Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism’s biggest (and least discussed) problem

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The biggest problem of all with Darwinism, in my opinion, is one that is almost never discussed by either side. In my Dec 2005 American Spectator article (updated version here) I tried to express the problem as follows: “When you ask [the modern scientist] how a mechanical process such as natural selection could cause human consciousness to arise out of inanimate matter, he says, ‘human consciousness — what’s that?’ And he talks about human evolution as if he were an outside observer, and never seems to wonder how he got inside one of the animals he is studying.”

You may be able to convince a gullible layman that natural selection of random mutations can cause mud to evolve into robots with advanced computers controlling their motions, but you will have a much harder time convincing him that it can cause these robots to become conscious. But scientists almost completely ignore this problem, because we haven’t the slightest idea what “consciousness” is. And rather than take the approach that science should be concerned with explaining the things we experience, the modern scientist takes instead the attitude that “if we can’t measure it or quantify it, it doesn’t exist”–or at least it isn’t science. They define consciousness down, and say that if a computer can pass a “Turing test” the computer must be considered to be conscious. To pass a Turing test, a computer has to convince the human communicating with it that he is talking to another human. Now, maybe computers will someday be able to pass a Turing test (maybe they already can), but I don’t believe that makes them conscious. I cannot be sure that there isn’t “someone” inside my PC who experiences the same consciousness that I experience, or that improving the hardware and software of computers sufficiently will never make them conscious, because I can’t even define consciousness, but I doubt that it will. And if I don’t believe that intelligent computer designers can ever make computers conscious, how could I believe that an unintelligent, mechanical process such as natural selection could do it?

Comments
[…] as he had been banned from Uncommon Descent seven years ago, and was still fuming about it. (See here [as far as I can tell, Dr. McGrath was perfectly civil in his comments, before he was banned], here […]Fishing trip: A short essay on Intelligent Design, theology and metaphysics | Uncommon Descent
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
TOC: Sir Francis is simply stating one of the many forms of the inner -- too often unrecognised -- incoherence of evolutionary materialism as an account of mind and reasoning. For, if in the end, all traces to chance plus mechanical necessity acting on and through space-time and matter-energy, there is no dynamical basis for a credible mind. Thence, self-referential incoherence and self-contradiction or absurdity as you note. (My just linked gives several ways this can, does and has happened over the 150 years or so of the modern emergence and dominance of this view.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 2, 2007
November
11
Nov
2
02
2007
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT
ellazimm: Duly noted. I had no derogatory intent in this post. My comment was to imply (apparently without success), when addressing conscious issues, particularly those concerning values or ethics, Crick's statement (thank you j): "your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules". leads me to wonder why his statement can be considered authoritative. It is a bit unnerving to read in such strong language someone whose intent, as his was, to destroy the notion of religious belief. Like the Logical Positivists, asserting that no proposition can be true unless it could be empirically verified, his proposition is either true, or it collapses by virtue of his own argument. Were those just his nerve cells and their associated molecules talking or is this statement empirically verifiable? I have not read every ream of text written on the subject; but I do have difficulty believing something to be true objectively if nothing can be found to be objectively true -- particularly if the propostion is nothing more than a material consequence of some apparent unknown cause.toc
November 2, 2007
November
11
Nov
2
02
2007
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
MacT wrote:
A ban for ReligionProf . . . for what? It might be useful if someone in authority here could briefly explain why this individual’s particular contributions on this thread resulted in termination. If this is meant to be a place to discuss ID in terms of science, then what could possibly be objectionable about dissenting views, set out articuately and politely?
