do selective comparisons. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: So, it is more of an ebb and flow process in the sense of evolution. It is more radiation in all directions (and see what sticks). 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: That is a surprise to me as I thought that it had been implicitly excluded from our evolutionary discussion. Nope, especially not on this board that I remember. But intelligence does come at a cost. You have proposed two things (implicitly) a) evolution goes towards higher complexity, which would also include brains with higher intelligence, and b) intelligence provides massive advantages in evolutionary contexts. From there it should follow that over time organisms would be increasingly complex and intelligent. A simple look at current biodiversity clearly indicates that this is not the case. There is one species that managed to get enormous advantages from intelligence, but it is clearly not widely distributed and is therefore not a trend. 27 minutes ago, swansont said: If you are stringer/faster/smarter you stand a better chance to survive most situations. Or have anything that works for your environment. That can include being smaller, or slower and have smaller brain (thus requiring less energy and nutrients). Fitness is not determined by strength.
iNow Posted July 2 Posted July 2 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: I believed that evolution was solely a matter of good luck you survive and bad luck you die Survival isn’t what matters in evolution. Reproduction and creation of offspring is.
Luc Turpin Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 4 hours ago, swansont said: Survival is not just a matter of luck, just as chemistry outcomes are not random. If you are stringer/faster/smarter you stand a better chance to survive most situations. With your ever-shifting description of mind, who is to say what role it had, but intelligence can be an advantage, since it affords an opportunity to work smarter, not harder. 1- Agree. 2- You cannot blame me for not having provided a "stable" description of mind as the neuro-field itself cannot even agree on such a definition. 3 hours ago, CharonY said: We really are not unless you do selective comparisons. It is more radiation in all directions (and see what sticks). Nope, especially not on this board that I remember. But intelligence does come at a cost. You have proposed two things (implicitly) a) evolution goes towards higher complexity, which would also include brains with higher intelligence, and b) intelligence provides massive advantages in evolutionary contexts. From there it should follow that over time organisms would be increasingly complex and intelligent. A simple look at current biodiversity clearly indicates that this is not the case. There is one species that managed to get enormous advantages from intelligence, but it is clearly not widely distributed and is therefore not a trend. 1- Ok. 2- This works fine for me! 3- Then I came to this conclusion by myself and appear to have been incorrect in my assumption. a) you and INow have convinced me otherwise (e.g. that evolution does not move towards complexity; b) intelligence does provide a significant advantage and I have shown through referencing that big brains are not required. My contention though is not of increasing intelligence, but intelligence spread out through nature, and for this, I have made a compeling case. Mind needs living matter to express itself and the organism itself, its environment and circumstance would combine to determine what type of expression would occur. An unproven contention of mine. 2 hours ago, iNow said: Survival isn’t what matters in evolution. Reproduction and creation of offspring is. As stated before, you need to survive to get to reproduction and creation of offspring. Otherwise, nothing else really matters.
iNow Posted July 3 Posted July 3 23 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: you need to survive to get to reproduction and creation of offspring Not really, no. Mayflies only live 24 hours and then die, yet reproduce before they do.
swansont Posted July 3 Posted July 3 57 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 2- You cannot blame me for not having provided a "stable" description of mind as the neuro-field itself cannot even agree on such a definition. I’m confident that the neuro-field does not claim that mind is tied in with randomness and the universe, and further, you are making claims about the mind that are difficult to accept as serious if it’s such a vague notion.
CharonY Posted July 3 Posted July 3 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: My contention though is not of increasing intelligence, but intelligence spread out through nature, and for this, I have made a compeling case. The case is not compelling, just based on an assumption. If you define intelligence as broadly as you have with mind, there is really nothing to test the claim against. In fact, you have pretty much argued that there is nothing without intelligence, which then makes it a circular argument. There is no spreading if everything has it. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: As stated before, you need to survive to get to reproduction and creation of offspring. Otherwise, nothing else really matters. As others have stated: nope.
