Do colours exist, for example, and in what sense of "exist" if so?
And what if qualia are identical to brain states? Then if the brain states exist, qualia do as well.
Colours exist in the consciousness of the observer. Light of a particular frequency doesn't have that quality itself.
[quorte]I think that tastes, odours, colours, and so on are no more than mere names so far as the objects in which we locate them are concerned, and that they reside only in consciousness. If living creatures were removed, all these qualities would be wiped out and annihilated. [/quote]
The question really comes down to whether humans who use non-essential communication have any advantage over those who only use essential communication. They will both avoid the bear but I'd wager the former will have greater luck in love. This is all that is required to cause selection pressure and thus evolution.
I haven't read all the recent posts but a few of the earlier ones by others seemed to consider only only genetic attributes that affect the health or survivability of the organism. However, just as important are genes that increase the chances of successful mating - social skills, attractiveness etc.
The point is that non essential art does not increase reproductive chances .
The opposite could be true, as many artists are disconnected from society.
The idea that creativity was developed via natural selection is an assumption and one that is not even well supported.
The point is that non essential art does not increase reproductive chances .
It has been explained to you time and time again that not everything which has come about through natural selection must give a direct increase to reproductive success.
The opposite could be true, as many artists are disconnected from society.
I very much doubt this was the case with ancient cave painters who probably painted as a means of story telling and passing on the knowledge of their history to their children and other children in their tribe. Oh and guess what! Doing so improves chance of survival and reproducing!
A lot of ancient art seems to have a functional purpose.
The idea that creativity was developed via natural selection is an assumption and one that is not even well supported.
I'll take a not well supported position over a position with absolutely no support whatsoever. Actually, what even is your position? Asserting art could not have arisen by natural selection (even though there are numerous reasons why it could be beneficial to survival) is all very well, but what's your alternative explanation? Goddidit? Magic? Universal consciousness? At least we know natural selection exists...
I apologise for derailing your thread there a little guys. In an attempt to add something valid to the discussion let me add a link to a video where Alan Moore talks a little about existence and how ideas exist in a different realm from the experienced 3d world we know. It's got some interesting ideas.
Really enjoyed that. I like that kind of presentation. He talks about monotheism from about 45 minutes in, if anyone wants to go straight to that part.
I agree with it mostly and could be persuaded to agree wholeheartedly. Thanks.
It has been explained to you time and time again that not everything which has come about through natural selection must give a direct increase to reproductive success.
I very much doubt this was the case with ancient cave painters who probably painted as a means of story telling and passing on the knowledge of their history to their children and other children in their tribe. Oh and guess what! Doing so improves chance of survival and reproducing!
A lot of ancient art seems to have a functional purpose.
I'll take a not well supported position over a position with absolutely no support whatsoever. Actually, what even is your position? Asserting art could not have arisen by natural selection (even though there are numerous reasons why it could be beneficial to survival) is all very well, but what's your alternative explanation? Goddidit? Magic? Universal consciousness? At least we know natural selection exists...
I'm aware that art could be a byproduct of another adaptive function, although as I said, we continue to produce art although it has no survival function now.
There is nothing in Darwinian theory that explains why we continue to make art and nothing in neuroscience that tells us what we experience.
That is why we still don't understand the brain.
I wouldn't take a non well supported position over saying it is still a mystery, because it is.
We can add aesthetic experience to the list of what we don't understand about the brain.
Colours exist in the consciousness of the observer. Light of a particular frequency doesn't have that quality itself.
[quorte]I think that tastes, odours, colours, and so on are no more than mere names so far as the objects in which we locate them are concerned, and that they reside only in consciousness. If living creatures were removed, all these qualities would be wiped out and annihilated.
~ Galileo
So if I held up a red apple, you would say it's not red?
I would say it's red, and I would not mean the light reflected from it is red (though I think that's a reasonable thing to say), or that the red was in my consciousness (?), or even that the apple merely appeared to be red (though there are circumstances in which I would say that).
...
Of course colours don't exist. This really is very basic.
According to ... ?