I'm far from an authority here, DaveScot has his own reasons for banning RP, but from what I observed in the few posts of his I read, he was not very polite and not willing to discuss anything other than how ID is not science. In this thread alone, he insisted on not reading anything on this site that contradicted his disbelief of mind/brain duality and instead kept implying that anyone who didn't agree with him was ignorant (i.e., not "well-informed"). He chose to keep insulting people like Dr. Dembski, Ms. O'Leary, and the other knowledgable people who contribute to this site by implying they were ill-informed - not just in this thread, either. Thus, instead of being a respectful guest, he chose to be boorish and was banned because of it.angryoldfatman
November 2, 2007
November
11
Nov
2
02
2007
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Not only do I not share an IP with the dear Prof in question, but I have never spoken to him in my life. Good, then you can stop being so defensive of him, since he confessed to be ignorant of genetics and the mechanics of DNA replication. If he didn't share your collegiate rubber-stamped worldview, you'd be busting on him for his lack of biology education and ties to religion instead of trolling me. And I’ll, email you a copy of my degree in Genetics if you like. A scanned check stub from your current employer will suffice, thanks. Otherwise, you're just another cookie-cutter wet-behind-the-ears egotistical troll who just as well claim that he's the King of Spain.angryoldfatman
November 2, 2007
November
11
Nov
2
02
2007
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Not only do I not share an IP with the dear Prof in question, but I have never spoken to him in my life. And I'll, email you a copy of my degree in Genetics if you like.dave557
November 2, 2007
November
11
Nov
2
02
2007
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
A ban for ReligionProf . . . for what? It might be useful if someone in authority here could briefly explain why this individual's particular contributions on this thread resulted in termination. If this is meant to be a place to discuss ID in terms of science, then what could possibly be objectionable about dissenting views, set out articuately and politely?MacT
November 2, 2007
November
11
Nov
2
02
2007
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
I’d rather be a “sockpuppet” for someone who is rational, truthful and correct. You'll need to pick someone other than a self-confessed layman, then, since you have implied that laymen know nothing. Also, you'll have to prove you're not a layman yourself. Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if you share an IP address with our dear ReligionProf, considering how sensitive you are over my simplistic rebuttal. Either that or you're some student of his.angryoldfatman
November 2, 2007
November
11
Nov
2
02
2007
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
I'd rather be a "sockpuppet" for someone who is rational, truthful and correct. The alternative is a little backwarddave557
November 1, 2007
November
11
Nov
1
01
2007
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT
MacT (5): The Edelman paper explictly sets out a model of consciousness that relies on an evolutionary framework. I find Edelman’s (evolutionary) account of consciousness interesting and compelling. I’d be very interested to hear what evidence you would cite that counters his model. Edelman calls his hypothesis "neural Darwinism." Darwinian evolution, being based entirely on the combination of chance (variations) and necessity (natural selection) can't generate complex specified information, but intelligent agency (human consciousness) can. __________ Alternatively: Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind (1994), p. 354:
Certain other ideas have been suggested, such as those of Gerald Edelman in his recent book Bright Air, Brilliant Fire (1992) (and his earlier trilogy [including Neural Darwinism (1987)]), in which it is proposed that rather than having rules of a Hebbian type, a form of 'Darwinian' principle operates within the brain, enabling it to improve its performance continually by means of a kind of natural selection principle that governs these connections... However, these processes, as they are presently conceived, are still treated in a classical and computational way. Indeed, Edelman and his colleagues have constructed a series of computationally controlled devices (called DARWIN I, II, III, IV, etc.) that are intended to simulate, in increasing orders of complexity, the very kinds of procedure that he is proposing lie at the basis of mental action... It does not matter how different in detail such a scheme might be from other computational procedures. It still comes under the heading of those [concepts refuted by] the arguments [presented earlier in the book]. Those arguments alone render it exceedingly improbable that anything that is solely of this nature can provide an actual model of the conscious mind.
__________ toc (26): Francis Crick addressed this issue by declaring (loosely stated here) that human consciousness is nothing more than the activity of molecules colliding against each other. For the record: Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis (1994):
your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.
j
November 1, 2007
November
11
Nov
1
01
2007
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
"the implications of the new idea are simply too scary for them." Apologies, bad grammar from bad editing. That's what I get for banging out a reply just before quitting time. Which side leads to fascism… "DON'T TASE ME BRO!"angryoldfatman
November 1, 2007
November
11
Nov
1
01
2007
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
"ReligionProf is no longer with us." Which side leads to fascism...leo
November 1, 2007
November
11
Nov
1
01
2007
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
Yes… since the Greek theory of an eternal universe was backed up by physical and mathematical evidence… It held up nicely until the 1950s. There are still a couple of hold-outs on the Steady State whose reasoning is much like the ID hypercritics - the implications of the new idea is simply too scary for them. and the current Big Bang theory is based solely on mythical stories and and legends. No more so than abiogenesis, thanks to Pasteur. No, a layman cannot come up with a decent rebuttal That may be. At least I'm not a sockpuppet for a banned commenter.angryoldfatman
November 1, 2007
November
11
Nov
1
01
2007
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Yes... since the Greek theory of an eternal universe was backed up by physical and mathematical evidence... and the current Big Bang theory is based solely on mythical stories and and legends. No, a layman cannot come up with a decent rebuttaldave557
November 1, 2007
