Evolution must be understood as the evolution of an individual consciousness within a life form. For this progression to continue, reincarnation is necessary. Consciousness departs from the physical realm into the realm of consciousness and eventually returns. This return shapes the physical form according to the conditions that enable the individual consciousness to evolve further.
There is no "progression " in evolution. There is only adaptation of species to ecologies. Ecological changes outpacing the ability of species to adapt is a major cause of species extinction. Evolution is not about individuals, conscious or not.
I've always felt that consciousness is sort of necessary if you can move under your own power. you're gonna have to make decisions about where you're gonna move to. this is the first time I've heard someone speak to this idea.
people who don't care about or don't understand the significance of signaling errors in dimorphism and more fundamentally in evolutionary game theory should have zero right to talk about biology and evolution. or they might be mentally ill and sick, in which case it is no wonder they try if they are enabed
this is the kinda stuff that makes me want to study philosophy more rigorously, thinking of maybe going to grad school some day. For now just gonna read some of Rachell's papers
As I watched this, I thought of the movie, "Arrival". Could it really be coincidence that we experience time linearly when we have bilaterally symmetrical bodies? Could it be that the heptapods experience time the way they do, not because of their language, but because of their body plan, which is radially symmetrical rather than bilaterally symmetrical? I never thought before of how the perception of time could be influenced by body plan and therefore direction and nature of movement.
Consciousness is an universal algorithm, but because there are different bodies, different sense data and different environments there are different minds.
Sure, the fact that only organisms well adapted to their environment, which includes competing with other organisms, can survive and reproduce. If they're not well adapted, they tend to die out.
well, you can either wait to be randomly selected in order to adapt to change or you can be alightly more proactive and freely choose among various options when/if available...
@@r2c3 Sure, having a nervous system and the capacity to learn enables to so change our behaviour without having to wait for evolution to change us first. That trick isn't unique to us, it's available to any organism with a nervous system that enables it to learn new behaviours. That doesn't invalidate or prevent evolution through genetic change and natural selection happening as well though.
@ That's true, and they all adapt to their environment as it changes. Some species seem to have had the same physical form for long periods of time, since they set to be very well optimised to a very consistent environment, while others have changed considerably, often speciating into a huge variety of forms. This is what she is describing with the huge range of different forms of invertebrates. Nevertheless they often have some problems in common, and have ended up evolving similar solutions to those problems, such as various forms of eyes, nervous systems and brains.
I have no problem with her breakdown of biological evolution, but I am totally baffled by those who believe that evolution is void of intelligence. There is no manner of orchestration that is void of intelligence. Wherever there is an evolution of structure you will find an intelligence that made it happen. Obviously, we are all byproducts of "evolutionary orchestration," and we possess the highest level of intelligence and consciousness of all known lifeforms. To suggest that a process that can orchestrate and evolve intelligence into higher complexity is somehow void of the intelligence it's orchestrating makes no sense at all. Evolutionists will have to start accepting that "intelligence" is integral to evolution. It's not operating at the God level, but it's still present within the process ... even if at a minimal level.
Intelligence appears to be a property of self-organizing systems. It is inseparable from agency, i.e., the capacity to reduce local entropy. It is not sentience, although certain aspects of consciousness likely correlate with intelligence. I am not trying to counter your view but to try to conceptualize evolution as a function of a system whose physical substrate is spatiotemporally diffuse but coherent nevertheless.
@@attilaszekeres7435 *"Intelligence appears to be a property of self-organizing systems."* ... Wording is the key on issues like this. If intelligence it what causes a self-organizing system to become organized, then is it really just a "property?" *Example:* Is the driver a property of the car, or the car a property of the driver? *"i.e., the capacity to reduce local entropy. It is not sentience, although certain aspects of consciousness likely correlate with intelligence."* ... I have never considered our ability to lower localized entropy via intelligence. When I make my bed in the morning, I'm technically lowering its entropy, so that is correct. I will now include your "entropy controlled by intelligence" argument into my overall philosophy and claim that it was my thinking all along! 😁 *"but to try to conceptualize evolution as a function of a system whose physical substrate is spatiotemporally diffuse but coherent nevertheless."* ... What is the higher (or broader) system to which evolution is merely a subset? ... I have the entirety of evolution (biological and universal) being a byproduct of intelligence. So, I have intelligence as the "puppet master" and evolution (and all other processes) being the puppets. Together they make up the ultimate "reality show."
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Yeah that's a tricky one with intelligence. I'd say intelligence is a property of the system that is reducible to the properties of the individual components. It's an emergent, collective behavior that can be inferred from first principles. Consciousness is not. It's a fundamental property of reality. So as you cleverly noted, if intelligence emerges from (property of) a system that organizes itself, then is self-organization a doing of intelligence? Which was first, the chicken or the egg? Perhaps this paradox is resolved by understanding time. When I said that evolution may be a subset of a system whose spatial and temporal extent is massive, perhaps the universe itself, I was literal with my remark about time. The boundaries of this system may be unknowable, but the fact that evolution appears to have a direction is indicative of a non-random process. But the arrow of time itself may be an artifact of the human condition (cognitive and perceptual system). The future is a real part of the universe's history. The two-state vector formalism interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the probability amplitude is determined by measurements performed in both the past and the future of the experiment. The two-time state is not just a mathematical construct; it has ontological status. When I referred to entropy reduction, I was alluding to the capacity of such systems (and their components) to extract and utilize energy from their environment to maintain their homeostasis. To do this, a system must be able to detect, predict, and exploit discontinuities in the energy distribution in its environment. Reducing uncertainties about energy availability (and energy expenditure) in the environment may be one of the first functions of intelligence so epistemic information may be reduced to thermodynamic information. As you can see, some compensates for not making their bed in the morning by proposing half-baked theories about entropy and intelligence. :D
Let's try an experiment. Can you explain the theory of evolution, and how it is claimed to work in terms of how a population changes over time and why. If you can do that, then we can see what your criticisms of it are, but first we need to agree what the theory is actually saying happens.
