Kadaitcha Man
2011-01-28 11:46:50 UTC
Essays for Atheists: No.1 - Evolution and Consciousness
=======================================================
This essay is in response to claims made in alt.atheism by Zinnic,
Immortalist and Giga2 in the "A Really Hard Problem" thread, circa
20-22 January 2011. The question was asked, "What is the
evolutionary reason for consciousness?"
Superlative bullshit from some of the above posters aside, the view
that they all seemed to support can be summarised as:
"There is no evolutionary reason for consciousness, but its role is
to increase the probability of persistence of the species in which
the process of consciousness emerges."
Introduction
============
The idea that evolution has a plan is just as much anathema to crackpot
creationists (young earthers) as it is to probably every atheist that
ever existed. In the case of young earthers, the idea is despised
because it denies a once and for all creation, with a complete absence
of evolution. In the case of atheists, it's despised because, without
any forethought, they infer that a plan necessarily entails a planner.
However I contend that evolution may indeed have a plan, which
necessarily entails purpose, and I also contend that the presence of a
plan does not mean we must invoke a planner.
In this essay I intend to show that there may indeed be an evolutionary
reason for consciousness, which is part of a plan, and I intend to do
this using only modern science. No Magical Sky Pixies, no Metaphysical
X's, no Invisible Pink Unicorns, and no stray noodley appendages
belonging to Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
IN SEARCH OF A PLAN
-------------------
Chance
======
The word 'chance' is used in this essay and it requires special
interpretation. An excellent treatment of the concepts that the word
embodies within evolutionary biology can be found in "Chance as an
explanatory factor in evolutionary biology" (Shanahan T. Department
of Philosophy, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA 90045.)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1801049
Darwinism
=========
Charles Darwin's seminal work is called "Origin of Species", not origin
of life. Darwinian evolution (Darwinism) adequately explains only how
species evolve from one kind to another. It does not explain the origins
of life. Indeed Darwinism assumes life as a pre-existing condition. The
presence of cells capable of division is one of two underpinning
assumptions in Darwinism. Conditions favourable to life pre-existing in
the planet's early environment is another fundamental assumption.
However Darwinism cannot explain these two conditions.
We need to look elsewhere for a plan.
Point of interest: Darwin himself, whilst atheist, was a natural
teleologist. He believed that nature depended on designed laws.
Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument -
Darwin wrote that "The old argument of design in nature, as given by
Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the
law of natural selection has been discovered."[12] Even so, Darwin held
that nature depended upon "designed laws" and commended Asa Gray for
pointing out that Darwin's work supported teleology.
Biology
=======
Darwinism is a foundational pillar of biology because it explains the
organisation we see in the plant and animal kingdoms. However just
because Darwinism doesn't indicate the plan we're looking for it does
not necessarily follow that the field of biology should be summarily
dismissed merely because of Darwinism. We need to investigate biology
for the plan we seek.
The science of biology itself is enormous in scope and it is not
possible to touch on all of it. The prevailing view of biologists with
respect to a plan for life will have to suffice.
Jacques Monod, quoted from
http://www.todayinsci.com/M/Monod_Jacques/MonodJacques-Quotations.htm
"A totally blind process can by definition lead to anything; it can even
lead to vision itself. "
"Chance alone is at the source of every innovaton [sic], of all creation
in the biosphere. Pure chance, only chance, absolute but blind liberty
is at the root of the prodigious edifice that is evolution... It today
is the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with
observed and tested fact." - Stating life began by the chance collision
of particles of nucleic acid in the 'prebiotic soup.'
Stephen J Gould, quoted from
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/31-dennett-selections.htm - "wind
the tape of life back" and play it again and again, the likelihood is
infinitesimal of Us being the product on any other run through the
evolutionary mill.
For an excellent view of the meaning of chance in biology, see
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/98-09-085.pdf
"On the dual nature of chance in evolutionary biology and paleobiology"
Gunther J. Eble, Committee on Evolutionary Biology, University of Chicago.
Quoting from the talk.origins FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
Darwin called his principle of the evolutionary process "natural
selection", a term that has given rise to almost as much confusion as
the malignant phrase donated to him by the philosopher Herbert Spencer,
"survival of the fittest". It has been understood to mean that the
natural world is an agent, selecting according to some purpose or goal;
that nature aims to perfect or complete the potential of a species.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Ok, we must accept that the prevailing view is, paraphrasing the
talk.origins FAQ, the natural world is not an agent that selects
according to some purpose or goal.
There's no plan to be found there either. In fact, the talk.origins FAQ
explicitly denies any kind of plan, goal or purpose.
Primordial Slime
================
Abiogenesis is the theory that life arises from inorganic matter through
natural processes. It is the commonly held theory of how the vitality of
life appeared from lifeless matter.
