From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 23:07:49 BST
Hi Scott,
You said: "No, I define Darwinism as evolution by means of random gentic
mutation and natural selection. I realize this is technically Neo-Darwinism, but
it is the meaning used by those who are determined to disallow anything
non-material to be used in explanations of evolution."
Andy: By "those" you mean Dennett and a couple others. I think most theorists
who call themselves Darwinist are perfectly willing to admit that the
materialistic explanation falls short in explaining how consciousness emerges
out of the inorganic.
You ask: "So what do you mean by "evolution"? For me, it just means gradual
change. In biology in particular it means that species come into and go out of
physical existence. Do you mean more than that?"
Andy: Well, I don't think species just come into existence. I find Mayr's
explanation of genetic drift, geographic boundaries and natural selection to be
plausible explanation for new species. I agree with gradual change, but there
are lot's of degrees of gradual. I suppose species just could come into
existence. But, I find the evidence which links us to chimpanzees too
compelling to say Homo Sapiens just came into existence. I think we evolved
from a small isolated group of hominids in Africa about 30,000 to 100,000 years
ago. THere is too much evidence suggesting otherwise, to say we just appeared
out of nowhere. This is where Darwin's evolution comes in and this is what I am
defending.
You said: "Mystics say they know. And they say we can all know. This is
anecdotal data, to be sure, but do you have reason for dismissing it?"
Andy: Because I can't explain it. I find the explanation that consciousnes
just is or omnipresent in the universe as plausible as it emerges from some
unique interaction of inorganic chemicals and compounds. I just don't have a
feeling for either way. But, once I accept this I don't need to give up on
Darwinism or evolution. Mystics say they know and i believe them. In my own
limited way, I think I know exactly what they mean. I have been there. I want
to go back. But, the point is that this experience cannot be spoken about or
described accurately. At least I don't know how it could be.
You Ask: "I don't think we do share episodic memory with other organisms. Does a
cat remember what it ate for breakfast?"
Andy: I don't know, but I don't see why it wouldn't. I don't think it can tell
us what it had for breakfast without language. But i suppose it might not. I
might have misinterpreted what you meant by episodic memory. If I understand
now, than I suppose self-consciousness and episodic memory are a result of us
having a complex language. (I admit, conjecture on my part.)
You asked: "How do you know that it was a random event?"
Andy: I suppose I could give you my ametueristic view of how we became
intelligent species, but I am sure there are some holes. My views are my own,
but obviously I have taken a little from what I have read in magazines, books,
Newspapers and journals. I am far from an expert and I only have developed this
theory, or coopted it--if someone could find the source for me, to give my
ownself a comfortable explanation for my satisfaction. I think language was an
exaptation. It resulted from a unique placement of the larynx in our throats.
Probably to help our ancestors to run down large game on the African Sierra. So
a group of Hominids, isolated by geographic boundaries in the desert, begin to
mate. Natural selection chooses individuals with a positioning of the larynyx
in the throat through random genetic drifts over generations. Over time there
is a new species called modern humans--our ancestors. THe placement of the
larynx also provide for mofre opportunity of sound modulation. Language is born.
There are some details which I am sure might be easy to refute, but I think some
variation of the above is not only plausible, but likely. Nenderthals, had
larger brain cavities than us, but never developed a complex culture. There
larynx was positioned higher in their throats ( I think I read of this in S.A.
by Tattertall or something). Evidence suggests they never developed language.
I would geuss that they had no concept that they were conscious beings and also
might not be able to remember what they had for breakfast (although I am very
unsure about the latter).
I also think I remember Mayr mentioning the increase in mutations that would
result through inbreeding of an isolated group.
Thanks,
Andy
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 23:08:44 BST