Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

pl0bs · **#241** by **pl0bs** » Aug 21, 2015 8:19 am

Animavore wrote:An article on sight and hearing. They share very different mechanisms. It's unlikely that the two are in any way related.

http://winawer.org/blog/2013/09/13/what ... r-hearing/

Can you quote the part that says "its unlikely the two are in any way related"?

Thanks for the link. Apparently the first photoreceptive machinery could have been:

(1)A membrane protein in some unknown member of Archaea, shuttling protons around in response to errant photons.
(2)A class of enzymes known as photolyases, which are used to repair DNA. These enzymes repair damage in response to ultraviolet light

The question now is, did the organism in (1) or (2) already have another sensory organ, and did the arisal of (1) or (2) have any interaction with that organ?

Just remember that this still isn't what pl0bs is asking. He's asking if the qualia of seeing and hearing share a common ancestor. He would need to show that qualia even exist before he can even begin to answer that question. I don't know of any evidence for qualia myself so I can't help I'm afraid, and a Google of "evidence for qualia" brings up articles which suggest that science can never provide evidence for qualia. So the whole question in the OP may be a fruitless endeavour.

No idea why you are talking about qualia. Are you suggesting that humans are actually blind, deaf, etc?

pl0bs · **#242** by **pl0bs** » Aug 21, 2015 9:38 am

DavidMcC wrote:Pl0bs does not even mention qualia in his OP. He only mentions "experiences" (of the senses). Then it becomes a question of whether the experience of sensing originates with the sense itself. I suspect that the original sensing (of all kinds) did not give rise to any conscious experience.

Yes this is the materialist assumption: consciousness didnt exist at one moment, and then later did. The earlier sensory structures evolved just as material things, and only later did any experiences occur.

But you agree that there is selective pressure on our experiences right? For example if our eyes are aimed at a tiger, and we would experience this as an icecream cart, it would not be beneficial for survival. It would be beneficial to see the tiger as a tiger. So there is selective pressure on the experiences, and the sensory organ evolves in a way that results in experiences that help us survive. This is the way our senses evolved, and it can be extrapolated back in time. The materialist assumption is that this extrapolation is valid only up to a certain point, and that it stops when it starts conflicting with our anthropomorphic intuition of what organisms are and are not conscious.

Animavore · **#243** by **Animavore** » Aug 21, 2015 10:41 am

pl0bs wrote:Can you quote the part that says "its unlikely the two are in any way related"?

It doesn't say that. It is implied.

pl0bs wrote:
The question now is, did the organism in (1) or (2) already have another sensory organ, and did the arisal of (1) or (2) have any interaction with that organ?

Single-cells don't have organs. They don't even have a central nervous system so there's no reason one part of a cell would be any more 'aware' of any other part of a cell performing a different task any more than you are aware of the stuff happening in your own cells right now.

pl0bs wrote:No idea why you are talking about qualia. Are you suggesting that humans are actually blind, deaf, etc?

What does this even mean?

DavidMcC · **#244** by **DavidMcC** » Aug 21, 2015 10:55 am

pl0bs wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:Pl0bs does not even mention qualia in his OP. He only mentions "experiences" (of the senses). Then it becomes a question of whether the experience of sensing originates with the sense itself. I suspect that the original sensing (of all kinds) did not give rise to any conscious experience.
Yes this is the materialist assumption: consciousness didnt exist at one moment, and then later did. The earlier sensory structures evolved just as material things, and only later did any experiences occur.

That may well be so, because, when the sense organs were evolving, their owners relied on instinct to respond to what they sensed, and this does not require conscious experience. However, it does require the same sensing that was later to give rise to conscious experience. If this is so, then our ancient anscestors would have started to experience all of their senses at once. Therefore, your graph showing them appearing at different times would be wrong.

But you agree that there is selective pressure on our experiences right? For example if our eyes are aimed at a tiger, and we would experience this as an icecream cart, it would not be beneficial for survival. It would be beneficial to see the tiger as a tiger.
...