Quoting from the talk.origins FAQ on the origins of life,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html - "Science
shows us that the universe evolved by self-organization of matter
towards more and more complex structures. Atoms, stars and galaxies
self-assembled out of the fundamental particles produced by the Big
Bang. In first-generation stars, heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen
and oxygen were formed. Aging first-generation stars then expelled them
out into space � we, who consist of these elements, are thus literally
born from stardust. The heaviest elements were born in the explosions of
supernovae. The forces of gravity subsequently allowed for the formation
of newer stars and of planets. Finally, in the process of biological
evolution from bacteria-like tiny cells (the last universal common
ancestor, abbr. LUCA) to all life on earth, including us humans, complex
life forms arose from simpler ones."
Quoting from the talk.origins FAQ again,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html - Even the
simplest currently living cells contain hundreds of proteins most of
which are essential to their functioning. Yet such complexity cannot
have stood at the origin of life. Based on research in the field it is
proposed here how, once a self-replicating genetic molecule existed,
life might have started and gradual evolution of complexity was made
possible...
And again, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html -
"In summary, based on available data a spontaneous origin of life as
simple 'cells' containing a single genetic polymer, upon which natural
selection could act, is feasible. A gradual evolutionary transition from
these to common cellular complexity would have been possible."
Quick Review
============
The scientific view of the origin of life can be summarised in one
sentence without losing anything from, or adding anything to, the
essence of what has been discussed above. Life has a natural origin.
The Planner
===========
If there is a plan then it is right to infer a planner but if we look
around it's quite obvious that if there is a planner we don't see one.
To all intents and purposes we can find no planner. However in order to
establish that a plan exists we do not have to establish a planner.
We are looking for a plan. We need a schema, a schematic, blueprints if
you will. If we can find a schema then the schema itself is sufficient
to disclose that a plan exists and we need not invoke logically
incoherent archetypes of various kinds of sky pixies; observation of
events unfolding in a consistent pattern will tell us if there's a plan
or not.
Finally, if we are assuming that life had a natural origin, which we
are, then we don't need a planner at all. We only need find the plan.
The Plan
========
With big bangs, chaotic disorder of formless matter, enormously vast
masses of swirling, hot gas, chance collisions, exploding stars,
recycled stellar dust, colliding galaxies, the gradual accumulation of
molecules, pointless chemical reactions with no rhyme or reason, the
appearance of "simple 'cells' containing genetic polymers" and outright
denials of either purpose or goal it might be hard to see the genesis of
a plan anywhere, but it's there.
Queue a mind image of a chubby dwarf in a white suit and black dickie
tie ringing a bell and shouting "Ze plan! Ze plan!"
There isn't enough room to deal with highly complex dynamic systems,
celestial and galactic mechanics, chaos theory or complexity theory so
you'll just have to accept that chaos theory says simple systems can
exhibit complex behaviour. Complexity theory says there is a model of
activity in interactions. Cosmology tells us that the universe evolved
from hot plasma soup. Abiogenesis tells us that life arises from inorganic
matter.
For a good treatment of chaos in cosmology see "Order and chaos in
dynamical astronomy" by George Contopoulos -
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=7YkDhZCCLR4C&lpg=PP1&dq=chaos%20and%20order&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
(http://tinyurl.com/4b67k7p)
Another very good book is "Emergence: from chaos to order" by John H.
Holland - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=VjKtpujRGuAC&lpg=PP1&dq=John%20Holland%20Emergence%3A%20From%20Chaos%20to%20Order&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false
(http://tinyurl.com/4ghndx7)
So Where's the Plan?
====================
"Science shows us that the universe evolved by self-organization of
matter towards more and more complex structures."
What's the Plan?
================
Everything that we know about the origin of life, the universe and
everything, tells us that quarks self-organise into hadrons, hadrons and
electrons self-organise into atoms, atoms self-organise into elements
and molecules (with some help from tremendous heat and pressure),
elements and molecules self-organise into simple cells, simple cells
self-organise into garden slugs and atheists...
Recall what I said earlier, "observation of events unfolding in a
consistent pattern will tell us if there's a plan or not."
The consistent pattern is persistent self-organisation of matter, always
from the least complexity toward a higher complexity. The only sensible
thing that can be said about this is that the plan must be built in to
the very matter we are made of.
Furthermore, the unfolding of evolution leads, inexorably,
self-assembling at every step of the way, in a dead straight line, from
quarks to garden slugs and atheists, and eventually to consciousness.
Jacques Monod, quoted under the biology heading above must be spinning
in his grave right now. He said, "A totally blind process can by
definition lead to anything; it can even lead to vision (sight) itself."
What he should have said is "A totally blind process can by definition
lead to anything; it can even lead to ENvision itself."
Matter has evolved to detect and observe itself.
