Let's talk consciousness.

[Belindi]

True about the need for struggle to exist until reproduction, but without genetic variations there can't be any variations for selecting from.

Have a look at how artificial selection too relies upon random variations

Is there a "reason" why people are seduced by the word "random"?

A new individual may be genetically engineered by a genetic variation that is not random but has been caused by human intervention. However when we say "natural selection" we are talking variations that genetic engineers have not caused to happen and which are accounted random.

Then again there is artificial selection which happens when animals and plants were first domesticated and when present day breeders want to select for certain characteristics such as herding ability in dogs , or fancy colours in horses , or disease resistant wheat.

[Ranvier]

Is there a "reason" why people are seduced by the word "random"?

A new individual may be genetically engineered by a genetic variation that is not random but has been caused by human intervention. However when we say "natural selection" we are talking variations that genetic engineers have not caused to happen and which are accounted random.

Then again there is artificial selection which happens when animals and plants were first domesticated and when present day breeders want to select for certain characteristics such as herding ability in dogs , or fancy colours in horses , or disease resistant wheat.
[/quote]

The process of evolution that took life from unicellular Prokaryotes to multicellular Eukaryotes with multiple complex body systems, Including an elaborate nervous system with "consciousness", wasn't a "random" process. The evolution reveals a pattern and a distinct direction that simply can't be explained by "random" occurrence. It's as if someone would claim to type with closed eyes "random" keys on the keyboard and produce the best selling trilogy in one draft with relatively very little "gibberish" in between (genetic abnormalities). Statistically, it's nearly impossible.

Hence my question: 'Is there a "reason" why people are seduced by the word "random"'? Too many people are deliberately "insistent" on using this word to be: "random" & without a "reason".

[Stoppelmann]

William James delineates the problem most sharply:
The demand for continuity has, over large tracts of science, proved itself to possess true prophetic power. We ought therefore ourselves sincerely to try every possible mode of conceiving the dawn of consciousness so that it may not appear equivalent to the irruption into the universe of a new nature, non-existent until then. Merely to call the consciousness ‘nascent’ will not serve our turn. It is true that the word signifies not yet quite born, and so seems to form a sort of bridge between existence and nonentity. But that is a verbal quibble. The fact is that discontinuity comes in if a new nature comes in at all. The quantity of the latter is quite immaterial. The girl in ‘Midshipman Easy’ could not excuse the illegitimacy of her child by saying, ‘it was a very small one’. And consciousness, however small, is an illegitimate birth in any philosophy that starts without it, and yet professes to explain all facts by continuous evolution. If evolution is to work smoothly, consciousness in some shape must have been present at the very origin of things.
James 1890, vol 1 (148–9: emphases in original).

Philosopher of mind Nakita Newton writes that ‘phenomenal consciousness itself is sui generis. Nothing else is like it in any way at all’.34 Of course, she is consummately right. It comprehensively fails the H2O-to-liquid test. Other philosophers have expressed similar views. For example, Colin McGinn puts it with customary vividness: ‘You might as well assert that numbers emerge from biscuits or ethics from rhubarb.’35 Searching for an explanation in molecular biology appears to be a category mistake (unless consciousness is already assumed there, in which case it is not an explanation). So Gunther Stent writes: Searching for a ‘molecular’ explanation of consciousness is a waste of time, since the physiological processes responsible for this wholly private experience will be seen to degenerate into seemingly quite ordinary, workaday reactions – no more and no less fascinating than those that occur in, say, the liver.36 Even Sherrington came to the conclusion that ‘we have difficulty in assigning the lower limit of the mental. It may therefore be that its distribution extends to all organisms, and even further … it is as though the elementary mental had never been wanting.’37 Neuroscientists VS Ramachandran and Colin Blakemore conclude that ‘consciousness, like gravity, mass, and charge, may be one of the irreducible properties of the universe for which no further account is possible.’38 Physicists agree. According to Heisenberg, ‘if we go beyond biology and include psychology in the discussion, then there can scarcely be any doubt but that the concepts of physics, chemistry, and evolution together will not be sufficient to describe the facts.’
The Matter with Things, Ian McGilchrist

[Ranvier]

Stoppelmann

Indeed, my sentiment as well.

[Ranvier]

I "feel" the limits of my brain power, unable to extrude beyond itself. I can "feel" the pattern but can't quite make sense" of it.

[Ranvier]

I'm apprehensive about the notion of expanding "consciousness", for several "reasons". However, I believe the next evolutionary step for our species is an integration of "consciousness", without the barrier of language. In some sense direct "melding" of brain power into a much grater "consciousness". My individual mind can master only few disciplines of "knowledge" at best but if my mind had an instant access to other minds, it would be conceivable to characterize "consciousness" much better as a concept. We already have nearly instantaneous access to virtually all of human "knowledge" through internet but it's still not directly assimilated "knowledge" of my individual mind. The idea of augmenting my own brain with an artificial intelligence isn't quite appealing, although AI most likely will play a role in connecting of human minds. Regardless of my individual unease about this proposition, this seems to be the pattern of nature. Although, we should make sure first that other parts of our galaxy have independent life beyond Earth.