@ Yeah that's a tricky one with intelligence. I'd say intelligence is a property of the system that is reducible to the properties of the individual components. It's an emergent, collective behavior that can be inferred from first principles. Consciousness is not. It's a fundamental property of reality. So as you cleverly noted, if intelligence emerges from (property of) a system that organizes itself, then is self-organization a doing of intelligence? Which was first, the chicken or the egg? Perhaps this paradox is resolved by understanding time. When I said that evolution may be a subset of a system whose spatial and temporal extent is massive, perhaps the universe itself, I was literal with my remark about time. The boundaries of this system may be unknowable, but the fact that evolution appears to have a direction is indicative of a non-random process. But the arrow of time itself may be an artifact of the human condition (cognitive and perceptual system). The future is a real part of the universe's history. The two-state vector formalism interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the probability amplitude is determined by measurements performed in both the past and the future of the experiment. The two-time state is not just a mathematical construct; it has ontological status. When I referred to entropy reduction, I was alluding to the capacity of such systems (and their components) to extract and utilize energy from their environment to maintain their homeostasis. To do this, a system must be able to detect, predict, and exploit discontinuities in the energy distribution in its environment. Reducing uncertainties about energy availability (and energy expenditure) in the environment may be one of the first functions of intelligence so epistemic information may be reduced to thermodynamic information. As you can see, some compensates for not making their bed in the morning by proposing half-baked theories about entropy and intelligence.
Homeostasis, self preservation, survival, fitness, these are the basis of information seeking and processing, which is what cognition,intelligence and finally Consciousness is all about. Its all physical, based on natural laws. Started initially only at the cellular level and later cells formed brains for enhanced information processing.
Mind as an emergent property in the universe, stemming from a concoction of inorganic chemicals that later gave rise to complex life forms, both vertebrates and invertebrates.
Yep that's exactly right, even the temporal frequency spatial bounding of amplitude overlays (objects) within ensembles. The cause is pretty specific for evolution of complex brains. Bilateral symmetry enacts a selection pressure to develop larger brains to process the world, because the blind spots in diverse environments. Radial symmetric organisms are constantly feeling in all directions, meaning there is less selection pressure acting on them to form complex brains. This is how bilateral invertebrates and vertebrates converge on having complex brains. Since bilateral organisms where selected by their ability to move in a specific direction (get out of danger, or to hunt), the frequency of testing blind spots increase, leading to rapid diversification of bilateral symmetries and brain complexity in the Cambrian period. Also, worms have complex brains or nervous systems as well. Since worms tend to be parasites, underground, or in other hidden locations, they are less frequently tested for blind spots therefore do not have the selection pressure needed to form a complex brain, do to the lack of diversity in the environment around them they inhabit, there are factors constraining their existence to hidden locations which offsets the type of pressures they witness. For instance, a institution or religion will select for individuals that adhere to authority (a culture of mind viruses they must adopt) where the individual isn't allowed to explore ideas, even when the culture of mind viruses contradict observable reality, the mind evolves a capsid or exoskeleton that is radially symmetric ("everything is a probability, probabilities determine physical distributions") rather than physical distributions determining probability where you see this poisoning science (the ideology constrains everyone's existence toward sucking up to the state or elite class, and punching down on the vulnerable) they don't understand (science = detecting differentials, comparing against the predicted differential). This highlights how America operates (instead of doing science, and making discoveries, data theft and intellectual property theft is the tool), then using that personal data to find ways of fomenting wars through social media influencers, and profiting off the destruction of the vulnerable effected by these wars (ad revenue), while hiding from the chaos they generate so that don't have to adapt. This also infects A.I technology, which instead of developing machine learning algorithms that learn new things, it's all about hardening around other people's intellectual property and curated data (pre-existing knowledge, rather than generating new knowledge) which is how the dynamic of social media gaslighting and conflict fomenting (wars) based on people's personal data gets off the ground (everyone just wants power, and large house and a bunch of cars [their safety capsid] and how they get those things is by sucking up to the state or institution, and never questioning the problems associated with these systems). That doesn't mean every person in those institutions are like that, but the majority definitely are because of group think confirmation bias.
Consciousness is simply the ability to reflect in absence of any sensory perception and most likely form because if it were controlled by sensory perception then it wouldn’t be fast enough to react to anything. So the hard problem of consciousness can never be solved because it functions on the platform of the absence of everything.
The scientist emphasizes emergence as an independent process arising from local circumstances and convergent evolution. What she might overlook is that the very possibility of emergence itself is already contained within a deeper holistic unity. Without this unity, there would be no coherence or consistency in the universal patterns she observes, making emergence a complement with a gradation of freedom. It is always remarkable to see how knowledge is not merely something we read or learn but how it slowly becomes a part of us..how it transforms into something personal, something authentic that is fully interwoven with our way of thinking and being. I deeply admire people who are able to take that step, to create a unique synthesis from the ocean of ideas that not only inspires them but also inspires others. It reminds me of how valuable it is to keep growing, reflecting, sharing, and standing in awe, alongside a grounded sense of rationality. We are all mirrors to one another; we complement each other's flaws in light and shadow, but we must always remain true to our own nature and our own path.