I don't mean just the idea that colours don't exit. I suppose we have Galileo and a range of philosophers who think colours are 'secondary qualities' for that. I mean also the "of course" and "very basic".
How can the experience of red or middle C be identical to a brain state?
It's far from clear whether they are or even can be identical to brain states, but if we're going to account for the experience of red of middle C, we have to do it somehow, and that sort of identify theory has been one of the suggestions that philosophers and others have considered.
In that case are they just a word for a something in the brain or perhaps a set of conditions in the brain?
But if qualia are identical to brain states, then talk of the brain states is talk about qualia just as much as talk of qualia is talk of the brain states. (Identity is symmetric.)
The point is that non essential art does not increase reproductive chances .
The opposite could be true, as many artists are disconnected from society.
The idea that creativity was developed via natural selection is an assumption and one that is not even well supported.
It seems to work for the bower bird, so why not for us? The point about artists being disconnected might apply to one or two at the extremes (or it might be a popular misconception - I don't know) but much more important will be art appreciation and creation in people nearer the norm. And in today's society it seems pretty clear that having even a slight artistic bent is seen as hugely attractive - that's the whole basis for celebrity.
Seeing that sexual selection occurs because of individuals favouring some genetically-influenced attribute, there are good reasons to think that an appreciation of art in a small number of individuals will cause selection pressure towards genes that help individuals to create art which causes selection pressure towards appreciation of art etc.
It may be the case that there's more research needed to look into evolution and aesthetics but it seems there's already too much evidence to categorically say evolution through natural selection cannot explain art.
Clearly wasted his time on great art if he thought it would improve his reproductive fitness.
The theory of evolution does not say that every individual with a beneficial gene will reproduce more than one without. Evolution is a theory about averages, frequencies and probabilities.
It seems to work for the bower bird, so why not for us? The point about artists being disconnected might apply to one or two at the extremes (or it might be a popular misconception - I don't know) but much more important will be art appreciation and creation in people nearer the norm. And in today's society it seems pretty clear that having even a slight artistic bent is seen as hugely attractive - that's the whole basis for celebrity.
Seeing that sexual selection occurs because of individuals favouring some genetically-influenced attribute, there are good reasons to think that an appreciation of art in a small number of individuals will cause selection pressure towards genes that help individuals to create art which causes selection pressure towards appreciation of art etc.
It may be the case that there's more research needed to look into evolution and aesthetics but it seems there's already too much evidence to categorically say evolution through natural selection cannot explain art.
Humans don't usually produce art to attract a mate. They may use self adornment but art is something else and often done in isolation.
So if I held up a red apple, you would say it's not red?
I would say it's red, and I would not mean the light reflected from it is red (though I think that's a reasonable thing to say), or that the red was in my consciousness (?), or even that the apple merely appeared to be red (though there are circumstances in which I would say that).
But I don't want to see something with redness as a quality of something you perceive. Just show me some red. Light waves within an agreed upon frequency range of electromagnetic radiation give rise to the feeling of red in most people, but "red" does not exist any more than "warm" exists.
According to ... ?
I don't mean just the idea that colours don't exit. I suppose we have Galileo and a range of philosophers who think colours are 'secondary qualities' for that. I mean also the "of course" and "very basic".
According to me, within the context of the part of my post you replaced with ellipsis, but the expressions were born of frustration and I do apologise.
It's far from clear whether they are or even can be identical to brain states, but if we're going to account for the experience of red of middle C, we have to do it somehow, and that sort of identify theory has been one of the suggestions that philosophers and others have considered.
I just don't see how it would help to even try to do so. It must be true that we do experience those things, but at best I fear research into actual brain states (while they obviously can't be "identical" to the experiences) can only show that something happens somewhere in the brain. So what?
Humans don't usually produce art to attract a mate. They may use self adornment but art is something else and often done in isolation.
It doesn't need to be direct. All that matters is whether artistic behaviour (or the ability to appreciate art), is correlated with the success of finding a mate. If there's a correlation, then the frequency of genes affecting the behaviour will tend to increase in subsequent populations.
BIB - I would say this is a very common way of attracting a mate - reciting poetry, serenading, dancing, use of language etc can all be thought of as artistic and are common in courtship. And people with these skills are more likely than average to be able to create art for reasons other than courtship.
