Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?

@igm,

igm wrote:

Can you give your definition of 'physical' i.e. its defining characteristics?

Don't ask me, ask your dictionary. Websters, for example, defines physics as "a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions". Accordingly, the related adjective "physical" means "of and relating to physics". Other dictionaries offer practically the same definition of those terms; all that's left for me to do is to use it. I don't have or need my own definition of the terms "physical" and "physics".

igm wrote:

Can you give the defining characteristics of the sensation of the color 'red'?

No I don't. I also don't have to, because the physics of light does not depend on our perception of light, or even on the fact that we have a perception of light. To illustrate, we, unlike bats, have no perception at all of ultrasound. Yet our exploration and knowledge about the physics of it is practically unimpeded. Subjective perception in the psychological sense is irrelevant to physics.

1 Reply

@kYRANI,

Not to put too fine a point on it . . . bullshit. You just make this **** up as you go along, right? Come on, 'fess up . . . you aren't fooling us anyway.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

… all that's left for me to do is to use it. I don't have or need my own definition of the terms "physical" and "physics".

So, to summarise your last post to me… you as a physicist deal with matter and energy and their interactions and you went on to say:

Thomas wrote:

… Subjective perception in the psychological sense is irrelevant to physics.

No doubt you use your work’s computer systems to do your physics and the information is displayed on the screen. You have a subjective perception of the colors on the screen e.g. the symbols. How is this subjective perception ‘irrelevant to physics’?

Can you prove your subjective perception is physical or could it be non-physical? If it is physical where is you evidence? You only have your subjective perception to go on.

If it can’t be proved to be physical, then as you only ever experience subjective perceptions how do you know that so-called matter and energy and their interactions aren’t non-physical i.e. not two things physical and non-physical but ALL non-physical?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

No doubt you use your work’s computer systems to do your physics and the information is displayed on the screen. You have a subjective perception of the colors on the screen e.g. the symbols. How is this subjective perception ‘irrelevant to physics’?

In the sense that the physics I'm practicing is the same whether the computer running my physics experiment delivers its output to me through a loudspeaker, a monitor, or a 1970s text printer. Same physics, different perceptions of those physics. In this sense, my perceptions don't matter.

igm wrote:

Can you prove your subjective perception is physical or could it be non-physical?

No, but I can prove by demonstration that the presence of the physical apparatus is both sufficient and necessary to achieve perception. Humans have achieved it it once they have one or more eyes, one or more optical nerves receiving input from the eyes, a visual cortex receiving input from the optical nerve, and a forebrain receiving input from the visual cortex. You haven't got it if either of them is missing. Hence, while I do not know for certain that there is no extra-physical perception, I can know, and do know, that any extra-physical perception would be left with nothing to do after you've accounted for the physical parts of perception.

Back to the subject of this thread, there is a similar lesson. As a scientific discipline, evolutionary biology has no opinion on whether any gods guided evolution or not. But it does show that once you've accounted for all the purely physical contributions, the gods, if any, would be left with nothing to do.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

No, but I can prove by demonstration that the presence of the physical apparatus is both sufficient and necessary to achieve perception. Humans have achieved it it once they have[. . .]

Given the original post of this thread, I should probably emphasize the word human in this sentence. Much more primitive organisms can achieve a much more primitive form of light perception without full-featured eyes, optical nerves, visual cortexes, and the like. They make do with only photosensitive skin patches, hardwired by a sequence of molecules to their flagella.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

But it does show that once you've accounted for all the purely physical contributions, the gods, if any, would be left with nothing to do.

Although the idea is odious to the religiously fervent, this is a description of the kind of god some intellectuals choose to believe in rather than believe in no god at all--a disinterested prime mover who, having provided the "spark," moves on, showing no further interest in the creation.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

igm wrote:
No doubt you use your work’s computer systems to do your physics and the information is displayed on the screen. You have a subjective perception of the colors on the screen e.g. the symbols. How is this subjective perception ‘irrelevant to physics’?

Your answer was not what I was ‘getting at’. In order for you to do physics you need to ‘subjectively perceive’ the information on the screen. You require subjective perception (as you call it) to make sense of the information you require for your job. Without it the physics you do would be unknown to you i.e. you would not be conscious of it. So in this respect it is not ‘irrelevant to physics’.

igm wrote:
Can you prove your subjective perception is physical or could it be non-physical?

Thomas wrote:

No, but I can prove by demonstration that the presence of the physical apparatus is both sufficient and necessary to achieve perception.

It is not necessary because you can perceive your dreams e.g. you could dream of a normal day working as an IT physicist.

All of your physics could be (as you have said) and you cannot be certain non-physical. My post is designed to show that you cannot be certain that the physical world is not non-physical so when you ask someone else ‘as you did’ to prove that there is physical and non-physical reality… you are in the same position as they are with respect of proving that there is ‘a thing in itself’ physical reality.

Thomas wrote:

Back to the subject of this thread, there is a similar lesson. As a scientific discipline, evolutionary biology has no opinion on whether any gods guided evolution or not. But it does show that once you've accounted for all the purely physical contributions, the gods, if any, would be left with nothing to do.