[Belindi]

Is there a "reason" why people are seduced by the word "random"?

A new individual may be genetically engineered by a genetic variation that is not random but has been caused by human intervention. However when we say "natural selection" we are talking variations that genetic engineers have not caused to happen and which are accounted random.

Then again there is artificial selection which happens when animals and plants were first domesticated and when present day breeders want to select for certain characteristics such as herding ability in dogs , or fancy colours in horses , or disease resistant wheat.

The process of evolution that took life from unicellular Prokaryotes to multicellular Eukaryotes with multiple complex body systems, Including an elaborate nervous system with "consciousness", wasn't a "random" process. The evolution reveals a pattern and a distinct direction that simply can't be explained by "random" occurrence. It's as if someone would claim to type with closed eyes "random" keys on the keyboard and produce the best selling trilogy in one draft with relatively very little "gibberish" in between (genetic abnormalities). Statistically, it's nearly impossible.

Hence my question: 'Is there a "reason" why people are seduced by the word "random"'? Too many people are deliberately "insistent" on using this word to be: "random" & without a "reason".
[/quote]
Evolution by natural selection was not random, as you say. Mutation of genes is random as we don't know enough to predict when a mutation will happen in whatever species.
'Random' has two meanings. One meaning is that we can't predict an effect of causes as the system is too chaotic for our capability. The other meaning of 'random' describes an uncaused event.

[Ranvier]

Evolution by natural selection was not random, as you say. Mutation of genes is random as we don't know enough to predict when a mutation will happen in whatever species.
'Random' has two meanings. One meaning is that we can't predict an effect of causes as the system is too chaotic for our capability. The other meaning of 'random' describes an uncaused event.

Every second, millions of your DNA sequences undergo spontaneous mutations due to free radicals and replication errors, including your gametes (sperm or oocytes). Most of these errors occur in VNTR's & introns (non-coding or non-gene sequence of nucleotides) and are innocuous, unless the rate of these spontaneous mutations is increased (Ex. radiation) or "bad luck" of error occurring in exon (gene coding sequence), especially p53 sequence of regulatory protein (causing cancer). These spontaneous mutations accumulate throughout your life but generally have very little impact on your haploid gametes. Of course this risk of genetic mutation increases with your age at the time of your procreation. However, the genetic variation of your haploid gametes is a result of several mechanisms causing genetic recombination of your DNA, to induce the genetic variability of your offspring. This DNA recombination to produce gametes is the major "cause" in gain of function and the evolutionary change... NOT "random" mutation of your DNA.

This is an interesting concept: "'random' describes an uncaused event"
What's an "uncaused event"? How does it occur? Please don't write "random", as explaining "random" as a "random" event would be silly.

[Belindi]

Ranvier, an uncaused event would, if it existed, be an event that was not only inexplicable by man but was also inexplicable by any possible intelligence. The uncaused event is known to us as 'God' or 'existence itself', except that to call either a mere "event" is a misnomer.

[Belindi]

Ranvier, an uncaused event would, if it existed, be an event that was not only inexplicable by man but was also inexplicable by any possible intelligence. The uncaused event is known to us as 'God' or 'existence itself', except that to call either a mere "event" is a misnomer.

When people say that mutation of genes is "random" they don't mean random in the above metaphysical sense but in the sense of causes are so chaotic that they are indescribable.

[Ranvier]

Ranvier, an uncaused event would, if it existed, be an event that was not only inexplicable by man but was also inexplicable by any possible intelligence. The uncaused event is known to us as 'God' or 'existence itself', except that to call either a mere "event" is a misnomer.

[Reality] consists of "energy" in various forms. "Energy" can't be created nor destroyed, only change forms. In this context of "energy":
Causation - is an essential step in change of "energy" from one form to another. Ex. a molecule of glucose (hexose ring), can be in different structural conformations, where to flip from one conformation (A) to another (C) it must pass through a "middle" (B) conformation. The "middle" conformation (B) is the "cause" of A & C. Then of course we can go into greater detail of what "caused" (initiated) B<>C and vice versa but for the point of this argument we'll leave A<>B<>C only conceptualizing the "cause" as B for both A&C.

In no way I'm excluding any possibility from my "consciousness", including "magic" or "miracles". However, "things" don't appear & disappear out of "nothing" and then reappear at a different location. Something "caused" these events and since there is no such thing as "nothing", there had to be a transitional state. It's possible that God ("energy" of unknown state) can potentially "be" without any change and still "exist", although from a human perspective it's nearly impossible to imagine, yet I just did (miracle?). Otherwise, for the appear<>disappear<>reappear scenario, there was a "change" between different states and there was a "cause" for these changes to occur, even if it's something abstract as [Reason].