=======================================================
This essay is in response to claims made in alt.atheism by Zinnic,
Immortalist and Giga2 in the "A Really Hard Problem" thread, circa
20-22 January 2011. The question was asked, "What is the
evolutionary reason for consciousness?"
Superlative bullshit from some of the above posters aside, the view
that they all seemed to support can be summarised as:
"There is no evolutionary reason for consciousness, but its role is
to increase the probability of persistence of the species in which
the process of consciousness emerges."
Introduction
============
The idea that evolution has a plan is just as much anathema to crackpot
creationists (young earthers) as it is to probably every atheist that
ever existed. In the case of young earthers, the idea is despised
because it denies a once and for all creation, with a complete absence
of evolution. In the case of atheists, it's despised because, without
any forethought, they infer that a plan necessarily entails a planner.
However I contend that evolution may indeed have a plan, which
necessarily entails purpose, and I also contend that the presence of a
plan does not mean we must invoke a planner.
In this essay I intend to show that there may indeed be an evolutionary
reason for consciousness, which is part of a plan, and I intend to do
this using only modern science. No Magical Sky Pixies, no Metaphysical
X's, no Invisible Pink Unicorns, and no stray noodley appendages
belonging to Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
IN SEARCH OF A PLAN
-------------------
Chance
======
The word 'chance' is used in this essay and it requires special
interpretation. An excellent treatment of the concepts that the word
embodies within evolutionary biology can be found in "Chance as an
explanatory factor in evolutionary biology" (Shanahan T. Department
of Philosophy, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA 90045.)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1801049
Darwinism
=========
Charles Darwin's seminal work is called "Origin of Species", not origin
of life. Darwinian evolution (Darwinism) adequately explains only how
species evolve from one kind to another. It does not explain the origins
of life. Indeed Darwinism assumes life as a pre-existing condition. The
presence of cells capable of division is one of two underpinning
assumptions in Darwinism. Conditions favourable to life pre-existing in
the planet's early environment is another fundamental assumption.
However Darwinism cannot explain these two conditions.
We need to look elsewhere for a plan.
Point of interest: Darwin himself, whilst atheist, was a natural
teleologist. He believed that nature depended on designed laws.
Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument -
Darwin wrote that "The old argument of design in nature, as given by
Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the
law of natural selection has been discovered."[12] Even so, Darwin held
that nature depended upon "designed laws" and commended Asa Gray for
pointing out that Darwin's work supported teleology.
Biology
=======
Darwinism is a foundational pillar of biology because it explains the
organisation we see in the plant and animal kingdoms. However just
because Darwinism doesn't indicate the plan we're looking for it does
not necessarily follow that the field of biology should be summarily
dismissed merely because of Darwinism. We need to investigate biology
for the plan we seek.
The science of biology itself is enormous in scope and it is not
possible to touch on all of it. The prevailing view of biologists with
respect to a plan for life will have to suffice.
Jacques Monod, quoted from
http://www.todayinsci.com/M/Monod_Jacques/MonodJacques-Quotations.htm
"A totally blind process can by definition lead to anything; it can even
lead to vision itself. "
"Chance alone is at the source of every innovaton [sic], of all creation
in the biosphere. Pure chance, only chance, absolute but blind liberty
is at the root of the prodigious edifice that is evolution... It today
is the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with
observed and tested fact." - Stating life began by the chance collision
of particles of nucleic acid in the 'prebiotic soup.'
Stephen J Gould, quoted from
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/31-dennett-selections.htm - "wind
the tape of life back" and play it again and again, the likelihood is
infinitesimal of Us being the product on any other run through the
evolutionary mill.
For an excellent view of the meaning of chance in biology, see
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/98-09-085.pdf
"On the dual nature of chance in evolutionary biology and paleobiology"
Gunther J. Eble, Committee on Evolutionary Biology, University of Chicago.
Quoting from the talk.origins FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
Darwin called his principle of the evolutionary process "natural
selection", a term that has given rise to almost as much confusion as
the malignant phrase donated to him by the philosopher Herbert Spencer,
"survival of the fittest". It has been understood to mean that the
natural world is an agent, selecting according to some purpose or goal;
that nature aims to perfect or complete the potential of a species.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Ok, we must accept that the prevailing view is, paraphrasing the
talk.origins FAQ, the natural world is not an agent that selects
according to some purpose or goal.
There's no plan to be found there either. In fact, the talk.origins FAQ
explicitly denies any kind of plan, goal or purpose.
Primordial Slime
================
Abiogenesis is the theory that life arises from inorganic matter through
natural processes. It is the commonly held theory of how the vitality of
life appeared from lifeless matter.