Your last quote about ‘gods’ is not the subject of the thread and I have not mentioned anything to do with ‘gods’ as I am an atheist. It would have been better to have done a separate post as it confuses the dialogue that we have had in these last few posts.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Your last quote about ‘gods’ is not the subject of the thread and I have not mentioned anything to do with ‘gods’ as I am an atheist.

Actually it is. The author of the thread, proclaiming himself a scientist, expressed increeulity via the title of the thread. He then confessed a Creationist leaning.

1 Reply

@igm,

IGM, if you wish to continue this conversation, you need to do two things:

Please get to the point, if you have a point relating to the topic of this thread.
Please quote me properly, so that readers of your posts may discern what you said, what I said, and who responded to what. Right now, what you said appears on the screen as if I had said it. This confuses your readers, and I won't take any part in that.

I have to say I'm getting impatient with this particular side-thread.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I disagree... but if you want to play at avoiding the issue... go ahead... and make sure you maintain your arrogance levels... they're way up there... and keep avoiding those questions that question your views.

Here is the correction to the easily understandable post above:

igm wrote:

No doubt you use your work’s computer systems to do your physics and the information is displayed on the screen. You have a subjective perception of the colors on the screen e.g. the symbols. How is this subjective perception ‘irrelevant to physics’?

Your answer was not what I was ‘getting at’. In order for you to do physics you need to ‘subjectively perceive’ the information on the screen. You require subjective perception (as you call it) to make sense of the information you require for your job. Without it the physics you do would be unknown to you i.e. you would not be conscious of it. So in this respect it is not ‘irrelevant to physics’.

igm wrote:

Can you prove your subjective perception is physical or could it be non-physical?

Thomas wrote:

No, but I can prove by demonstration that the presence of the physical apparatus is both sufficient and necessary to achieve perception.

It is not necessary because you can perceive your dreams e.g. you could dream of a normal day working as an IT physicist.

All of your physics could be (as you have said) and you cannot be certain non-physical. My post is designed to show that you cannot be certain that the physical world is not non-physical so when you ask someone else ‘as you did’ to prove that there is physical and non-physical reality… you are in the same position as they are with respect of proving that there is ‘a thing in itself’ physical reality.

Thomas wrote:

Back to the subject of this thread, there is a similar lesson. As a scientific discipline, evolutionary biology has no opinion on whether any gods guided evolution or not. But it does show that once you've accounted for all the purely physical contributions, the gods, if any, would be left with nothing to do.

Your last quote about ‘gods’ is not the subject of the thread and I have not mentioned anything to do with ‘gods’ as I am an atheist. It would have been better to have done a separate post as it confuses the dialogue that we have had in these last few posts.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

The title is a question... but what has this to do with my posts... or your need to comment on the one thing that was not to do with my posts?

1 Reply

@igm,

It is however, the topic of this thread. IT isnt about you. I wa mwrely ignoring you till you posted that erroneous statement

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Well spotted! I'm glad you could add your valuable contribution.

I spotted this:

farmerman wrote:

I wa mwrely ...

?

2 Replies

@igm,

I do that to see wjhether folks are smart enough to interpret.
If you can only spell a word one way, you lead a dull life

0 Replies

@igm,

Unlike you igm, farmerman hasn't yet evolved to use small keys. I guess this is just more evidence of evolution working wonders in today's world. You, being the next generation, are adapted to use a keyboard.

0 Replies

The eye evolved from the rearrangement of fundamental particles which humans interpret from their sense perceptions, alone. The current theory is that fundamental particles were created at the big bang. The big bang either had directly or indirectly a ‘prime mover’ or is subject to an ' infinite regress' or appeared from nothing. None of these are satisfactory answers. All are not known to be the fundamental cause of the eye. Therefore the evolution of the eye is fundamentally ‘unknown’ because there is no answer only a succession of unanswered questions. To say the eye evolved is to say very little, it’s not really an answer just a way of creating questions that cannot be answered without giving rise to more questions which in turn cannot be answered. For scientists this is nice work if you can get it!

3 Replies

@igm,

Attempting to isolate the eye from the rest of the biology - whether flora or fauna - is a pursuit of total ignorance. In order to understand evolution, one must look at the millions of years of how and why it was necessary to develope the senses for survival. It was a necessary progression to survive. The question isn't about its complexity; it's about why most life forms developed the need to see, hear, taste, and feel. Those senses became more accute and sensitive for its need to survive in their environment. Evolution proves this thory.

1 Reply

@igm,

"Simplicity is the most eloquent sophistication." (Michelangelo Buonorotti)'
"First be right, then go ahead" (Crockett)

0 Replies

@igm,

You're crackin' me up. You just make this **** up as you do along, right?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You mean hes a regular?
He is merely quoting the Joni Mitchell ( JAmes Taylor} song
"We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon. So weve got to get back to the GAR AR ARAR DEN"

2 Replies

Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know