But I don't want to see something with redness as a quality of something you perceive. Just show me some red. Light waves within an agreed upon frequency range of electromagnetic radiation give rise to the feeling of red in most people, but "red" does not exist any more than "warm" exists.
I find it interesting that there are some colours (e.g. magenta) that can only be perceived by viewing a combination of more than one frequency of light i.e. they are not part of the spectrum. Magenta is even less real than red
It annoys me when Bolly comes out with statements like "science can't explain the complex brain". That's not a good attitude to have IMO, so I usually respond fairly bluntly and with sweeping statements which aren't the most well-reasoned.
I maintain that science can explain the complex brain by the mechanism of natural selection. It makes sense to me and in the respect that I can easily imagine certain traits being selected which would ultimately lead to complex symbolic thought and even consciousness, I believe natural selection can explain it... but you are indeed right, it's not a detailed explanation. It's more of a rough hypothesis.
But the details are up to the neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists to figure out. I'm not and probably never will be either considering I'll be studying Chemistry next year provided all goes well.
But regardless of the vagueness, the framework of natural selection is there to aid with an explanation. The same can't be said for whatever Bolly is proposing (I have no idea what it is. They probably don't either) and actually asserting that consciousness is beyond the remit of science is a dangerous and unproductive attitude to have, in my opinion.
I can't be sure I've quite untangled your discussion with bollywood about whether science / natural selection can explain the complex brain, but I think Bolly's vew may just be that we don't have the explanation now -- which is something "can't explain" might mean -- and that a belief that there will eventually be an explanation has an element of faith.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, especially when it's about natural selection rather than science more generally. It's not faith based on nothing; it's not unreasonable faith; but it's faith nonetheless.
Unfortunately, since debates about evolution are still entangled with debates on religion, and with the threat of creationism getting into schools, ways of testing and questioning a theory that would normally be considered acceptable are instead treated as out of bounds in ways that can seem "religious". A charge of "Darwinian fundamentalism" sometimes makes sense, and even scientists who don't have quite the right views are treated as heretics. (Consider Dennett's rather unpleasant attacks on Stephen J. Gould which continued even after Gould's death. Dennett's comments may even have become nastier now that Gould can no longer defend himself or strike back.)
I think that even religiously motivated critiques should be considered seriously if they raise a genuine issue. One example is the irreducible complexity arguments offered by some advocates of intelligent design. Regardless of our view of intelligent design (is it science, pseudo-science, disguised creationism?), it is legitimate to ask whether evolution by natural selection can account for the development of structures that seem irreducibly complex -- as a general question or as one about specific structures.
... actually asserting that consciousness is beyond the remit of science is a dangerous and unproductive attitude to have, in my opinion.
I think that saying science can't handle consciousness can be productive, depending on how people react to it. It can be treated as a challenge to those who think science can explain consciousness to try to prove that by explaining it. And it can get people thinking about why it can seem that science can't explain consciousness. It can help people focus on aspects of consciousness that seem especially difficult to explain. (I think David Chalmers drawing attention to what he called the "hard problem" is one of the most productive things that's happened in thinking about consciousness.)
I find it interesting that there are some colours (e.g. magenta) that can only be perceived by viewing a combination of more than one frequency of light i.e. they are not part of the spectrum. Magenta is even less real than red
Magenta is one of the primary pigments, however. That seems real enough. Why not?
It doesn't need to be direct. All that matters is whether artistic behaviour (or the ability to appreciate art), is correlated with the success of finding a mate. If there's a correlation, then the frequency of genes affecting the behaviour will tend to increase in subsequent populations.
BIB - I would say this is a very common way of attracting a mate - reciting poetry, serenading, dancing, use of language etc can all be thought of as artistic and are common in courtship. And people with these skills are more likely than average to be able to create art for reasons other than courtship.
