Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Tamminen]

And the logic that proves the impossibility of the world without subjects is not our ordinary formal logic, because it is based on understanding where the limits of logic are, and the possibility of the world without subjects is beyond the limits of logic. So the "proof" is more like dialectical or transendental than logical, and I have tried to sketch its key points in several posts. Here we must do Cartesian meditations, not logical calculus.

Ontology precedes logic. Logic can be applied only to phenomena within logical space, and logical space coincides with the space within which it is used, the subject-world relationship. We cannot say anything about a world without subjects in logic, e.g. that it is possible or impossible. But using transcendental deduction, or dialectic if you like, we can understand that such a world cannot exist.

As Wittgenstein said, there cannot be logic before the existence of the world, and the existence of the subject is the ontological precondition of the existence of the world and logic. Logic does not float in a Platonic Heaven. Therefore you have no justification to say "a world devoid of subjects is definitely not a logically impossible world". This is the minimum of what you should admit. Then, as I said, we can give convincing arguments for the absurdity of the idea of the possibility of the subjectless world and conclude that it cannot exist. And now we are at the core of the question whether materialism is plausible or not. My answer is no, as you have probably noticed.

[Consul]

I didn't meant to imply that evolution is some sort of supernatural process. However, we have no direct evidence that random mutation plus material selection would lead to the speciation we see. Doesn't mean that it didn't, just that it is not an established theory as you've suggested. So far our artificial evolutionary experiments, e.g., with fruit flies and bacteria, have failed to validate Darwinian theory. When it comes to the study of very complex subjects like evolution and consciousness, the typical reductionist scientific approach does not seem to go very far. It's rather like making tooth-picks with a hatchet.

"Evolution is not merely an idea, a theory, or a concept, but is the name of a process in nature, the occurrence of which can be documented by mountains of evidence that nobody has been able to refute. …It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence. Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact."

(Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books, 2001. p. 275)

You should read biologist Jerry Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True?"!

For example, the speciation of bacteria has been observed in the lab, so there's a compelling confirmation of the Darwinian theory of evolution:

"We can even see the origin of new, ecologically diverse bacterial species, all within a single laboratory flask. Paul Rainey and his colleagues at Oxford University placed a strain of the bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens in a small vessel containing nutrient broth, and simply watched it. (It’s surprising but true that such a vessel actually contains diverse environments. Oxygen concentration, for example, is highest on the top and lowest on the bottom.) Within ten days—no more than a few hundred generations—the ancestral free-floating “smooth” bacterium had evolved into two additional forms occupying different parts of the beaker. One, called “wrinkly spreader,” formed a mat on top of the broth. The other, called “fuzzy spreader,” formed a carpet on the bottom. The smooth ancestral type persisted in the liquid environment in the middle. Each of the two new forms was genetically different from the ancestor, having evolved through mutation and natural selection to reproduce best in their respective environments. Here, then, is not only evolution but speciation occurring the lab: the ancestral form produced, and coexisted with, two ecologically different descendants, and in bacteria such forms are considered distinct species. Over a very short time, natural selection on Pseudomonas yielded a small-scale “adaptive radiation,” the equivalent of how animals or plants form species when they encounter new environments on an oceanic island."

(Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution is True. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 141)

[Consul]

I didn't meant to imply that evolution is some sort of supernatural process. However, we have no direct evidence that random mutation plus material selection would lead to the speciation we see. Doesn't mean that it didn't, just that it is not an established theory as you've suggested.

It certainly is! As for the process of speciation, see e.g.:

The Pattern and Process of Speciation (PDF)

The already-mentioned Jerry Coyne is the coauthor of a biological standard textbook on speciation:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product ... de&lang=en

[Le Vautre]

Huxley (not the writer) said that if we had known the exact position of the constituent units of the protosystemic nebula, we would have the means to predict the state of the British fauna in 1868... But a minimal knowledge in lacanian psychoanalysis should tell us the ABC of Discourses, particularly how the Scientific Discourse is as potenvolontarist (poten- volontarist, Wille zur Macht) as the Finalist/Teleologist Discourse.

I humbly think that Finalism and Scientism start from the assumption that everything is done; moreover, that we know something somewhat somehow. Hence Materialism can be effectively weird in some extent – when it makes assumptions, for example, and when it feels good about it. Sartre defined the intellectual as someone who feels inside of himself a contradiction and a desire of penitence. (People like to make jokes about bad faith and sartrian communism, but nevertheless I think that Sartre is far more moral than Camus, who always criticizes others but himself.)

Do you see the problem?

Anyway, Materialism is a Naturalist Discourse, which means that it believes in order. So it can't be, by definition, absurd.

[Felix]

Consul, I looked up the Paul Rainey studies you referenced, diversification of genotypes of Pseudomonas bacteria was observed, but no development of new species. Mr. Coyne has a reputation for being ingenuous.

A brief excerpt from one review of his book:
Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument” for his theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them.

[Felix]

I neglected to include the next paragraph of that review.....

The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection — which is to say, minor changes within existing species.

[Felix]

Consul, This article does a better job of making your point, but consciousness is a much harder nut to crack.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sc ... ervations/

[Consul]

Consul, I looked up the Paul Rainey studies you referenced, diversification of genotypes of Pseudomonas bacteria was observed, but no development of new species. Mr. Coyne has a reputation for being ingenuous.

Among anti-Darwinist creationists and ID theorists perhaps, but not among his scientific peers. He's a leading biological expert on speciation with an impeccable scientific reputation, and I'm sure he knows for certain whether or not a new species has appeared.

"This is a first-class introduction to evolutionary biology, written by an expert, but very much accessible to that elusive figure the “general reader.” Coyne takes us right across the spectrum. We start with a discussion of the very notion of “evolution”—organic change through time—and a list of the things that we should expect to find if evolution is true. Things such as bridging organisms in the fossil record, linking organisms of very different kinds. Also, evidence that the main mechanism of evolution, natural selection, is actually working and not merely some theoretical notion. We then move on through the fossil record, looking at what has been found. There is a good discussion of whale evolution, but I found even more convincing the presentation of insect evolution and of the fabulous little find of an insect that truly was half wasp and half ant. Just what was predicted! Next is a trip through embryology and the string-and-sealing-wax, improvised nature of so much in the organic world. Not perfection from a thoughtful Designer, but the end result of a process that cares only about survival and reproduction—better than the next chap.

Geographical distribution leads on to a good examination of natural selection, and then into some more specialized issues about the reasons for sex and why organisms get broken up into kinds or species. There is a good discussion about humans—I wonder if putting this toward the end of the book will confirm the belief or prejudice that humans, because they came late, must therefore necessarily be the best or the most important. It is funny how even the most secular of evolutionists often parallel the thinking of the religious. And so finally to a few sensible reflections about why we should not think that an evolutionary origin makes us mere beasts or gives license for bad behavior. Overall, this is the paradigm of a good book, by an expert, for nonexperts. Put copies in all of your guest rooms, but expect to have to keep replacing
them."

(Ruse, Michael. "Review of Why Evolution is True, by Jerry A. Coyne." The Quarterly Review of Biology 86/4 (2011): 345.)

A brief excerpt from one review of his book:
Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument” for his theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them.

You omitted the source, but it seems to be this one: http://www.discovery.org/a/10661-/

Discovery Institute—that says it all!

All creationistic/theistic arguments against Darwinian evolution have been refuted completely, including the one in the above review that "the actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution"! No, they're not! (Listen to Coyne in the video below!)

"Scientifically Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair. The same is true of its offspring, Intelligent Design Theory." – Michael Ruse: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

[Consul]

Consul, This article does a better job of making your point, but consciousness is a much harder nut to crack.

It is, but the evolution of consciousness is part of natural biological evolution and particularly of the natural evolution of central nervous systems (brains) in animals.

By "(primary) consciousness" I mean sentience, the ability to have subjective sensations (sense-impressions).

There's an evolutionary prehistory of sentience, because physiological sensitivity (reactivity to stimuli) as found in the following kinds of organisms precedes psychological sentience: plants —> bacteria —> protozoa (unicellular eukaryotic microoganisms) —> nerveless animals (e.g sponges) —> primitive animals with nerve nets but without a brain (e.g. jellyfish) —> the first primitive animals with a central nervous system/brain (worms called planarians).

Eventually, animal brains reached a developmental level of structural, functional, and informational complexity&dynamics where sensory signal-information manifests itself as subjective sensation. The neurological mechanisms of this "phenomenal transform" (Gerald Edelman) are still unknown.