November
11
Nov
1
01
2007
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
dave557, RP was active in more threads than just this one. His other comments were even more inane than the one here, which was the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm a layman, but even I can come up with a decent rebuttal to RP's inflammatory nonsense, to wit: If ID is an "old science" attempt to backtrack to a point in history when we understood less than we do know, then abiogenesis is an "old science" attempt to take us back before we knew spontaneous generation was impossible, and the Big Bang is an "old science" attempt to take us back before the ancient Greeks came up with the eternal universe.angryoldfatman
November 1, 2007
November
11
Nov
1
01
2007
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
ReligionProf said: "ID is an attempt to reverse the progress science has made up until now and backtrack to a point in history when we understood less than we do now". Whether or not this statement is true, or whether I agree with him or not, doesn’t banning ReligionProf say far more?dave557
November 1, 2007
November
11
Nov
1
01
2007
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
ReligionProf is no longer with us.DaveScot
November 1, 2007
November
11
Nov
1
01
2007
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Ellazimm: No, the ball is in the materialists' court. And, they have not played it very well, as Borne points out in 20 above, and as Denyse and her co-author have shown in details in their book. Dismissal and attempted burden of proof shifting won't work! To see what we are getting at, why don't you take on my own humble intro level summary of the issue, here. (Or better, go to the CD thread and look at post 193 for a conveniently labelled version, then run through the thread to see how this played out last time around.) It is a serious issue, and one that the observed materialist answers to routinely massively beg the question at state, as Borne pointed out. (I also find that they end in self-referential incoherence, as does Plantinga, and as did C S Lewis etc etc.) Let's see if you can do better. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 1, 2007
November
11
Nov
1
01
2007
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
Francis Crick addressed this issue by declaring (loosely stated here) that human consciousness is nothing more than the activity of molecules colliding against each other. Others continue to ambiguously state the same idea. These very same people are able to get into their automobiles and navigate their way to destinations by observing a road map that someone else assembled, yet another person placed that knowledge in a position for it to be printed (or hosted, as the case may be), read, comprehend, and follow the instructions on the map, and arrive at their predetermined destination exactly as planned? How did they avoid colliding with those other beings, themselves navigating that same roadway following their own maps (of a sort)? It is ironic that Crick, et al, insist that this is nothing more than molecular collision. It is solipsistic and absurd to live that way and precisely why they find themselves in such a pickle. I assume that it's safe to say that every champion of this idea lives in radical conflict with what he or she says he or she believes. These are metaphysical propositions that need more than a materialistic explanation. It seems to me that these people have a lot of explaining to do.toc
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
At least this return to vitalism confirms Philip Kitcher's conclusion that ID is old science. Reviving talk of vitalism just makes it clearer to well-informed observers that ID is an attempt to reverse the progress science has made up until now and backtrack to a point in history when we understood less than we do now. Don't be surprised if not many want to follow you there - and I don't mean merely not many scientists, but not many religious believers or people in general.ReligionProf
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Idnet com au raises an interesting point which really boils down to this: We who have minds and can produce design may ourselves be nothing but material mechanism. “I think that our inability to conceive of machines being conscious may not be necessarily helpful to ID.” But this, as I understand, is the claim being made by Denyse O’Leary and others—mind is not reducible to matter. And though the materialists have proclaimed very loudly for a long time now that vitalism is dead—there was never any evidence presented—and for what it’s worth the New Ager Rupert Sheldrake makes a good argument that vitalism should not have been discarded.Rude
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
I think that our inability to conceive of machines being conscious may not be necessarily helpful to ID. In the past some have said that "life" is more than chemicals and that it will not be possible for man to create life. I think that is termed vitalism. I believe that in a few years Craig Venter will create life. It will be a copy of an existing life form but it will be life all the same. This confirms ID. It doesn't defeat ID. Intelligent design may create life. That is what we argue in the ID movement is needed to create life. I think ID may well also create a form of conscious machine. Again, if that happens, my faith will not be shattered. I will however be more than a little afraid, considering what conscious beings did with their Creator. I Robot is the film that comes to mind.idnet.com.au
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
To those who say I am anti-science for ruling out the possibility that computers will evolve consciousness: what about TV sets and radios, will they become conscious someday? What about a typewriter, it can be used to write amazing things, will there be conscious typewriters? And what is the real difference, computers are just like typewriters, they also do exactly what you tell them to do.Granville Sewell
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
We start with faith no matter the philosophy—thus I too can muse: “I wonder why someone would want to link his faith [in materialism] so closely to the presupposed possibility or inevitability of something.” Inevitably the “god of the gaps” nonsequiter is brought up: Design and a nonreductionist explanation of consciousness are off the table because someday materialism will be able to explain everything. Why limit the explanatory tool bag if you really want to know? And then there’s this endless science versus faith nonsense. Even if we limit science to some kind of Popperian falsification—we still live by faith in what stands up after all else is falsified.Rude
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