So what about train spotting or stamp collecting? I've said before; I think our modern way of life owes very little to evolution (and its strategy to reproduce). It becomes obvious when you think how much what we do has changed well within a tiny time period on an evolutionary scale (we've been "anatomically modern humans" for 200,000 years). We've already done far more reproducing than we needed to, and usually manage to stay alive far longer than necessary. We have many needs and preferences from elsewhere than the need to find a mate etc., although it remains as a strong desire in most.
It doesn't need to be direct. All that matters is whether artistic behaviour (or the ability to appreciate art), is correlated with the success of finding a mate. If there's a correlation, then the frequency of genes affecting the behaviour will tend to increase in subsequent populations.
Do you think there are genes for artistic behaviour rather than it being leaned and invented?
BIB - I would say this is a very common way of attracting a mate - reciting poetry, serenading, dancing, use of language etc can all be thought of as artistic and are common in courtship. And people with these skills are more likely than average to be able to create art for reasons other than courtship.
So how much of creating poems (for example) is down to genetics? Are we hard-wired for sonnets by our genes, for example? Or only for poetry in some more general sense? Or not even that but only for some abilities that are also useful in creating poems?
It doesn't need to be direct. All that matters is whether artistic behaviour (or the ability to appreciate art), is correlated with the success of finding a mate. If there's a correlation, then the frequency of genes affecting the behaviour will tend to increase in subsequent populations.
BIB - I would say this is a very common way of attracting a mate - reciting poetry, serenading, dancing, use of language etc can all be thought of as artistic and are common in courtship. And people with these skills are more likely than average to be able to create art for reasons other than courtship.
There is no evidence that art ( painting, music, writing) is connected to sexual selection.
The ability to experience art is a much more complex process in humans than birds.
There is no evidence that people who produce art have more offspring. If anything they may be alienated from the culture.
Some art is off putting and hardly courtship friendly is negative or repulsive to some.
This is what I mean by assumptions that are made about behavior, trying to fit them into evolution, whether they fit or not.
Comments
Colours exist in the consciousness of the observer. Light of a particular frequency doesn't have that quality itself.
[quorte]I think that tastes, odours, colours, and so on are no more than mere names so far as the objects in which we locate them are concerned, and that they reside only in consciousness. If living creatures were removed, all these qualities would be wiped out and annihilated. [/quote]
~ Galileo
The point is that non essential art does not increase reproductive chances .
The opposite could be true, as many artists are disconnected from society.
The idea that creativity was developed via natural selection is an assumption and one that is not even well supported.
I seem to remember that JS Bach fathered 24 children. But then he was god.
It has been explained to you time and time again that not everything which has come about through natural selection must give a direct increase to reproductive success.
I very much doubt this was the case with ancient cave painters who probably painted as a means of story telling and passing on the knowledge of their history to their children and other children in their tribe. Oh and guess what! Doing so improves chance of survival and reproducing!
A lot of ancient art seems to have a functional purpose.
I'll take a not well supported position over a position with absolutely no support whatsoever. Actually, what even is your position? Asserting art could not have arisen by natural selection (even though there are numerous reasons why it could be beneficial to survival) is all very well, but what's your alternative explanation? Goddidit? Magic? Universal consciousness? At least we know natural selection exists...
Pretty much. "Everyone who isn't me, or like me, is evil."
Ignorant jerks, in other words.
I agree with it mostly and could be persuaded to agree wholeheartedly. Thanks.
I'm aware that art could be a byproduct of another adaptive function, although as I said, we continue to produce art although it has no survival function now.
There is nothing in Darwinian theory that explains why we continue to make art and nothing in neuroscience that tells us what we experience.
That is why we still don't understand the brain.
I wouldn't take a non well supported position over saying it is still a mystery, because it is.
We can add aesthetic experience to the list of what we don't understand about the brain.
Evening Stiffy. It's been a while
Depends on first impression as well I think. How one represents the faith they're promoting
Possibly he did but there are no studies I am aware of that show that artists have more children.
They could have fewer due to the isolation involved in creating art.
And they might not ( like Gauguin) have cared for the ones they did have.
Clearly wasted his time on great art if he thought it would improve his reproductive fitness.
So if I held up a red apple, you would say it's not red?