I don't see how we would have experienced a tiger as an ice-cream cart, unless we were high on something. I also don't think it is experience itself that is acted on by natural selection. It is the sense organs, and the brain circuits that read them that are subject to NS. Modified experience follows from that.

Animavore · **#245** by **Animavore** » Aug 21, 2015 11:09 am

pl0bs wrote:Looks like i did in fact ask it many many times.

No you didn't. What you're asking makes no sense (pardon the pun) for reasons I've detailed.

DavidMcC · **#246** by **DavidMcC** » Aug 21, 2015 11:51 am

pl0bs wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:Pl0bs does not even mention qualia in his OP. He only mentions "experiences" (of the senses). Then it becomes a question of whether the experience of sensing originates with the sense itself. I suspect that the original sensing (of all kinds) did not give rise to any conscious experience.
Yes this is the materialist assumption: consciousness didnt exist at one moment, and then later did. The earlier sensory structures evolved just as material things, and only later did any experiences occur.
...

We have experiences because we have the kind of brain that produces them, but it didn't appear during one moment, unless you are talking about an evolutionary moment (which lasts quite a long time). Thus, the senses originated separately, but there was relatively very little time delay between consciously experiencing one sense and another. This would have come with the evolution of the mammalian brain.

Spearthrower · **#247** by **Spearthrower** » Aug 21, 2015 12:36 pm

pl0bs wrote:Yes this is the materialist assumption: consciousness didnt exist at one moment, and then later did.

As opposed to the magicalist assumption that consciousness is woven into the fabric of the cosmos, and brains acts as receivers. The difference between these assumptions is that the materialist one is testable.

pl0bs wrote:The earlier sensory structures evolved just as material things, and only later did any experiences occur.

Experiences occur regardless of sensory structures - unless, of course, by 'experiences' you are smuggling in qualia as Animavore already dissected.

pl0bs wrote:But you agree that there is selective pressure on our experiences right? For example if our eyes are aimed at a tiger, and we would experience this as an icecream cart, it would not be beneficial for survival. It would be beneficial to see the tiger as a tiger. So there is selective pressure on the experiences, and the sensory organ evolves in a way that results in experiences that help us survive. This is the way our senses evolved, and it can be extrapolated back in time. The materialist assumption is that this extrapolation is valid only up to a certain point, and that it stops when it starts conflicting with our anthropomorphic intuition of what organisms are and are not conscious.

No, as has been explained to you, senses evolved independently. Any given sense evolved incrementally, so there was a time when an organism possessed no ability to 'see' the external world, a mutation arising which produced a photosensitive spot that could detect light and consequently shadow would grant the organism an extremely basic photosensitive interface with the outside world. Amidst the diversity of genetic assemblages, those organisms which reacted to sudden changes in the amount of photons arriving at their photosensitive spot would preferentially survive over those which didn't. They needn't see a tiger, they only needed to react. Incrementally, this was preferentially selected for resulting in eyes and brain anatomy tailored to process that visual information.

You can look at the fossil record to validate this.

felltoearth · **#248** by **felltoearth** » Aug 21, 2015 2:53 pm

pl0bs wrote:Yes this is the materialist assumption: consciousness didnt exist at one moment, and then later did.

At what point in evolution did walking begin to exist?

catbasket · **#249** by **catbasket** » Aug 21, 2015 3:01 pm

felltoearth wrote:At what point in evolution did walking begin to exist?

Animavore · **#250** by **Animavore** » Aug 21, 2015 3:06 pm

felltoearth wrote:
pl0bs wrote:Yes this is the materialist assumption: consciousness didnt exist at one moment, and then later did.

At what point in evolution did walking begin to exist?

Pl0bs will tell you that all walking is is particles, force, spacetime. What he has never explained and backed away from answering any time I've asked him is why the workings of the brain can't just be the workings of particles, force, spacetime like everything else? No, no, says pl0bs, we have to introduce another, undetectable and immaterial, ingredient which he calls 'C', which along with the particles, force and spacetime, constitute the basic ingredients of nature.