Can we say about evolution without revolution, or adaptation without mutation? On the first glance it seems some sort of rhetorical question but it's obvious in the temporary sense that general biological evolution assumes a manifold "turning points", some drastic "revolutionary" leaps. For example, the change of the ocean's temperature, its currents, disposition of moon and volcanic activity can induce some kind of "horrible" organic mutation processes. Of course, it's not take place by random.
We observe species adapting through evolutionary processes in nature right now. Small changes such as the camouflage patterns of insects or the biochemical infection mechanisms of bacteria and viruses, due to the short time span, but we still see it occurring. You are right though that these are often responding to a change in the environment, such as the infection resistance of a host species, or a change in the environment that affects the utility of a camouflage pattern.
I cannot see how our limited interpretation of the working mechanism of these sensory systems and the resulting behavior can be used to infer the existence of a shared Umwelt. The fact that we were not aware of echolocation just a few decades ago and still confuse (otherwise, you wouldn't be screaming at the screen while reading this) anomalous cognition, telepathy, with its behavioral representation, body language, makes me think that we are still far from understanding the Umwelt of other species, let alone propose a shared Umwelt. Our shared Umwelt, if any, must be the consequence of "shared location" in reality. The question is whether this shared "location" (constraints and affordances) is a consequence of architectural similarity (physicalism, emergentism), the other way around (dualism, some form of idealism), or we are asking stupid questions (deep correlation). Perhaps before we can make claims about a shared Umwelt, we need to be clear about our interpretive limitations.
That's a great point, and I think you are right. I still believe we cannot make definitive claims about the deep structure of the Umwelt. Convergent evolution is not a mathematical theory and may simply be how sharing a phenomenological space appears to us. We find patterns similar to human cognition because those are the patterns we're equipped to look for. We might miss entirely different forms of intelligence or information processing. The octopi may do a lot of guforcations with their puporas, assimilate tolectons at scale, and do other things we have no clue about whatsoever. And these shenanigans may be the most important for them. The regular octopus things they do (being cute, sneaking in and out of bottles, flirting with the plastic pirate captain, etc.) might be just things we can detect. In other words, we might be pattern-matching and projecting our own deep structure. The very concept of "bound objects," "spatial distribution," and "subject-centered experience" might be human-specific ways of organizing experience. We cannot talk about a shared deep structure of the Umwelt without mathematical or information-theoretical proof. Until then, we can only know things how they appear to us through phenomenon.
Acceptance of evolution and our place in it does not necessarily require a rejection of a special place for consciousness as an emergent property of the universe, one that could not be foreseen by any 'outside' observer before it happened. Even if that consciousness has the ability to survive the death of the body to step outside of time and the material universe. One does not have to invoke a divine being to explain it.
Evolution brings out forms and functions. This is the reason for convergent evolution. Evolution did not evolve mind three times in vertebrates and cephalopods. Evolution required mind at every stage.
Our cells must be smarter than our brains. Isn't it simply amazing what mindless organisms can come up with. Naturally, evolution is the brains behind evolution. That explains it all.
The most interesting word in this conversation was the word, *AND* *Rachel Powell* was the talker. *Evolution* was the mechanism, by natural selection. *Consciousness* is the mind. Why put them altogether with the word *AND.*
The process of evolution is reproductive success in a competitive, changing environment, often with scarcity of resources. From the POV of evolution, human consciousness is meaningless in itself, apart from its utility to this process. One can see that the most elemental sense and response equipment, incl what we can call an instinct for survival, forms the basis for developing this ability as it increases in analytical power, and along the way self-aware consciousness may manifest. This may manifest as an individual or group intelligence. What's interesting is the existential meaning of this self-awareness to the entity so aware. Are we anything but the job we're born to fulfill, and if so, what do we make of this, of ourselves?
@JuraGaga, You can't be both. Which one are you? The limited one locked in its body-mind or the one that set itself free by not limiting itself with mindless concepts?
@@Roshan-q6n It would be a Mr. Kuhn who is aimlessly and endlessly roaming from one scientist to another in his search for an answers he failed to find himself being a Doctor of science.
1:08 IF life evolved again in SIMILAR CONDITIONS… THEN YOU ARE RIGHT, you’d have a different set of life emerge… IF YOU KEPT EVERY ABSOLUTE PROPERTY OF EVERY PARTICLE THE SAME… it will evolve the same way… 🙃
Only if you assume that particle properties can capture all that is to reality, which they don't, not even under physicalism. I am not arguing against determinism here (I could), just particlism.
A hero of questioning reality. I think of Allen Watts questioning how would intelligence emerge out of an unintelligent universe. I must also think Taoism's teaching of we as an organism emerging from the universe or in the Western view "the Heavens" . Then the Zen Buddhist view of we as a part of the whole making the Ego out to be purely an illusion. Combine this with a LSD experience and you will realize that we are the god of our on experience
We're very lucky to have become human of all creatures, for man is capable of recollecting the Divine, for man has the intelligence to do so. - shankara paraphrase. Everything in phenomena changes. Therefore, why shouldn't man's consciousness, or rather man's awareness and realization. It's said that the procession is the reversion. Implying this adaptation or alignment, on a grand scale, things becoming refined, thus made more efficent and proficient; becoming perfect, thus nearing the divine. Everything is interdependent in phenomena. For all revolves around the one, the hub of a wheel, although this one, God, isn't of the temporal and spatial. Where else would this unity, conformity, or order come from.. things don't simply exist for themselves but participate in this grand order. Evolution and consciousness? I dunno. But i just bought and am studying the book 'Rigveda for the Layman' by Shyam Gosh. I am very impressed. It's an anthology of the Veda consisting of only 100 hymns by are most wonderful and with fine details. Too i bought the bokk 'The Vedic Experience', by Panikkar, another veda anthology. The veda isn't a religious text. It's simply knowledge, awareness and recollection. It is a book of Knowledge but one cannot shoe horn it into their agenda, but requires man to change and become true on the inside. People say the vedas cannot be translated - they're unworthy person. Ananda Coomaraswamy in an essay said you don't need to know sankrit to study veda. If you want to do brahmanas, yeah, you do need to know sanskrit. Few there are who are truth seekers. Hindusism isn't a country or religion, it's a people, and if one values knowledge, wisdom, truth, then there's a great library of texts for you right now. None of it is 'other than' science etc. But it is other than the materialists view. Anyways, these anthologies are amazing. One must be very caustious dealing with india acaryas for they are just as deluded, egotistical and bias as every religion and cult following today.
"Why Consciousness Did Not Evolve" The Mind is simply the interaction betweeon the non-physical soul and the material brain... The cognitive function of the Mind or its capability to independently observe/perceive is NOT a property of the physical brain but the power of our free aware immortal soul... None of the Perception, Cognition, or Consciousnes is possible if your free aware immortal soul does not exist.... ...the reason is because the Observing SUBJECT must be independent - free from the enslavement of natural physical laws for it to have FREE CHANCE to freely choose to observe, to freely choose to perceive, or to freely choose to focus to be aware of any experience... ... and this freedom to have a chance or to have free time to choose on its own to do all the above would be IMPOSSIBLE if your WILL is a SLAVE to physical laws ALL THE TIME, no different than a computer or robot driven by the programmed switches.. ..in other words, your AWARENESS can not be physical because of the existence of your power to be aware to have free time to make a choice... the freedom to choose to believe or to choose NOT to believe can not be a property of matter driven by natural physical laws.. .. from understanding the heavenly light that was shared to me, your AWARENESS is your free immortal soul who is a free split of the Holy Spirit, this is why you are aware with freedom to make a choice on your own and accountable for that choice.. Animals have no free souls, not accountable, just driven by natural instincts ALL THE TIME beyond its control, not free to make choice to change to progress.. this is why animals remain to be same all same all, no progress for thousands or millions of years.. ..but because your soul is free, you are always free to define your whole being as just an animal body if you hate Accountability, just slave of nature, existed accidentally by evolution to no fault of your own, no choice... This is the idea that Godless immoral people chose to believe in to lessen the heavy burden of their guilty conscience
6:53 WTF do you mean “it doesn’t have to be some kind of phenomenology” EVERYTHING IS PHENOMENOLOGICAL… EVEN THE “LACK OF A PHENOMENON” (whatever tf that is) IS PHENOMENOLOGICAL… THINK IT THROUGH…
Phenomenology is a specific disciplinary field in philosophy concerned with the structure of experience and consciousness. There are other uses of the term phenomenon and phenomena, and these have specific meanings in other contexts as well, but the word phenomenally refers to this field of study.
The "hard" problem of consciousness stated as qualia or subjective experience and "what it's like ..." inner experience seems to be not well-understood by those who should understand it. For example, experiencing pain is a subjective experience - I can't know exactly how you feel when you experience pain, nor can you know how I feel. The medical profession has developed an informal scale to help measure the intensity of pain, but that's about it. There could be scales for other types of feelings, but the number of such scales would be untenable. There is no way one can get into the head of another person and fully understand the exact details of qualia, but through understanding how the brain builds neural models of the objective and subjective worlds, and how the brain creates awareness (how one wakes up from sleep), a good approximation of the neural substrate of qualia can be achieved. Using imaging technology, we can tell what color a subject is thinking about or even what animal a subject is thinking about. We may be able to determine if a person feels happy or sad at a particular time. These approximations of qualia will get better and broader.
Consciousness simply cannot be answered without the help of the One Who created it. For that we need to look at our 'I' and our self... read the book Islam: A Challenge to Religion by G.A. Parwez... all logically explained appealing to our rational mind... also includes the info on the hereafter... good informative read
In Hinduism has full descriptions of it , it describes how a soul goes through various level conscious being"s states to finaly reachs devote's concious state
Evolution must be understood as the evolution of an individual consciousness within a life form. For this progression to continue, reincarnation is necessary. Consciousness departs from the physical realm into the realm of consciousness and eventually returns. This return shapes the physical form according to the conditions that enable the individual consciousness to evolve further.
There is no "progression " in evolution.
There is only adaptation of species to ecologies.
Ecological changes outpacing the ability of species to adapt
is a major cause of species extinction.
Evolution is not about individuals, conscious or not.
I've always felt that consciousness is sort of necessary if you can move under your own power. you're gonna have to make decisions about where you're gonna move to. this is the first time I've heard someone speak to this idea.
Amazingly insightful
people who don't care about or don't understand the significance of signaling errors in dimorphism and more fundamentally in evolutionary game theory should have zero right to talk about biology and evolution. or they might be mentally ill and sick, in which case it is no wonder they try if they are enabed
this is the kinda stuff that makes me want to study philosophy more rigorously, thinking of maybe going to grad school some day. For now just gonna read some of Rachell's papers
Evolution didn't create consciousness , consciousness created evolution! And no, I am not religious.
Just wrong.
@deadtoadsoup absolutely not.
Brilliant organization.❤
As I watched this, I thought of the movie, "Arrival". Could it really be coincidence that we experience time linearly when we have bilaterally symmetrical bodies? Could it be that the heptapods experience time the way they do, not because of their language, but because of their body plan, which is radially symmetrical rather than bilaterally symmetrical? I never thought before of how the perception of time could be influenced by body plan and therefore direction and nature of movement.