Luc Turpin Posted July 3 Author Posted July 3 10 hours ago, swansont said: I’m confident that the neuro-field does not claim that mind is tied in with randomness and the universe, and further, you are making claims about the mind that are difficult to accept as serious if it’s such a vague notion. From page one of this thread: "Subjective experience, intelligence, consciousness are substates of mind; at least for me." Mind, your version or mine, would "act" upon events, thereby reducing randomness; what's wrong with that? Mind, my version or yours, is part of the universe as evolution is part of the universe; again, what is wrong with that? Sit still, close your eyes and wait until thoughts dissipate......this is mind; easy to experience, hard to define. Tell me now how three pounds worth with 60% fat and 40% water, protein, carbohydrates and salts do that? 8 hours ago, CharonY said: The case is not compelling, just based on an assumption. If you define intelligence as broadly as you have with mind, there is really nothing to test the claim against. In fact, you have pretty much argued that there is nothing without intelligence, which then makes it a circular argument. There is no spreading if everything has it. As others have stated: nope. !- do I need to reference all that I have already referenced indicating that intelligence is widespread in nature? As for broadness, compare unintelligent non-living matter to intelligent living matter. Evolution is also all around in nature. Does it stop us from testing the claim? 2- Both survival and reproduction are required; dead reproductive organisms do not abound in nature.
dimreepr Posted July 3 Posted July 3 40 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: From page one of this thread: "Subjective experience, intelligence, consciousness are substates of mind; at least for me." Mind, your version or mine, would "act" upon events, thereby reducing randomness; what's wrong with that? Mind, my version or yours, is part of the universe as evolution is part of the universe; again, what is wrong with that? Sit still, close your eyes and wait until thoughts dissipate......this is mind; easy to experience, hard to define. Tell me now how three pounds worth with 60% fat and 40% water, protein, carbohydrates and salts do that? !- do I need to reference all that I have already referenced indicating that intelligence is widespread in nature? As for broadness, compare unintelligent non-living matter to intelligent living matter. Evolution is also all around in nature. Does it stop us from testing the claim? 2- Both survival and reproduction are required; dead reproductive organisms do not abound in nature. I'm in a quandary, I could answer, not all in nature that seems intelligent is, in fact, intelligent; but that would just encourage you to keep bleating about how inteligent you are, to have spotted something clever that the experts, with all their knowledge and intelligence, can't see. 49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 2- Both survival and reproduction are required; dead reproductive organisms do not abound in nature. That's also true in an academic sense, people that don't learn science, do not abound as scientists... 🧐
Luc Turpin Posted July 3 Author Posted July 3 13 minutes ago, dimreepr said: I'm in a quandary, I could answer, not all in nature that seems intelligent is, in fact, intelligent; but that would just encourage you to keep bleating about how inteligent you are, to have spotted something clever that the experts, with all their knowledge and intelligence, can't see. That's also true in an academic sense, people that don't learn science, do not abound as scientists... 🧐 I will then bleat nothing as I am not that inteligent😊 Good one😊
Luc Turpin Posted July 3 Author Posted July 3 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 2- Both survival and reproduction are required; dead reproductive organisms do not abound in nature. However, viruses are not considered living entities, but replicate! Therefore, my dead reproductive statement is not entirely correct.
dimreepr Posted July 3 Posted July 3 3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: However, viruses are not considered living entities, but replicate! Therefore, my dead reproductive statement is not entirely correct. They're not considered intelligent either...
Luc Turpin Posted July 3 Author Posted July 3 33 minutes ago, dimreepr said: They're not considered intelligent either... Yup! May be the defining line between non-living and living.
dimreepr Posted July 3 Posted July 3 1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said: Yup! May be the defining line between non-living and living. What's that got to do with intelligence?
Phi for All Posted July 3 Posted July 3 19 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Yup! May be the defining line between non-living and living. So sorry for all those unintelligent plants and organisms that just lost their "live" status. It breaks the heart!
swansont Posted July 3 Posted July 3 3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: From page one of this thread: "Subjective experience, intelligence, consciousness are substates of mind; at least for me." And then you spoke of randomness being affected by “mind” and how “mind” is the source of complexity in nature.
Recommended Posts