[Ranvier]

When people say that mutation of genes is "random" they don't mean random in the above metaphysical sense but in the sense of causes are so chaotic that they are indescribable.

Aside form the fact that spontaneous gene mutation ("random") has essentially no impact on evolution, the concept of "random" is entirely different from "chaotic".

Random - simply means without any discernable pattern: Ex. rain drops falling on the ground (it's not chaotic, unless it's a severe storm). It's a process that can be quite pleasant (rain) or annoying (static noise) but not violent
Chaotic - implies a wade range of distribution, with violent of rapid change in overall state of the "system": Ex. car accident is chaotic. Not pleasant! Unless someone enjoys chaos, possible.

[Consul]

[Reality] consists of "energy" in various forms.

No, it doesn't!

QUOTE>
"Energy is not a stuff. …Rather, energy is a real, quantitative property…. Not every property of an object consists of the object's possessing some sort of stuff. For example, to be happy is not to be filled with a large quantity of a special kind of stuff: 'happiness'. A body's velocity does not measure the amount of a stuff that it possesses. Likewise, neither a body's kinetic energy nor a field's energy is stuff.
...
Since energy is a property, any energy (like velocity) cannot exist without something possessing it. Thus, field energy requires a field."

(Lange, Marc. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics: Locality, Fields, Energy, and Mass. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. p. 152)
<QUOTE

Right, "any energy…cannot exist without something possessing it," but I don't regard fields as substantial substrata, thinking that they are nothing but nonsubstantial collections or distributions of determinate physical quantities belonging to some determinable physical quantity such as energy or mass, whose substantial substratum or possessor is spacetime itself (conceived as a substance in its own right) or "the aether" (conceived as a spacetime-pervading world-medium or world-stuff).

[Consul]

Right, "any energy…cannot exist without something possessing it," but I don't regard fields as substantial substrata, thinking that they are nothing but nonsubstantial collections or distributions of determinate physical quantities belonging to some determinable physical quantity such as energy or mass…

Footnote: What I write above is true of classical fields but not of quantum fields, because these do not consist in attributions of determinate physical quantities to spacetime-points—which raises the question as to whether quantum fields are real physical fields at all rather than mathematical constructs.

There is an essential difference between classical fields and quantum fields. Mathematically, both kinds of fields are well defined and understood. Ontologically and physically, classical fields are well understood too, but quantum fields are not. For in quantum-field theory the quantum-field values assigned to spacetime points are not determinate, definite values of physical quantities but only expectation values for physical quantities that express the probability of measuring some value somewhere. Now the ontological question is: Are such probability fields (probabilistic quantum fields) really out there in the physical world, or are they just physically useful mathematical fictions? Since physics is the science of physical reality and its nature, this question is of utmost importance.

QUOTE>
"The transition from a classical field theory to a quantum field theory is characterized by the occurrence of operator-valued quantum fields phi(x,t), and corresponding conjugate fields, for both of which certain canonical commutation relations hold. Thus there is an obvious formal analogy between classical and quantum fields: in both cases field values are attached to space-time points, where these values are specified by real numbers in the case of classical fields and operators in the case of quantum fields. That is, the mapping x –> phi(x,t) in QFT is analogous to the classical mapping x –> phi(x,t). Due to this formal analogy it appears to be beyond any doubt that QFT is a field theory.

But is a systematic association of certain mathematical terms with all points in space-time really enough to establish a field theory in a proper physical sense? Is it not essential for a physical field theory that some kind of real physical properties are allocated to space-time points? This requirement seems not fulfilled in QFT, however. Teller (1995: ch. 5) argues that the expression quantum field is only justified on a “perverse reading” of the notion of a field, since no definite physical values whatsoever are assigned to space-time points. Instead, quantum field operators represent the whole spectrum of possible values so that they rather have the status of observables (Teller: “determinables”) or general solutions. Only a specific configuration, i.e. an ascription of definite values to the field observables at all points in space, can count as a proper physical field."

Quantum Field Theory: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quan ... ld-theory/
<QUOTE

[Pattern-chaser]

This is an interesting concept: "'random' describes an uncaused event"
What's an "uncaused event"? How does it occur?

Yes, it is interesting.

I think the meaning is obvious. It refers to an event that has no specific cause.

How does it occur? How does any event occur? For, even where cause and effect is in force, the following event is not made to happen by its cause, is it? Or is its cause simply a necessary precursor to that 'caused' event? The latter seems better to me.

Causality is influence by which one event, process, state, or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause.

This is more in line with my thoughts... And this way of looking at it does not answer the question "How does it happen?"

In specific examples, we might be able to say "how" something occurred, but I suspect that in most cases, we could not.