“I wonder why someone would want to link their faith so closely to the presupposed possibility or inevitability of something. That hasn’t been a good strategy in the past…” Kind of like saying science will, in fact, answer the great questions eventually, given enough minds willing to tackle a problem until understood. The problem with that, of course, is that course seems to usually produce more perplexing questions! (which Science® will of course answer!)todd
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
MacT: Edelman : "To succeed, such a program must take account of what is special about consciousness while rejecting any extraphysical assumptions. ... Any account of consciousness must reject extraphysical tenets such as dualism, and thus be physically based as well as evolutionarily sound." Well he certainly starts out on solid grounds doesn't he!! An a priori rejection of anything but the materialist view. Then, "Consciousness is not a thing but rather, as William James pointed out (6), a process that emerges from interactions of the brain, the body, and the environment." Here is a materialist assumption again. Stating as fact what needs to proven! It's generally called begging the question. The same error continue: "Features of conscious states General 1. Conscious states are unitary, integrated, and constructed by the brain. [begging the question - this is again what must be proven]..." Whatever, one only needs scan through the article to get the overwhelming impression of incredible genius of an intelligent agency in the design of the brain. How did all this come together into a functional unit within a functional life form through RM + NS? And why would it have occurred at all? The whole discussion, if Edelman is right, leads to Edelman's undoing. For if consciousness is a Darwinian evo artifact, then Edelman's thoughts are no more 'logical' or 'true' or 'right' than a rock. Logic is conceptual. Rocks are not logical. If brain is mere atoms in motion then all perceived truth or logic (including Edelman's paper) is an illusion of that moving matter. So are your comments here. So is all human thought in all history. Nihilism is the end result of such ill reasoning. The Abolition of Man. And man's conquest of nature actually turns out to be nature's conquest of man - reducing us to mere physical packages of non rational cells. Once again we see that naturalism cuts it's own throat because if all thought is the result of non-rational processes then thought has no rational existence. "Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe." - CS Lewis Think about it. :-)Borne
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
"I wonder why someone would want to link their faith so closely to the presupposed impossibility of something.." This sounds like a really intellectual, pro-science statement...until you remember we are talking about whether computers are, or will be someday, conscious! Anyone who entertains this possibility has very little understanding of what computers do, and has been watching too much science fiction. Or else they have a very "defined-down" idea of what consciousness is.Granville Sewell
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
the modern scientist takes instead the attitude that “if we can’t understand it, it doesn’t exist” The above is a very capricious statement and inherently and utterly false at that. A true scientist sees something s/he can’t understand and typically wants to crawl all over it, take it apart, ask it questions, poke, prod, and blow it up! MacT has already listed several different examples of research so I’m not inclined to amplify on those any more unless people are interested. What I am much more interested in and impressed with is the above post by ReligionProf: “I wonder why someone would want to link their faith so closely to the presupposed impossibility or inexplicability of something. That hasn’t been a good strategy in the past…” Absolutely spot on. Just because something hasn’t been explained doesn’t mean that it cannot be explained. So many statements by the ‘religious’ side of the argument deeming the theory of natural selection and the fact of evolution untrue due to problem X and problem Y have seen problem X and problem Y been proven by science in time. A perfect example of this point being the gaps in the fossil records between Mesonchyd mammals(land dwelling carnivores) and Archeocetes (the oldest whales). Behe wrote that he wanted to see transitional forms and lo and behold years later they were found, three of them, all perfect intermediates. ReligionProf nailed it with his statement here, I didn’t want it to go unnoticed.sealcoach
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
[...] way you spelled “you’re” an attempt to show that variations in spelling can... MacT: Granville, good idea; here is the link to the Edelman paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/conten [...]Orwellian world an inevitable outcome of materialist philosophy | Uncommon Descent
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Granville, good idea; here is the link to the Edelman paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/9/5520 I disagree with D. O'Leary's argument that materialist accounts of consciousness are just-so stories. They cannot be dismissed so lightly, and in this case at least, the "how" is most certainly there. Edelman's account is based on a detailed examination of evidence, mainly relating to how dynamic brain networks function and interact, and how they may have evolved. If there is counter-evidence, or a superior explanation, show me. He even addresses the issue of materialism. I can't reproduce the full context, but this will give you a flavor: "But consciousness accompanies particular brain events and is not a material entity. Instead, it is a process that is entailed by those material events. Those events are part of the physical world, and that world is causally closed; only matter energy can be causal." (Edelman, PNAS, 2003) You may not agree with much of what he says, but it is not, as O'Leary implies, merely a work of imagination. But don't take my word for it, or hers. Read it for yourself. I'm glad that Collin mentions Chalmers. Though his work has been from a philosphy perspective, it has been influential in shaping the empirical study of consciousness. His core view is not unlike Edelman's: "A nonreductive theory of consciousness will consist in a number of psychophysical principles, principles connecting the properties of physical processes to the properties of experience." Chalmers, 1995. Edelman's review addresses Chalmer's point directly by proposing how (contrary again to O'Leary's assertion) the so-called hard problem -- the supposed explanatory gap between neural processes and phenomenal or subjective experience of qualia -- can in fact be closed.MacT
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply