Has evolution theory got religion?

[cypress]

can this be achievable? i mean i we copy our memory from the brain and somehow from the subconscience and put them on a super computer and then we clone ourself and paste the information into the clone brain then we can come back to life as who we are is there something that doesnt allow this theorie supposing we have the technological advancement to do it ???

 

 

Nobody here has any idea if this is achievable. There is no demonstrable process by which memories, ideas, thoughts or information is reducible to material so any belief that this were possible is purely metaphysical based on a prior commitment to materialism.

[CharonY]

It is pretty well established that there is a material basis for memory. The other terms are less well defined and thus would depend on the context whether data is available. That being said, it is not clear how in detail specific memories are recreated (they are not simply stored and recalled, but exhibit large plasticity). Thus, the available knowledge is limited to which brain areas are involved, to a more limited amount which cellular processes occur, but the detail on how this has to interact with the rest of the brain to recreate a specific memory is still unknown.

[Mr Skeptic]

Nobody here has any idea if this is achievable. There is no demonstrable process by which memories, ideas, thoughts or information is reducible to material so any belief that this were possible is purely metaphysical based on a prior commitment to materialism.

 

Every known form of information is contained materially; books, computer memory, antibodies, all material and all a form of memory. There is however no evidence nor proposed process by which memories, ideas, thoughts or information are reducible to immaterial so any belief that this were possible is purely metaphysical based on a prior commitment to supernaturalism.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Is modern evolution theory, by promoting survival, promoting supernaturalism?

 

I am a hard-nosed scientist and analytic philosopher. I have noticed that evolution theory denies yet promotes supernaturalism. It is this two-facedness that I object to.

 

1) I am told that "copying" is the key to survival. Surely, this is nonsense. If I make a copy of myself do I survive if I, the original, dies? Of course not. Neither do my genes survive. New ones might have been made along the way but that is not "survival" of anything.

 

But, I hear the objection, it isn't the physical form that survives death, it is the pattern of the physical form that survives. Well, no. No - unless we want to promote animism by saying that patterns survive, like souls, across the boundary of death.

 

So is modern evolution theory, by promoting survival, promoting supernaturalism? Yes.

 

2) We are also occasionally told that life forms are blind machines. But this is animism if it isn't just a plain contradiction. A machine is a humanly-defined set of objects employed for a particular task. The very fact that there is a machine/task indicates a non-material agency that defines the physical limits of a machine.

 

My conclusion? It looks to me as though much of modern evolution theory has mucked up the facts of evolution by giving them a religious gloss in its talk of selfishness, machines and "survival". As a scientist I find this two-faced and objectionable.

 

Words in science have specific meanings which may bear little or no relation to the vernacular. An obvious example of this is pre-adaptation. [s.J.Gould suggested exaptation instead]. Obviously, pre-adaptation has a specific meaning within evolutionary theory, meaning that a gene, trait, organ that evolved for one purpose gets co-opted for a new one. An example is bird feathers. Bird feathers could have originally been used for thermo-regulation or display [and both used today for those roles too], but are also used for flying.

Physical DNA is not important, it is the information content which is replicated. This is what is mean by the "survival" or immortality of genes. But genes do die out, or mutate.

 

"Selfishness" is another metaphor. It means that genes replicate. But the key thought here is replication, not survival. Obviously, if the vehicle of those genes dies before reproduction, then the genes are not passed into future generations. "Survival" is therefore a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for gene replication. It depends on the organism and it's style or mode of reproduction. [sexual, asexual, etc].

Organisms are in some sense, gene vehicles that provide and arena for the cooperation and conflict of genes. Genes mainly work together and cooperate, but as others have pointed out, cancer is an example where they don't. Cancer cells are much simpler than normal somatic cells and so they can reproduce faster. In evolution, "selfish genes" such as segregation distorters can screw up sex ratios, and even cause extinction and pseudoextinction. [speciation]

 

Phadnis, N. and H. A. Orr (2009). "A Single Gene Causes Both Male Sterility and Segregation Distortion in Drosophila Hybrids." Science 323(5912): 376-379.

A central goal of evolutionary biology is to identify the genes and evolutionary forces that cause speciation, the emergence of reproductive isolation between populations. Despite the identification of several genes that cause hybrid sterility or inviability--many of which have evolved rapidly under positive Darwinian selection--little is known about the ecological or genomic forces that drive the evolution of postzygotic isolation. Here, we show that the same gene, Overdrive, causes both male sterility and segregation distortion in F1 hybrids between the Bogota and U.S. subspecies of Drosophila pseudoobscura. This segregation distorter gene is essential for hybrid sterility, a strong reproductive barrier between these young taxa. Our results suggest that genetic conflict may be an important evolutionary force in speciation.

 

Jaenike, J. (2001). "SEX CHROMOSOME MEIOTIC DRIVE." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32(1): 25-49.

Sex chromosome drive refers to the unequal transmission of X and Y chromosomes from individuals of the heterogametic sex, resulting in biased sex ratios among progeny and within populations. The presence of driving sex chromosomes can reduce mean fitness within a population, bring about intragenomic conflict between the X chromosome, the Y, and the autosomes, and alter the intensity or mode of sexual selection within species. Sex chromosome drive, or its genetic equivalent, is known in plants, mammals, and flies. Many species harboring driving X chromosomes have evolved Y-linked and autosomal suppressors of drive. If a drive polymorphism is not stable, then driving chromosomes may spread to fixation and cause the extinction of a species. Certain characteristics of species, such as population density and female mating rate, may affect the probability of fixation of driving chromosomes. Thus, sex chromosome drive could be an agent of species-level selection.

[cypress]

It is pretty well established that there is a material basis for memory.

 

In a computer system, processes that store and retrieve information into memory holding material is not reducible to material nor is the stored information reducible to material. Likewise the processes and systems that store and retrieve our memories are not reducible to material, nor are the memories themselves.

 

The other terms are less well defined and thus would depend on the context whether data is available. That being said, it is not clear how in detail specific memories are recreated (they are not simply stored and recalled, but exhibit large plasticity). Thus, the available knowledge is limited to which brain areas are involved, to a more limited amount which cellular processes occur, but the detail on how this has to interact with the rest of the brain to recreate a specific memory is still unknown.

 

Indeed it is unknown.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In a computer system, processes that store and retrieve information into memory holding material is not reducible to material nor is the stored information reducible to material. Likewise the processes and systems that store and retrieve our memories are not reducible to material, nor are the memories themselves.

If you'd like, I can reduce the processes that store and retrieve information in a NAND flash system down to the constituent electrons trapped in each NAND cell.

 

How exactly do you propose that these common information-storing systems do not store the information via a configuration of mechanical or physical parts? NAND cells store information by the storage of electrons; hard disks store information as a result of magnetic field orientation, which is a result of the orientation of various structures inside the metal platter; DNA stores information in the material of its base pairs. Are you proposing that, despite information-retrieval mechanisms using these material properties to read out information, the information is somewhere else?

[cypress]

If you'd like, I can reduce the processes that store and retrieve information in a NAND flash system down to the constituent electrons trapped in each NAND cell.

 

The instruction sets used to execute and manage the process is integral to the process and exists independent of, not deterministically set by, and thus not reducible to material hardware, therefore the process is not reducible to material. Likewise the process that causes the NAND gates to be loaded rely on instruction sets that are not determined by the hardware.

 

How exactly do you propose that these common information-storing systems do not store the information via a configuration of mechanical or physical parts? NAND cells store information by the storage of electrons; hard disks store information as a result of magnetic field orientation, which is a result of the orientation of various structures inside the metal platter; DNA stores information in the material of its base pairs. Are you proposing that, despite information-retrieval mechanisms using these material properties to read out information, the information is somewhere else?

 

You are focusing on the configuration once the process of translating and storing information is complete, and you are neglecting the role of instruction sets in the process. Please note that I specifically mentioned the process. Retrieval of this information raises the same issue.

[Mr Skeptic]

The instruction sets used to execute and manage the process is integral to the process and exists independent of, not deterministically set by, and thus not reducible to material hardware, therefore the process is not reducible to material. Likewise the process that causes the NAND gates to be loaded rely on instruction sets that are not determined by the hardware.

 

 

 

You are focusing on the configuration once the process of translating and storing information is complete, and you are neglecting the role of instruction sets in the process. Please note that I specifically mentioned the process. Retrieval of this information raises the same issue.

 

So, try making a computer without materials then, and tell me how far you get. And these instruction sets you speak of, don't actually exist... what actually exists is the configuration of electrons in a pattern that matches the instruction sets. Electrons are no less real than the ink on a book, and no less material.

 

And if making a computer without materials is too hard for you, feel free to instead store some information without materials. Even one bit will do. But you don't know how to store even one bit of information without materials, do you?

[Ophiolite]

Reluctantly, on this occasion, I am forced to agree somewhat with cypress. Teh instructions are conceptual. They are not material. It is true we can express them materially, but they are initially - unless we take an extreme reductionist position - immaterial. They are thoughts. However, for those thoughts to precipitate actions they must be converted to material form in the way you have described. But I think it is important not to ignore the relevance of emergent properties - unless, of course, we don't believe in emergent properties.

[Mr Skeptic]

Certainly, the instructions are conceptual and abstract. Also, they don't exist as anything other than a concept and don't function unless there is something to execute the instructions. A conceptual Turing machine can conceptually solve problems, but to actually do so it has to be built in some form or another. To actually work, they need a material existence. That existence can be silicon, mechanical, mental, various forms would work, but it has to be in material form to actually function.