His argument is special pleading and no more. Though it's interesting how pl0bs expects us to talk about the evolution of the experience (ie; 'C') of the evolving sensory organs when by his own admission experience is immaterial and is unlikely to be found in the fossil record, the cells, or anywhere else we can study.

SpeedOfSound · **#251** by **SpeedOfSound** » Aug 21, 2015 3:17 pm

My only contribution here in ~30000 posts is that I got you all to use the abbreviation 'C'. That's why I came here. That's why I did all this. I cannot, for some weird mechanical reasons type the word consiousness and get the c in there where it supposedly should go. Maybe because my fingers are smart enough to see how fucking useless that c is?

DavidMcC · **#252** by **DavidMcC** » Aug 21, 2015 3:39 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:My only contribution here in ~30000 posts is that I got you all to use the abbreviation 'C'. That's why I came here. That's why I did all this. I cannot, for some weird mechanical reasons type the word consiousness and get the c in there where it supposedly should go. Maybe because my fingers are smart enough to see how fucking useless that c is?

So I see!

SpeedOfSound · **#253** by **SpeedOfSound** » Aug 21, 2015 3:42 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:My only contribution here in ~30000 posts is that I got you all to use the abbreviation 'C'. That's why I came here. That's why I did all this. I cannot, for some weird mechanical reasons type the word consiousness and get the c in there where it supposedly should go. Maybe because my fingers are smart enough to see how fucking useless that c is?

So I see!

I'm proud.

pl0bs · **#254** by **pl0bs** » Aug 21, 2015 6:40 pm

Animavore wrote:
pl0bs wrote:Can you quote the part that says "its unlikely the two are in any way related"?

It doesn't say that. It is implied.

Can you quote where it is implied?

pl0bs wrote:
The question now is, did the organism in (1) or (2) already have another sensory organ, and did the arisal of (1) or (2) have any interaction with that organ?

Single-cells don't have organs. They don't even have a central nervous system so there's no reason one part of a cell would be any more 'aware' of any other part of a cell performing a different task any more than you are aware of the stuff happening in your own cells right now.

Look up what "organelles" are. Btw, if what you are saying is true, then that implies common descent of the sensory experiences. As you say yourself "there's no reason one part of a cell would be any more 'aware' of any other part of a cell". In other words: one unified experience.

pl0bs wrote:No idea why you are talking about qualia. Are you suggesting that humans are actually blind, deaf, etc?

What does this even mean?

Huh? You dont know what "blind" means? Perhaps you should tell us more about that qualia stuff you came up with.

pl0bs · **#255** by **pl0bs** » Aug 21, 2015 6:44 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Animavore wrote:Pl0bs clarifies what he means a few posts in.

pl0bs wrote:
Animavore wrote:Are you looking for a philosophical answer to a biological question? Does this need to be moved to the biology sub-forum?
Otherwise state your intentions here clearly. I'm not playing any games.
Btw, it looks like you misread the topic. Its about the senses (the experiences), whereas you probably assumed it was purely about the biological sensory organs.

Qualia is conscious experience. This is very much what pl0bs is asking about the evolution of.

It's interesting, here and just about everywhere in philosophy that no one is willing to give up the idea of a singular mind. There is a pill for that and it starts with a little cleansing in the form of Dennett's CE. You have to read it three times. The singular mind is a magic trick of the singular organism.

Dont jump to conclusions. Just because it is possible to create a "split-brain", doesnt mean the brain/mind began split and then evolved to become singular.

I can chop of my hand, but it sure as hell doesnt mean my hand began seperately from my body and then the both evolved into one organism.

DavidMcC · **#256** by **DavidMcC** » Aug 21, 2015 6:44 pm

Pl0bs, do you believe that single cells have experiences in the same way that we do, based on the output of our sense organs?

pl0bs · **#257** by **pl0bs** » Aug 21, 2015 6:57 pm

DavidMcC wrote:That may well be so, because, when the sense organs were evolving, their owners relied on instinct to respond to what they sensed, and this does not require conscious experience. However, it does require the same sensing that was later to give rise to conscious experience. If this is so, then our ancient anscestors would have started to experience all of their senses at once. Therefore, your graph showing them appearing at different times would be wrong.

