Evolution Is Just An Emergent Property Of the Action Of Consciousness

It seems like he wants to get into some 'deep' philosophical discussion that will end up just being about semantics. Not interested...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But the definition of Pain is that it is a Conscious Experience. I think you are inserting Intelligence into the Meaning of Consciousness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The point that I am trying to make is that there are Phenomena (Pain, Pleasure, and all Conscious Experience) that affect the Evolution of Organisms and Animals. These Phenomena are largely Ignored and even Hidden and covered up by the larger Evolutionary Science community.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are missing the point, which is that there are Phenomena (Pain and Pleasure, plus all the other Conscious Experiences) that could be driving Evolution. It is virtual Blasphemy to Evolutionary Doctrine that something like Conscious Experience could be affecting Evolution. Evolutionary Scientists want Blind Mechanical Mechanisms to be the only thing driving Evolution. I'm not trying to solve the whole problem of Consciousness here (don't need a deep Philosophical discussion), but rather I'm just trying to say that Evolution could be more dependent on Conscious Experience than the Scientists will admit or even understand.

 

Not at all.
It is you that misses the point that all these phenomena, conscious or not, are taken in account in "the evolutionary community".
Per example, take a look here : https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=_uJ4BJ77bZAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=behaviour in evolution&ots=1eMUDse8NO&sig=HnkNcc5EDfqQbtulDx3zZgufnNA#v=onepage&q=behaviour in evolution&f=false

I think your missbelieve come from that you suppose that because someone is conscious of something it means he has the control on "his toughts".
There is no scientific proof of that (altought you can yourself, like me, have a personal opinion on this point without claiming it as a scientific fact).

The speculation you propose is : Free will permit to act against the processus driven by physical laws.

 

There is no Conscious or Not stipulation. I am specifically talking about the Conscious Experience of Pain. I have seen writings about Sensory Input relative to Evolution before. The book treats Sensory Input as an Electrochemical process and nothing more. It is a very Physicalist explanation. But that is what it has to be since nobody has a Clue about actual Conscious Experience.

I am directly inserting the Conscious Experience of Pain as a thing in itself. It is a Phenomenon of Consciousness. That is the point. There is something happening in the Universe and in Evolution that Science has completely been unable to Explain even to the level of the first Clue.

I say nothing about Free Will anywhere. I simply say, the Conscious Experience of Pain will increase the Survival Rate of Animals and other Organisms, thus increasing the frequency of their Genetics in the larger population. There is no Intelligent Willfulness involved in what I am saying. It's all really Obvious and Simple.

 

Ok then, as already said by me and other intervenants (and you replied we would miss the point), you say something trivialy true.
Whats the point then ?

Concerning pain, and coming from my personnal experience (so it is not scientific data, but if it can help) i observed that there was pain when the body changed suddently and he try to avoid the change (this avoiding part occur in the brain).
So you can reduce or even make pain disapear if you mentaly accept "the pain" or "the change".

 

What I say is trivially true, but what I say is rejected by the Evolutionary Science community because it is not part of their Physicalist Doctrine. They will not have Consciousness be involved in Evolution even when it is trivially true that it is.

Finding ways to reduce Pain is a good goal for research.

 

You are wrong about that.
Only the free will part if not taken in accound in evolutinary domain, altought the possibility of free will is discussed among the scientist using the most recent physic knowledge.

Per example (and if you search for it you will find plenty of these research around the web) :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK231624/

 

The book is about the emergence of Consciousness in Life Forms. There is no mention of the Primacy of Consciousness in Evolution. I am saying that it is irrelevant when or how Consciousness started. The important thing is that after Consciousness exists then things like the Experience of Pain can start changing the direction of Evolution. The book continues to talk about Consciousness as an emergent Phenomenon that has no real impact on Evolution itself. But Pain and Pleasure are just two examples. Consciousness produces many more Motivational Experiences like Hunger, Fear, and Anger that can affect the path of Evolution.

 

Yes, but this is what we talk about when we talk about consciousness within the scientific domain.
We use the physicalist representation saying that consciousness emerge from complexity, and there are some models that differs form another to try to explain more in detail how this compexity lead to consciousness (of some sort or other, because as you surely have read, we distinguish some different consciousness form).
No neurophysiologist says he know what counciousness is, they "only" create a definition that permit to say "here we are observing consiousness" associated with a mecanistic modelisation of what we observe.

You, on other hand, like many other (me included), are not satisfied with this circular definition of consciousness, that appear somewhat distant with "what you experience " as an individual.
Yes, but science can not deal with the individual internal feeling, like pain, pleasure, fear etc, but at least, if you agree that science work add something to your comprehension, it is more then nothing.
Science know the symptom, but has not the ability to talk about "what it is for who experience it".

On a physicalistic point of view, consciousness doesen't differ with any other physical phenomenom, like having longer legs or better dentition.

Thats the point i think you haven't already admit.
If, as i think you arge, cousciousness is more than that, so it says that natural laws are not reliable, spirit or how you want to name it, can change the physical laws.

It is like Uri Geller saying he can bend some spoon with the power of his mind...

https://hungarytoday.hu/hungarian-roots-uri-geller-spoon-bender-85635/

 

Without the conscious of pain , conscious can not evolve . If consciousness ignores pain , then it will ignore many threats to the body and brain .

 

Without pain, consciousness could evolve too, i dont think that the evolution of consciousness depend only of pain.
Furthermore, talking about consciousness as if there were only one type of it is not sufficient.
We have to define wich consciousness we talk about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

 

↑

Agreed. Senses that sense the environment . Without pain .

For example .

 

To the OP

Does Paleontology agree ?

 

That is an intriguing idea indeed!

 

I think all of Science, Paleontology, Evolution, and etc. needs a big revision regarding the effect of Consciousness.

 

I understand the Blindness of the Physicalist Doctrine. I want to cure the Physicalists of their Physicalist Delusions.

 

Might wanna check for a beam in your own eye first.

 

You mean it is like a lie, since he has been shown he can not bend spoons with his mind and I understand he as said as much saying it was nothing more than a magic trick

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!