[Sisyphus]

Nobody here has any idea if this is achievable. There is no demonstrable process by which memories, ideas, thoughts or information is reducible to material so any belief that this were possible is purely metaphysical based on a prior commitment to materialism.

 

 

In a computer system, processes that store and retrieve information into memory holding material is not reducible to material nor is the stored information reducible to material. Likewise the processes and systems that store and retrieve our memories are not reducible to material, nor are the memories themselves.

 

These two quotes taken together seem to imply you think it is impossible to copy computer files.

 

You might not be able to copy a human mind because it might not be "reducible to material," but then computer files are also not "reducible to material." Since you obviously don't believe copying files is impossible, then you must mean this phrase in two different senses, and you are equivocating such that it is no longer clear what your actual point is, if anything.

[cypress]

These two quotes taken together seem to imply you think it is impossible to copy computer files.

 

A better approach would be to accept the two ideas independently, take them at face value and interpret them literally in context as they were intended.

 

You might not be able to copy a human mind because it might not be "reducible to material," but then computer files are also not "reducible to material." Since you obviously don't believe copying files is impossible, then you must mean this phrase in two different senses, and you are equivocating such that it is no longer clear what your actual point is, if anything.

 

Your argument is a straw man because you have changed the context. You neglected to use the phrases and meaning I used 1) the "process of storing information" using a computer, which has a very different meaning than "computer files" these two phrases are not interchangeable. 2) In referring to stored information I do not mean the file itself or I would have used that word. Instead it is more than the physical properties of the file and the molecular configuration of the storage media, rather it refers to the information conveyed by the low entropy memory configuration once interpreted for context and meaning.

[Ophiolite]

Certainly, the instructions are conceptual and abstract. Also, they don't exist as anything other than a concept and don't function unless there is something to execute the instructions. A conceptual Turing machine can conceptually solve problems, but to actually do so it has to be built in some form or another. To actually work, they need a material existence. That existence can be silicon, mechanical, mental, various forms would work, but it has to be in material form to actually function.

Absolutely correct. Which is why I was agreeing with cypress only somewhat.

 

2) In referring to stored information I do not mean the file itself or I would have used that word. Instead it is more than the physical properties of the file and the molecular configuration of the storage media' date=' rather it refers to [i']the information conveyed by the low entropy memory configuration once interpreted for context and meaning[/i].

Ah yes. that would be, let me think, what would one call that ? Ah! Computer file.

[Sisyphus]

A better approach would be to accept the two ideas independently, take them at face value and interpret them literally in context as they were intended.

 

 

 

Your argument is a straw man because you have changed the context. You neglected to use the phrases and meaning I used 1) the "process of storing information" using a computer, which has a very different meaning than "computer files" these two phrases are not interchangeable. 2) In referring to stored information I do not mean the file itself or I would have used that word. Instead it is more than the physical properties of the file and the molecular configuration of the storage media, rather it refers to the information conveyed by the low entropy memory configuration once interpreted for context and meaning.

 

I'm aware that you meant them differently, but you were arguing as if that wasn't the case, hence equivocation. Trace the argument:

 

Mr Skeptic: Perhaps you could copy memories.

cypress: You only think that because of an unreasonable faith in materialism.

Mr Skeptic: It's not faith and it's not that unreasonable, since everything we know of so far is materialistic. Like computer files.

cypress: No they're not! [metaphysical account of the physical activity of hard drives]

 

In context, it has to mean the same thing, or else your argument makes no sense except as pedantic contrarianism. The thread is a bit confused so I'll assume you're not doing it a purpose. If you were, it would be quite the lawyer trick!

[cypress]

No sysiphus, I first indicated there was no known material only process.

 

The argument went like this:

 

Mr Skeptic: Perhaps there was a process to copy memories.

cypress: You only think that because of an unreasonable faith in materialism.

Mr Skeptic: It's not faith and it's not that unreasonable, since everything we know of so far is materialistic. Like computer files.

cypress: I am speaking of the process by which the memory files are generated and moved. The files themselves as stored, have no meaning.

 

Let's not change the discussion to something it was not.

 

 

Ah yes. that would be, let me think, what would one call that ? Ah! Computer file.

 

It applies to any form of stored contextual information. A book is an example. So is a painting. Neither of those are computer files.

[Mr Skeptic]

It applies to any form of stored contextual information. A book is an example. So is a painting. Neither of those are computer files.

 

And both are made of materials

[swansont]

No sysiphus, I first indicated there was no known material only process.