Quoting from the talk.origins FAQ on the origins of life,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html - "Science
shows us that the universe evolved by self-organization of matter
towards more and more complex structures. Atoms, stars and galaxies
self-assembled out of the fundamental particles produced by the Big
Bang. In first-generation stars, heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen
and oxygen were formed. Aging first-generation stars then expelled them
out into space � we, who consist of these elements, are thus literally
born from stardust. The heaviest elements were born in the explosions of
supernovae. The forces of gravity subsequently allowed for the formation
of newer stars and of planets. Finally, in the process of biological
evolution from bacteria-like tiny cells (the last universal common
ancestor, abbr. LUCA) to all life on earth, including us humans, complex
life forms arose from simpler ones."
Quoting from the talk.origins FAQ again,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html - Even the
simplest currently living cells contain hundreds of proteins most of
which are essential to their functioning. Yet such complexity cannot
have stood at the origin of life. Based on research in the field it is
proposed here how, once a self-replicating genetic molecule existed,
life might have started and gradual evolution of complexity was made
possible...
And again, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html -
"In summary, based on available data a spontaneous origin of life as
simple 'cells' containing a single genetic polymer, upon which natural
selection could act, is feasible. A gradual evolutionary transition from
these to common cellular complexity would have been possible."
Quick Review
============
The scientific view of the origin of life can be summarised in one
sentence without losing anything from, or adding anything to, the
essence of what has been discussed above. Life has a natural origin.
The Planner
===========
If there is a plan then it is right to infer a planner but if we look
around it's quite obvious that if there is a planner we don't see one.
To all intents and purposes we can find no planner. However in order to
establish that a plan exists we do not have to establish a planner.
We are looking for a plan. We need a schema, a schematic, blueprints if
you will. If we can find a schema then the schema itself is sufficient
to disclose that a plan exists and we need not invoke logically
incoherent archetypes of various kinds of sky pixies; observation of
events unfolding in a consistent pattern will tell us if there's a plan
or not.
Finally, if we are assuming that life had a natural origin, which we
are, then we don't need a planner at all. We only need find the plan.
The Plan
========
With big bangs, chaotic disorder of formless matter, enormously vast
masses of swirling, hot gas, chance collisions, exploding stars,
recycled stellar dust, colliding galaxies, the gradual accumulation of
molecules, pointless chemical reactions with no rhyme or reason, the
appearance of "simple 'cells' containing genetic polymers" and outright
denials of either purpose or goal it might be hard to see the genesis of
a plan anywhere, but it's there.
Queue a mind image of a chubby dwarf in a white suit and black dickie
tie ringing a bell and shouting "Ze plan! Ze plan!"
There isn't enough room to deal with highly complex dynamic systems,
celestial and galactic mechanics, chaos theory or complexity theory so
you'll just have to accept that chaos theory says simple systems can
exhibit complex behaviour. Complexity theory says there is a model of
activity in interactions. Cosmology tells us that the universe evolved
from hot plasma soup. Abiogenesis tells us that life arises from inorganic
matter.
For a good treatment of chaos in cosmology see "Order and chaos in
dynamical astronomy" by George Contopoulos -
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=7YkDhZCCLR4C&lpg=PP1&dq=chaos%20and%20order&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
(http://tinyurl.com/4b67k7p)
Another very good book is "Emergence: from chaos to order" by John H.
Holland - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=VjKtpujRGuAC&lpg=PP1&dq=John%20Holland%20Emergence%3A%20From%20Chaos%20to%20Order&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false
(http://tinyurl.com/4ghndx7)
So Where's the Plan?
====================
"Science shows us that the universe evolved by self-organization of
matter towards more and more complex structures."
What's the Plan?
================
Everything that we know about the origin of life, the universe and
everything, tells us that quarks self-organise into hadrons, hadrons and
electrons self-organise into atoms, atoms self-organise into elements
and molecules (with some help from tremendous heat and pressure),
elements and molecules self-organise into simple cells, simple cells
self-organise into garden slugs and atheists...
Recall what I said earlier, "observation of events unfolding in a
consistent pattern will tell us if there's a plan or not."
The consistent pattern is persistent self-organisation of matter, always
from the least complexity toward a higher complexity. The only sensible
thing that can be said about this is that the plan must be built in to
the very matter we are made of.
Furthermore, the unfolding of evolution leads, inexorably,
self-assembling at every step of the way, in a dead straight line, from
quarks to garden slugs and atheists, and eventually to consciousness.
Jacques Monod, quoted under the biology heading above must be spinning
in his grave right now. He said, "A totally blind process can by
definition lead to anything; it can even lead to vision (sight) itself."
What he should have said is "A totally blind process can by definition
lead to anything; it can even lead to ENvision itself."
Matter has evolved to detect and observe itself.
--
builder's bum : n. The protrusion of fat, sweaty arse cheeks above the
sagging waist of the jeans, common among builders and council workmen.
Also known as bricky's crack, Dagenham smile.
builder's bum : n. The protrusion of fat, sweaty arse cheeks above the
sagging waist of the jeans, common among builders and council workmen.
Also known as bricky's crack, Dagenham smile.