Yes it takes several days to figure out how to communicate and they have to leave immediately Lol.
Rachell thanks for the clear explanation.
way over my head can you reccommend any 101 classes for a starting point
Consciousness is an universal algorithm, but because there are different bodies, different sense data and different environments there are different minds.
Add some sort of value system (which is subjective and dynamic) and a memory system and there you go, consciousness.
2:58 how did such change happen... was there any reason for such change/s 🤔
Sure, the fact that only organisms well adapted to their environment, which includes competing with other organisms, can survive and reproduce. If they're not well adapted, they tend to die out.
well, you can either wait to be randomly selected in order to adapt to change or you can be alightly more proactive and freely choose among various options when/if available...
@@r2c3 Sure, having a nervous system and the capacity to learn enables to so change our behaviour without having to wait for evolution to change us first. That trick isn't unique to us, it's available to any organism with a nervous system that enables it to learn new behaviours. That doesn't invalidate or prevent evolution through genetic change and natural selection happening as well though.
it seems as all biological life-forms have complex interactions among themselves and their environment though 🤔
@ That's true, and they all adapt to their environment as it changes. Some species seem to have had the same physical form for long periods of time, since they set to be very well optimised to a very consistent environment, while others have changed considerably, often speciating into a huge variety of forms. This is what she is describing with the huge range of different forms of invertebrates. Nevertheless they often have some problems in common, and have ended up evolving similar solutions to those problems, such as various forms of eyes, nervous systems and brains.
I have no problem with her breakdown of biological evolution, but I am totally baffled by those who believe that evolution is void of intelligence. There is no manner of orchestration that is void of intelligence. Wherever there is an evolution of structure you will find an intelligence that made it happen.
Obviously, we are all byproducts of "evolutionary orchestration," and we possess the highest level of intelligence and consciousness of all known lifeforms. To suggest that a process that can orchestrate and evolve intelligence into higher complexity is somehow void of the intelligence it's orchestrating makes no sense at all.
Evolutionists will have to start accepting that "intelligence" is integral to evolution. It's not operating at the God level, but it's still present within the process ... even if at a minimal level.
Intelligence appears to be a property of self-organizing systems. It is inseparable from agency, i.e., the capacity to reduce local entropy. It is not sentience, although certain aspects of consciousness likely correlate with intelligence. I am not trying to counter your view but to try to conceptualize evolution as a function of a system whose physical substrate is spatiotemporally diffuse but coherent nevertheless.
@@attilaszekeres7435 *"Intelligence appears to be a property of self-organizing systems."*
... Wording is the key on issues like this. If intelligence it what causes a self-organizing system to become organized, then is it really just a "property?" *Example:* Is the driver a property of the car, or the car a property of the driver?
*"i.e., the capacity to reduce local entropy. It is not sentience, although certain aspects of consciousness likely correlate with intelligence."*
... I have never considered our ability to lower localized entropy via intelligence. When I make my bed in the morning, I'm technically lowering its entropy, so that is correct. I will now include your "entropy controlled by intelligence" argument into my overall philosophy and claim that it was my thinking all along! 😁
*"but to try to conceptualize evolution as a function of a system whose physical substrate is spatiotemporally diffuse but coherent nevertheless."*
... What is the higher (or broader) system to which evolution is merely a subset? ... I have the entirety of evolution (biological and universal) being a byproduct of intelligence. So, I have intelligence as the "puppet master" and evolution (and all other processes) being the puppets. Together they make up the ultimate "reality show."
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Yeah that's a tricky one with intelligence. I'd say intelligence is a property of the system that is reducible to the properties of the individual components. It's an emergent, collective behavior that can be inferred from first principles. Consciousness is not. It's a fundamental property of reality.
So as you cleverly noted, if intelligence emerges from (property of) a system that organizes itself, then is self-organization a doing of intelligence? Which was first, the chicken or the egg? Perhaps this paradox is resolved by understanding time.
When I said that evolution may be a subset of a system whose spatial and temporal extent is massive, perhaps the universe itself, I was literal with my remark about time. The boundaries of this system may be unknowable, but the fact that evolution appears to have a direction is indicative of a non-random process. But the arrow of time itself may be an artifact of the human condition (cognitive and perceptual system).
The future is a real part of the universe's history. The two-state vector formalism interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the probability amplitude is determined by measurements performed in both the past and the future of the experiment. The two-time state is not just a mathematical construct; it has ontological status.
When I referred to entropy reduction, I was alluding to the capacity of such systems (and their components) to extract and utilize energy from their environment to maintain their homeostasis. To do this, a system must be able to detect, predict, and exploit discontinuities in the energy distribution in its environment.
Reducing uncertainties about energy availability (and energy expenditure) in the environment may be one of the first functions of intelligence so epistemic information may be reduced to thermodynamic information. As you can see, some compensates for not making their bed in the morning by proposing half-baked theories about entropy and intelligence. :D
Let's try an experiment. Can you explain the theory of evolution, and how it is claimed to work in terms of how a population changes over time and why. If you can do that, then we can see what your criticisms of it are, but first we need to agree what the theory is actually saying happens.
@ Yeah that's a tricky one with intelligence. I'd say intelligence is a property of the system that is reducible to the properties of the individual components. It's an emergent, collective behavior that can be inferred from first principles. Consciousness is not. It's a fundamental property of reality.
So as you cleverly noted, if intelligence emerges from (property of) a system that organizes itself, then is self-organization a doing of intelligence? Which was first, the chicken or the egg? Perhaps this paradox is resolved by understanding time.
When I said that evolution may be a subset of a system whose spatial and temporal extent is massive, perhaps the universe itself, I was literal with my remark about time. The boundaries of this system may be unknowable, but the fact that evolution appears to have a direction is indicative of a non-random process. But the arrow of time itself may be an artifact of the human condition (cognitive and perceptual system).
The future is a real part of the universe's history. The two-state vector formalism interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the probability amplitude is determined by measurements performed in both the past and the future of the experiment. The two-time state is not just a mathematical construct; it has ontological status.
When I referred to entropy reduction, I was alluding to the capacity of such systems (and their components) to extract and utilize energy from their environment to maintain their homeostasis. To do this, a system must be able to detect, predict, and exploit discontinuities in the energy distribution in its environment.
Reducing uncertainties about energy availability (and energy expenditure) in the environment may be one of the first functions of intelligence so epistemic information may be reduced to thermodynamic information. As you can see, some compensates for not making their bed in the morning by proposing half-baked theories about entropy and intelligence.
Homeostasis, self preservation, survival, fitness, these are the basis of information seeking and processing, which is what cognition,intelligence and finally Consciousness is all about. Its all physical, based on natural laws. Started initially only at the cellular level and later cells formed brains for enhanced information processing.
Mind as an emergent property in the universe, stemming from a concoction of inorganic chemicals that later gave rise to complex life forms, both vertebrates and invertebrates.
... is an unverified assumption.
Does emergence have causality?
Brains are a survival mechanism for vertebrates or invertebrates. Animal awareness is one thing; consciousness, another.
Yep that's exactly right, even the temporal frequency spatial bounding of amplitude overlays (objects) within ensembles. The cause is pretty specific for evolution of complex brains. Bilateral symmetry enacts a selection pressure to develop larger brains to process the world, because the blind spots in diverse environments. Radial symmetric organisms are constantly feeling in all directions, meaning there is less selection pressure acting on them to form complex brains. This is how bilateral invertebrates and vertebrates converge on having complex brains. Since bilateral organisms where selected by their ability to move in a specific direction (get out of danger, or to hunt), the frequency of testing blind spots increase, leading to rapid diversification of bilateral symmetries and brain complexity in the Cambrian period. Also, worms have complex brains or nervous systems as well. Since worms tend to be parasites, underground, or in other hidden locations, they are less frequently tested for blind spots therefore do not have the selection pressure needed to form a complex brain, do to the lack of diversity in the environment around them they inhabit, there are factors constraining their existence to hidden locations which offsets the type of pressures they witness. For instance, a institution or religion will select for individuals that adhere to authority (a culture of mind viruses they must adopt) where the individual isn't allowed to explore ideas, even when the culture of mind viruses contradict observable reality, the mind evolves a capsid or exoskeleton that is radially symmetric ("everything is a probability, probabilities determine physical distributions") rather than physical distributions determining probability where you see this poisoning science (the ideology constrains everyone's existence toward sucking up to the state or elite class, and punching down on the vulnerable) they don't understand (science = detecting differentials, comparing against the predicted differential). This highlights how America operates (instead of doing science, and making discoveries, data theft and intellectual property theft is the tool), then using that personal data to find ways of fomenting wars through social media influencers, and profiting off the destruction of the vulnerable effected by these wars (ad revenue), while hiding from the chaos they generate so that don't have to adapt. This also infects A.I technology, which instead of developing machine learning algorithms that learn new things, it's all about hardening around other people's intellectual property and curated data (pre-existing knowledge, rather than generating new knowledge) which is how the dynamic of social media gaslighting and conflict fomenting (wars) based on people's personal data gets off the ground (everyone just wants power, and large house and a bunch of cars [their safety capsid] and how they get those things is by sucking up to the state or institution, and never questioning the problems associated with these systems). That doesn't mean every person in those institutions are like that, but the majority definitely are because of group think confirmation bias.
Sorry I didn't read your manifesto.
Consciousness is simply the ability to reflect in absence of any sensory perception and most likely form because if it were controlled by sensory perception then it wouldn’t be fast enough to react to anything. So the hard problem of consciousness can never be solved because it functions on the platform of the absence of everything.
This reminds me of south park
You remind me of Beavis and Butt-Head
...so CTT is Fisherian over Sewall Wright's adaptive landscape topographies?
I love tomatoe!
The scientist emphasizes emergence as an independent process arising from local circumstances and convergent evolution. What she might overlook is that the very possibility of emergence itself is already contained within a deeper holistic unity. Without this unity, there would be no coherence or consistency in the universal patterns she observes, making emergence a complement with a gradation of freedom.
It is always remarkable to see how knowledge is not merely something we read or learn but how it slowly becomes a part of us..how it transforms into something personal, something authentic that is fully interwoven with our way of thinking and being. I deeply admire people who are able to take that step, to create a unique synthesis from the ocean of ideas that not only inspires them but also inspires others. It reminds me of how valuable it is to keep growing, reflecting, sharing, and standing in awe, alongside a grounded sense of rationality.
We are all mirrors to one another; we complement each other's flaws in light and shadow, but we must always remain true to our own nature and our own path.
Can we say about evolution without revolution, or adaptation without mutation? On the first glance it seems some sort of rhetorical question but it's obvious in the temporary sense that general biological evolution assumes a manifold "turning points", some drastic "revolutionary" leaps. For example, the change of the ocean's temperature, its currents, disposition of moon and volcanic activity can induce some kind of "horrible" organic mutation processes. Of course, it's not take place by random.