For example, as for the physiological sensitivity of plants:

"Plants continually gather information about their environment. Environmental changes elicit various biological responses. The cells, tissues, and organs of plants possess the ability to become excited under the influence of environmental factors. Plants synchronize their normal biological functions with their responses to the environment. The synchronization of internal functions, based on external events, is linked with the phenomenon of excitability in plant cells. The conduction of bioelectrochemical excitation is a fundamental property of living organisms.
The conduction of bioelectrochemical excitation is a rapid method of long distance signal transmission between plant tissues and organs. Plants promptly respond to changes in luminous intensity, osmotic pressure, temperature, cutting, mechanical stimulation, water availability, wounding, and chemical compounds such as herbicides, plant growth stimulants, salts, and water potential. Once initiated, electrical impulses can propagate to adjacent excitable cells. The bioelectrochemical system in plants not only regulates stress responses, but photosynthetic processes as well. The generation of electrical gradients is a fundamental aspect of signal transduction."

(Volkov, Alexander G. Plant Electrophysiology: Theory and Methods. Berlin: Springer, 2006. Preface)

[Bluemist]

One point Darwin made that is often not appreciated is that although evolution tends toward higher complexity due to purely statistical spread, natural evolution is not linear nor progressive in any sense. For example, homo sapiens should not be expected to evolve into a new species of higher complexity.

[Consul]

"Is evolution progressive?

Are phylogenetically later organisms 'higher' than their ancestors? Yes, they are higher on the phylogenetic tree. But is it true that they are 'better' than their ancestors? Those who make this claim list a number of characteristics of 'higher' organisms, purporting to demonstrate advance, such as division of labor among their organs, differentiation, greater complexity, better utilization of the resources of the environment, and in general better adaptation. But are these so-called measures of 'progress' truly valid evidence for an advance?

It seems that those who deny any signs of evolutionary progress in the advance from bacteria to higher organism give a teleological or deterministic aspect to the idea of progress. Indeed, evolution seems highly progressive when we look at the lineage from bacteria to cellular protists, higher plants and animals, primates, and man. However, the earliest of these organisms, the bacteria, are just about the most successful of all organisms, with a total biomass that may well exceed that of all other organisms combined. Furthermore, among the higher organisms there are lineages such as parasites, cave animals, subterranean animals, and other specialists that show many retrogressive and simplifying trends. They may be higher on the phylogenetic tree, but they lack the characteristics always listed as evidence for evolutionary progress. What cannot be denied, however, is that in every generation of the evolutionary process, a surviving individual is on the average better adapted than the average of the nonsurvivors. To that extent, evolution is clearly progressive. Also, throughout evolutionary history innovations were introduced that made functional processes more efficient."

(Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books, 2001. p. 278)

[Karpel Tunnel]

What cannot be denied, however, is that in every generation of the evolutionary process, a surviving individual is on the average better adapted than the average of the nonsurvivors. To that extent, evolution is clearly progressive.

But they are better adapted to a different niche. If an ice age shifts the context different species will thrive, others will thrive in very small areas, some will die off. Adaption is context dependent and the context is also whatever species are around. So, there is no objective adaption measure. As counter arguments to what I just wrote humans might be seen as objectively more adaptive since we can change niches (and environments) make tools to adapt, etc. A counter counterargument is that we are a danger to ourselves and we are still in early days as a species so it is hard to tell how adaptive this is in the longer run. Our learning abilities may lead to an early destruction compared with, say, horseshoe crabs.

Also, throughout evolutionary history innovations were introduced that made functional processes more efficient.

"[/i]

I think this is stronger, but then why should efficiency mean that something is higher. I think immediately of the potlatch where people in tribes show their superiority by giving away stuff, and wasteful luxury in general. As long as the lack of efficiency in comparison has not compromised survival, I don't see where it makes something higher than something else. (not that I think the rich being wasteful shows they are higher either, by the way, they both just seem like value judgments without necessary objectivity.)

[Chili]

Often overlooked is that one has no empirical way to determine that another person is indeed conscious. The whole consciousness mind-body "problem" involves what to do with the belief that the other is conscious. As reasonable and intuitive as that belief may seem, it is not an science-based belief.

[Bluemist]

If you whack a fly or any other flying bug on the back hard enough as it flies by you it will drop to the ground and stay unconscious for a minute or so. Then it will wake up, clean its wings and go flying off undisturbed.

The field of anesthesiology is concerned with forcibly reducing feelings of pain or reducing level of consciousness in its subjects.

Both pain and consciousness take place in specific locations in the brain. By numbing that specific brain area, that brain area's functionality is decreased. The brain stays unaltered but its functionality, being pain or consciousness is lowered by degrees.

[Consul]

"Neural Patterns of Consciousness Identified
Imaging of the human brain reveals constellations of activity associated with conscious and unconscious states.…"

Source: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opin ... fied-65433

If the neuroscientists succeed in discovering and identifying those specific patterns of neural activity which cause consciousness, then the absence or presence of those patterns indicates the absence or presence of consciousness.