So after an organism becomes conscious, is it impossible for it to evolve a new sense?

The situation you describe starts off as a unified mind (aware of all the senses). If it is still possible for the organism to evolve new senses, then it entails option B. If the organisms senses can no longer evolve (which i dont think you mean to say), or if other senses would evolve as seperate minds and only later became integrated with the rest, then it would option A or something else.

But you agree that there is selective pressure on our experiences right? For example if our eyes are aimed at a tiger, and we would experience this as an icecream cart, it would not be beneficial for survival. It would be beneficial to see the tiger as a tiger.
...

I don't see how we would have experienced a tiger as an ice-cream cart, unless we were high on something. I also don't think it is experience itself that is acted on by natural selection. It is the sense organs, and the brain circuits that read them that are subject to NS. Modified experience follows from that.

If there is no selective pressure on the experiences, then there is no mechanism by which our experiences would have any correlation with the actual world around us. Our ability to see depth, motion, colors, etc. would not offer any survival advantage if such experiences had no effect on the body.

Perhaps you are saying that the sense organs/brain circuits = the experiences, but then you cannot at the same time state that the experiences are not acted on by NS. If sense organs/brain circuits = experiences, then the experiences are acted on by NS as much as the sense organs and brain are.

DavidMcC · **#258** by **DavidMcC** » Aug 21, 2015 7:01 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Animavore wrote:Pl0bs clarifies what he means a few posts in.

pl0bs wrote:
Animavore wrote:Are you looking for a philosophical answer to a biological question? Does this need to be moved to the biology sub-forum?
Otherwise state your intentions here clearly. I'm not playing any games.
Btw, it looks like you misread the topic. Its about the senses (the experiences), whereas you probably assumed it was purely about the biological sensory organs.

Qualia is conscious experience. This is very much what pl0bs is asking about the evolution of.

It's interesting, here and just about everywhere in philosophy that no one is willing to give up the idea of a singular mind. There is a pill for that and it starts with a little cleansing in the form of Dennett's CE. You have to read it three times. The singular mind is a magic trick of the singular organism.

I never believed that the situation was as simple as could be characterised by either a singular mind, or a split one. The reality is that there are various decision-makers, but only one is conscious. That conscious mind is only sometimes in full control of the body, because that uses too much energy. Normally, we let our autonomous systems do their thing, by carrying out over-learned operations, as in walking, for example. But if anything untoward happens (such as we find ourself on a dangerous-looking patch of ground), the singular conscious mind reluctantly takes some measure of control, but only over our legs (and possibly arms (for balance). As soon as it is considered safe to do so, normal service is resumed. The basal ganglia are thought to make these decisions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_ganglia

...
Currently, popular theories implicate the basal ganglia primarily in action selection; that is, it helps determine the decision of which of several possible behaviors to execute at any given time. In more specific terms, the basal ganglia's primary function is likely to control and regulate activities of the motor and premotor cortical areas so that voluntary movements can be performed smoothly.[1][4]
...

pl0bs · **#259** by **pl0bs** » Aug 21, 2015 7:04 pm

DavidMcC wrote:Pl0bs, do you believe that single cells have experiences in the same way that we do, based on the output of our sense organs?

What do you mean with "in the same way"?

I think we humans are evolved, more complex versions of our microbial ancestors. I think this is true for ALL aspects of our human nature, including consciousness. I do not think it makes sense to believe this is true only for our bodies, but not for our minds. I understand it conflicts with our anthropormorphic intuitions about which organisms are and are not conscious, but that intuition is in principle flawed (as ive explained here). So im forced to make a choice between intuition and logic, and its an easy one.

Onyx8 · **#260** by **Onyx8** » Aug 21, 2015 7:07 pm

Perhaps pl0bs could list 'the senses' he is talking about. I mean all of the senses, not just examples of senses but all the senses.

Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Re: Did our senses (the experiences) originate separately?

Who is online