We observe species adapting through evolutionary processes in nature right now. Small changes such as the camouflage patterns of insects or the biochemical infection mechanisms of bacteria and viruses, due to the short time span, but we still see it occurring. You are right though that these are often responding to a change in the environment, such as the infection resistance of a host species, or a change in the environment that affects the utility of a camouflage pattern.
If we ignore the variable that Mother Earth is a conscious Hall of Records, I think we are in trouble
It is not.
@ My personal experience says otherwise. Somehow, the planet is conscious and sentient and extremely angry.
Father poul never works in reverse.
Uk deserves full punishment.
I cannot see how our limited interpretation of the working mechanism of these sensory systems and the resulting behavior can be used to infer the existence of a shared Umwelt. The fact that we were not aware of echolocation just a few decades ago and still confuse (otherwise, you wouldn't be screaming at the screen while reading this) anomalous cognition, telepathy, with its behavioral representation, body language, makes me think that we are still far from understanding the Umwelt of other species, let alone propose a shared Umwelt.
Our shared Umwelt, if any, must be the consequence of "shared location" in reality. The question is whether this shared "location" (constraints and affordances) is a consequence of architectural similarity (physicalism, emergentism), the other way around (dualism, some form of idealism), or we are asking stupid questions (deep correlation). Perhaps before we can make claims about a shared Umwelt, we need to be clear about our interpretive limitations.
She talks about a shared deep structure of the Umwelt, not sharing the actual same phenomenological Umwelt.
That's a great point, and I think you are right. I still believe we cannot make definitive claims about the deep structure of the Umwelt. Convergent evolution is not a mathematical theory and may simply be how sharing a phenomenological space appears to us.
We find patterns similar to human cognition because those are the patterns we're equipped to look for. We might miss entirely different forms of intelligence or information processing. The octopi may do a lot of guforcations with their puporas, assimilate tolectons at scale, and do other things we have no clue about whatsoever. And these shenanigans may be the most important for them. The regular octopus things they do (being cute, sneaking in and out of bottles, flirting with the plastic pirate captain, etc.) might be just things we can detect.
In other words, we might be pattern-matching and projecting our own deep structure. The very concept of "bound objects," "spatial distribution," and "subject-centered experience" might be human-specific ways of organizing experience. We cannot talk about a shared deep structure of the Umwelt without mathematical or information-theoretical proof. Until then, we can only know things how they appear to us through phenomenon.
Valence IS basically just association TO engrained biological senses like taste, smell, sound, and pain…
i think it started with pain, once that was in place, everything else became possible
@@ricardosantos6721possibly
Strombids (conchs) are my favorite surprisingly aware and intelligent animals.
Acceptance of evolution and our place in it does not necessarily require a rejection of a special place for consciousness as an emergent property of the universe, one that could not be foreseen by any 'outside' observer before it happened. Even if that consciousness has the ability to survive the death of the body to step outside of time and the material universe.
One does not have to invoke a divine being to explain it.
Umwelt is pronounced “oom velt” but very cool talk!
Evolution brings out forms and functions. This is the reason for convergent evolution. Evolution did not evolve mind three times in vertebrates and cephalopods. Evolution required mind at every stage.
Our cells must be smarter than our brains. Isn't it simply amazing what mindless organisms can come up with. Naturally, evolution is the brains behind evolution. That explains it all.
The most interesting word in this conversation was the word, *AND*
*Rachel Powell* was the talker.
*Evolution* was the mechanism, by natural selection.
*Consciousness* is the mind.
Why put them altogether with the word *AND.*
The process of evolution is reproductive success in a competitive, changing environment, often with scarcity of resources. From the POV of evolution, human consciousness is meaningless in itself, apart from its utility to this process. One can see that the most elemental sense and response equipment, incl what we can call an instinct for survival, forms the basis for developing this ability as it increases in analytical power, and along the way self-aware consciousness may manifest. This may manifest as an individual or group intelligence. What's interesting is the existential meaning of this self-awareness to the entity so aware. Are we anything but the job we're born to fulfill, and if so, what do we make of this, of ourselves?
You are infinite being (consciousness) localized in finate one as apparent body-mind. R.Spira.
@JuraGaga, You can't be both. Which one are you? The limited one locked in its body-mind or the one that set itself free by not limiting itself with mindless concepts?
@@Roshan-q6n It would be a Mr. Kuhn who is aimlessly and endlessly roaming from one scientist to another in his search for an answers he failed to find himself being a Doctor of science.
1:08 IF life evolved again in SIMILAR CONDITIONS… THEN YOU ARE RIGHT, you’d have a different set of life emerge… IF YOU KEPT EVERY ABSOLUTE PROPERTY OF EVERY PARTICLE THE SAME… it will evolve the same way… 🙃
Only if you assume that particle properties can capture all that is to reality, which they don't, not even under physicalism. I am not arguing against determinism here (I could), just particlism.
Form follows function. Biology is physics and chemistry and a bunch of engineering. The eyeball evolved separately a bunch but they are very similar
A hero of questioning reality. I think of Allen Watts questioning how would intelligence emerge out of an unintelligent universe. I must also think Taoism's teaching of we as an organism emerging from the universe or in the Western view "the Heavens" . Then the Zen Buddhist view of we as a part of the whole making the Ego out to be purely an illusion. Combine this with a LSD experience and you will realize that we are the god of our on experience
We're very lucky to have become human of all creatures, for man is capable of recollecting the Divine, for man has the intelligence to do so.
- shankara paraphrase.
Everything in phenomena changes. Therefore, why shouldn't man's consciousness, or rather man's awareness and realization.
It's said that the procession is the reversion. Implying this adaptation or alignment, on a grand scale, things becoming refined, thus made more efficent and proficient; becoming perfect, thus nearing the divine.