I would say it's red, and I would not mean the light reflected from it is red (though I think that's a reasonable thing to say), or that the red was in my consciousness (?), or even that the apple merely appeared to be red (though there are circumstances in which I would say that).
According to ... ?
I don't mean just the idea that colours don't exit. I suppose we have Galileo and a range of philosophers who think colours are 'secondary qualities' for that. I mean also the "of course" and "very basic".
It's far from clear whether they are or even can be identical to brain states, but if we're going to account for the experience of red of middle C, we have to do it somehow, and that sort of identify theory has been one of the suggestions that philosophers and others have considered.
But if qualia are identical to brain states, then talk of the brain states is talk about qualia just as much as talk of qualia is talk of the brain states. (Identity is symmetric.)
Seeing that sexual selection occurs because of individuals favouring some genetically-influenced attribute, there are good reasons to think that an appreciation of art in a small number of individuals will cause selection pressure towards genes that help individuals to create art which causes selection pressure towards appreciation of art etc.
It may be the case that there's more research needed to look into evolution and aesthetics but it seems there's already too much evidence to categorically say evolution through natural selection cannot explain art.
Humans don't usually produce art to attract a mate. They may use self adornment but art is something else and often done in isolation.
According to me, within the context of the part of my post you replaced with ellipsis, but the expressions were born of frustration and I do apologise.
I just don't see how it would help to even try to do so. It must be true that we do experience those things, but at best I fear research into actual brain states (while they obviously can't be "identical" to the experiences) can only show that something happens somewhere in the brain. So what?
What I don't believe in is man-made established religions.
BIB - I would say this is a very common way of attracting a mate - reciting poetry, serenading, dancing, use of language etc can all be thought of as artistic and are common in courtship. And people with these skills are more likely than average to be able to create art for reasons other than courtship.
I can't be sure I've quite untangled your discussion with bollywood about whether science / natural selection can explain the complex brain, but I think Bolly's vew may just be that we don't have the explanation now -- which is something "can't explain" might mean -- and that a belief that there will eventually be an explanation has an element of faith.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, especially when it's about natural selection rather than science more generally. It's not faith based on nothing; it's not unreasonable faith; but it's faith nonetheless.
Unfortunately, since debates about evolution are still entangled with debates on religion, and with the threat of creationism getting into schools, ways of testing and questioning a theory that would normally be considered acceptable are instead treated as out of bounds in ways that can seem "religious". A charge of "Darwinian fundamentalism" sometimes makes sense, and even scientists who don't have quite the right views are treated as heretics. (Consider Dennett's rather unpleasant attacks on Stephen J. Gould which continued even after Gould's death. Dennett's comments may even have become nastier now that Gould can no longer defend himself or strike back.)
I think that even religiously motivated critiques should be considered seriously if they raise a genuine issue. One example is the irreducible complexity arguments offered by some advocates of intelligent design. Regardless of our view of intelligent design (is it science, pseudo-science, disguised creationism?), it is legitimate to ask whether evolution by natural selection can account for the development of structures that seem irreducibly complex -- as a general question or as one about specific structures.
I think that saying science can't handle consciousness can be productive, depending on how people react to it. It can be treated as a challenge to those who think science can explain consciousness to try to prove that by explaining it. And it can get people thinking about why it can seem that science can't explain consciousness. It can help people focus on aspects of consciousness that seem especially difficult to explain. (I think David Chalmers drawing attention to what he called the "hard problem" is one of the most productive things that's happened in thinking about consciousness.)
Magenta is one of the primary pigments, however. That seems real enough. Why not?
Do you think there are genes for artistic behaviour rather than it being leaned and invented?
So how much of creating poems (for example) is down to genetics? Are we hard-wired for sonnets by our genes, for example? Or only for poetry in some more general sense? Or not even that but only for some abilities that are also useful in creating poems?
There is no evidence that art ( painting, music, writing) is connected to sexual selection.
The ability to experience art is a much more complex process in humans than birds.
There is no evidence that people who produce art have more offspring. If anything they may be alienated from the culture.
Some art is off putting and hardly courtship friendly is negative or repulsive to some.
This is what I mean by assumptions that are made about behavior, trying to fit them into evolution, whether they fit or not.