 

 

That's part of the equivocation Sisyphus was pointing out. "Memory/information storage is materialistic" and "memory/information storage is made of a material" are two very different statements. I don't see where anyone has claimed the latter, so denying that it's true misses the point.

[pioneer]

If we look at the transition between the pre-humans and humans, where civilization first begins to form and new human needs appear, it is reasonable to assume that those transition humans were the closest to the natural pre-human instinct.

 

As an analogy, when the industrial revolution begins, humans migrate from the farm to the city. The first generation of migration still had one foot on the farm and the other foot in the city, and were closest to the farm, compared to later generations.

 

The question becomes, how do you regulate the pre-human propensities, which had evolved over a million years, optimized for smaller non-civilized groups, so they can achieve what is not exactly in that instinct package. One would need something that is as strong as instinct, to regulate the instinct, so the present does not dissolve into the past.

 

As an analogy, say we wanted to crowd many ape groups, into a much smaller space than is natural. Their instinct will be to reduce the group density back to natural. Yet we need them to stay at a higher than natural density and work as a team. We will need to regulate at some of their previous instincts, since these default back lower density.

 

This is where the earliest religion comes in. It was part of evolution.

Edited October 29, 2010 by pioneer

[cypress]

That's part of the equivocation Sisyphus was pointing out. "Memory/information storage is materialistic" and "memory/information storage is made of a material" are two very different statements. I don't see where anyone has claimed the latter, so denying that it's true misses the point.

 

Mr. Skeptic has attempted to shift the context from the former to the latter and persists with this attempt even in his most recent post. Sysiphus seems to have misapropriated the source of equivocation. For my part, I am not surprised that minds use material for various purposes on a regular basis and don't need Mr. Skeptic to tell us this. My point is that the processes cannot be reduced to material and therefore the questions the OP asked are religous/metaphysical and don't have scientific answers. Thus it seems that evolution does have religion.

[Mr Skeptic]

Mr. Skeptic has attempted to shift the context from the former to the latter and persists with this attempt even in his most recent post. Sysiphus seems to have misapropriated the source of equivocation. For my part, I am not surprised that minds use material for various purposes on a regular basis and don't need Mr. Skeptic to tell us this. My point is that the processes cannot be reduced to material and therefore the questions the OP asked are religous/metaphysical and don't have scientific answers. Thus it seems that evolution does have religion.

 

What I'm saying is that:

1) Information can be stored in a material form. (eg ink on paper)

2) In every existing example of information being stored, that information is stored directly or indirectly in a material form. To clarify this, information can be stored within other information (eg within the abstract concept of a Turing machine), but neither the abstract storage form nor the information it stores can exist without some material form to encode it.

3) By material form I mean something that contains energy, be it photons, electrons, atoms, or some other energy-containing form. This is because we seem to be talking about materialism (which includes energy), rather than a distinction between matter and energy.

 

Which of these do you disagree with, and why? In particular, can you give an example of information that is not stored materially?

[swansont]

Mr. Skeptic has attempted to shift the context from the former to the latter and persists with this attempt even in his most recent post. Sysiphus seems to have misapropriated the source of equivocation. For my part, I am not surprised that minds use material for various purposes on a regular basis and don't need Mr. Skeptic to tell us this. My point is that the processes cannot be reduced to material and therefore the questions the OP asked are religous/metaphysical and don't have scientific answers. Thus it seems that evolution does have religion.

 

 

By "reduced to material" which of the above two uses do you mean?

[cypress]

What I'm saying is that:

1) Information can be stored in a material form. (eg ink on paper)

2) In every existing example of information being stored, that information is stored directly or indirectly in a material form. To clarify this, information can be stored within other information (eg within the abstract concept of a Turing machine), but neither the abstract storage form nor the information it stores can exist without some material form to encode it.

3) By material form I mean something that contains energy, be it photons, electrons, atoms, or some other energy-containing form. This is because we seem to be talking about materialism (which includes energy), rather than a distinction between matter and energy.

 

Which of these do you disagree with, and why? In particular, can you give an example of information that is not stored materially?

 

I disagree with your persistent attempt to transform my post into something other than what it is and to try to entwine me in straw man arguments. If you would like to argue that generation and operation of the processes of storing and retrieving information from a memory medium is reducible to material, I will be happy to discuss it.

[Mr Skeptic]

I disagree with your persistent attempt to transform my post into something other than what it is and to try to entwine me in straw man arguments. If you would like to argue that generation and operation of the processes of storing and retrieving information from a memory medium is reducible to material, I will be happy to discuss it.

 

I don't see the difference really. Are you saying that there is some "processes of storing and retrieving information from a memory medium" that does not require materials/energy? If so, why ever would you believe that and can you give an example of one? Sure, you can make an abstract algorithm for it, but can you implement without materials? If you can't implement it without materials, it doesn't really work without materials now does it.