Everything is interdependent in phenomena. For all revolves around the one, the hub of a wheel, although this one, God, isn't of the temporal and spatial. Where else would this unity, conformity, or order come from.. things don't simply exist for themselves but participate in this grand order.
Evolution and consciousness?
I dunno. But i just bought and am studying the book 'Rigveda for the Layman' by Shyam Gosh.
I am very impressed. It's an anthology of the Veda consisting of only 100 hymns by are most wonderful and with fine details. Too i bought the bokk 'The Vedic Experience', by Panikkar, another veda anthology.
The veda isn't a religious text. It's simply knowledge, awareness and recollection. It is a book of Knowledge but one cannot shoe horn it into their agenda, but requires man to change and become true on the inside. People say the vedas cannot be translated - they're unworthy person. Ananda Coomaraswamy in an essay said you don't need to know sankrit to study veda. If you want to do brahmanas, yeah, you do need to know sanskrit.
Few there are who are truth seekers. Hindusism isn't a country or religion, it's a people, and if one values knowledge, wisdom, truth, then there's a great library of texts for you right now. None of it is 'other than' science etc. But it is other than the materialists view. Anyways, these anthologies are amazing. One must be very caustious dealing with india acaryas for they are just as deluded, egotistical and bias as every religion and cult following today.
"Why Consciousness Did Not Evolve"
The Mind is simply the interaction betweeon the non-physical soul and the material brain... The cognitive function of the Mind or its capability to independently observe/perceive is NOT a property of the physical brain but the power of our free aware immortal soul...
None of the Perception, Cognition, or Consciousnes is possible if your free aware immortal soul does not exist....
...the reason is because the Observing SUBJECT must be independent - free from the enslavement of natural physical laws for it to have FREE CHANCE to freely choose to observe, to freely choose to perceive, or to freely choose to focus to be aware of any experience...
... and this freedom to have a chance or to have free time to choose on its own to do all the above would be IMPOSSIBLE if your WILL is a SLAVE to physical laws ALL THE TIME, no different than a computer or robot driven by the programmed switches..
..in other words, your AWARENESS can not be physical because of the existence of your power to be aware to have free time to make a choice... the freedom to choose to believe or to choose NOT to believe can not be a property of matter driven by natural physical laws..
.. from understanding the heavenly light that was shared to me, your AWARENESS is your free immortal soul who is a free split of the Holy Spirit, this is why you are aware with freedom to make a choice on your own and accountable for that choice..
Animals have no free souls, not accountable, just driven by natural instincts ALL THE TIME beyond its control, not free to make choice to change to progress.. this is why animals remain to be same all same all, no progress for thousands or millions of years..
..but because your soul is free, you are always free to define your whole being as just an animal body if you hate Accountability, just slave of nature, existed accidentally by evolution to no fault of your own, no choice... This is the idea that Godless immoral people chose to believe in to lessen the heavy burden of their guilty conscience
6:53 WTF do you mean “it doesn’t have to be some kind of phenomenology”
EVERYTHING IS PHENOMENOLOGICAL… EVEN THE “LACK OF A PHENOMENON” (whatever tf that is) IS PHENOMENOLOGICAL…
THINK IT THROUGH…
Phenomenology is a specific disciplinary field in philosophy concerned with the structure of experience and consciousness. There are other uses of the term phenomenon and phenomena, and these have specific meanings in other contexts as well, but the word phenomenally refers to this field of study.
The "hard" problem of consciousness stated as qualia or subjective experience and "what it's like ..." inner experience seems to be not well-understood by those who should understand it. For example, experiencing pain is a subjective experience - I can't know exactly how you feel when you experience pain, nor can you know how I feel. The medical profession has developed an informal scale to help measure the intensity of pain, but that's about it. There could be scales for other types of feelings, but the number of such scales would be untenable.
There is no way one can get into the head of another person and fully understand the exact details of qualia, but through understanding how the brain builds neural models of the objective and subjective worlds, and how the brain creates awareness (how one wakes up from sleep), a good approximation of the neural substrate of qualia can be achieved.
Using imaging technology, we can tell what color a subject is thinking about or even what animal a subject is thinking about. We may be able to determine if a person feels happy or sad at a particular time. These approximations of qualia will get better and broader.
Is that a man or a woman ?
Consciousness simply cannot be answered without the help of the One Who created it. For that we need to look at our 'I' and our self... read the book Islam: A Challenge to Religion by G.A. Parwez... all logically explained appealing to our rational mind... also includes the info on the hereafter... good informative read
I see said the Blind man.
Consciousness could be fundamental to life and to mind.
Lol, no
Where in human history, did we start to form teams & started team building... groups that got on with eachother 👓 👀 throughout history 🚘🏁🚘
In Hinduism has full descriptions of it , it describes how a soul goes through various level conscious being"s states to finaly reachs devote's concious state
Bot hindusim it's a misnomer. Explicitly say which school you take Vendata or Kashmiri Shaisvism etc..
Evolution is a crock
If you want a nobel prize, you will have to do better than a baseless assertion.
A crock of appetizing truth.
It’s not just crocodiles, there’s a lot of other species. “Endless forms most beautiful” 😊
@@doptagd Slow-cooked in the crock-pot Earth under the sun😊
You sound like a senator
Rambling rethoric. Importante she shows how figure out evolution without senseless rethoric.
What don't you get? The presentation was fine.
@3Black.1Red Good for you. She are only talking about consciousness proof out. Thank you
she isnt a she
@@Maxwell-mv9rx Learn some English.
@BillyThetit learn good manners. Thank you.