Evolution As Response Reaction Of The Genotype

[boagie]

Hi Everyone!!

Evolution as the response reactions of the genotype seems somewhat self-evident to me, but, perhaps not to all. It would seem in this reality that, that which has the greater presence and the greater endurance governs through the more temporals reaction to this enduring presence. So what might this say about the nature of the reality we call home, where do we stop reacting and begin actiing, its a silly premise is it not, this same small presence in its temporal nature, suddenly is going to switch roles and govern the greater presence, the greater endurance. Is not evolution, mutation, adaptation, reactionary responses to the physical world, you tell me, how it is, that humanity can in fact get out of this reactionary situtation and become the actor.

[Arjen]

Boagie, I'll try not to be lured into to many comments, but I figure this might help.

In evertything that exists there is consciousness because consciouss is the possibility to be acted upon. Even on vacuüm can be acted in the sense that the vacuüm cannot exist where matter exists. Consciousness, therefore, exists universally. Only something which has the possibility to create a 'database' of past actions upon itself has the possibility to come to 'reason'. To the best of my knowledge only matter has the possibility to create such a 'database'. That is why only material things can come to self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is the cognitive realisation of being acted upon by the comparrison of different 'states' the material thing has been in by use of the 'database'.

Consciousness is the reaction to being acted upon, the growing of grass due to water and sunlight for instance, or the 'carrying' of one rock by another which lies below it. Self-consciousness is the possibility of realisation of being acted upon. Because of self-consciousness the object responds to being acted upon in a second manner which has no physical causal relation to being acted upon; the drive to re-act. By such a drive the object, if it has the means to do so can re-act. The possibility to do so lies in self-consciousness, the 'database'. It creates the possibility to re-act by the non-physical 'movement' created in the database by the physical movement.

Hope this helps.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by boagie

Is not evolution, mutation, adaptation, reactionary responses to the physical world

You're mixing a lot of terms and concepts here. Mutation can happen because of errors in DNA transcription, errors in DNA proofreading, free radicals, UV light, etc. It's not a reaction except in the sense that it's the end result of a chemical reaction that is NOT selectively induced.

Evolution is a genetic change on a population level that happens over time. At the nonacademic level that people talk about this here, you'd think that it's just a phenotypic change. But evolution can be easily measured and studied even in instances where no changed phenotype is produced. However, to get at the heart of your question, evolution cannot be simply described as a "reactionary response to the physical world". Why? Because the most influential factors in evolution have to do with statistical phenomena -- like the effect of non-random mating and small population size on allele frequency within a population. Natural selection exerts a much smaller force on the genome than plain old genetic drift -- although when present its force is powerful.

Adaptation is both biological and behavioral. We adapted to create clothing rather than biologically evolving to grow fur. Etc.

how it is, that humanity can in fact get out of this reactionary situtation and become the actor.

Easy -- we genetically engineer every single embryo and we selectively abort fetuses that do not meet our standards. That way our genetic evolution is our own doing.

But outside the realm of science fiction, I don't really understand what motivates your question. Sure, it would be great if our intellect and reason ruled the world. But the fact of the matter is we're animals and we're beholden to the constraints of our biology and the permissiveness of our environment -- and nothing can change that.

[Arjen]

Aedes, if genetically engeneering is a way for humanity to get out of the reactionay situation and into the re-actionary situation, then is it not necessary that within us lies something which has the possibility to re-act in the first place?

To me that is something which has the possibility to create, in a limited way; something which is present a priori. That something should, in itself, combine being and creating; or to be more to the point reacting and re-acting. A local version of the first unmoved mover in a way. Although I am of a mind to say that it goes well beyond that in the sense that it is mover.

Hope this helps.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Aedes, if genetically engeneering is a way for humanity to get out of the reactionay situation...

I was being facetious. The point was that THAT would be one way to be the actor on our genes rather than have our population genetics be subject to the environment.

Of course it's impossible technically and it's undesirable anyway.

I feel like the central conflict in all philosophical meditations like this is that we have difficulty reconciling our rational self-image with the fact that we are things in a physical world. Both can be accurate without resorting to dualism; unless you can't let go of the idea that our consciousness can be somehow 'pure' from the physical body that produces it and the physical world that surrounds it. But we are what we are, and we can't always be the actor, especially at the level of our own nucleotides.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Aedes
You're mixing a lot of terms and concepts here. Mutation can happen because of errors in DNA transcription, errors in DNA proofreading, free radicals, UV light, etc. It's not a reaction except in the sense that it's the end result of a chemical reaction that is NOT selectively induced.


I believe those aspects of one process are indeed reactions, transformation does not occur in the absence of reaction. The above you state, it's not a reaction expcept in the sense that it's the end result of a chemical reaction that is not selectively induced. Sound like reaction to me!!.

"Evolution is a genetic change on a population level that happens over time. At the nonacademic level that people talk about this here, you'd think that it's just a phenotypic change. But evolution can be easily measured and studied even in instances where no changed phenotype is produced. However, to get at the heart of your question, evolution cannot be simply described as a "reactionary response to the physical world". Why? Because the most influential factors in evolution have to do with statistical phenomena -- like the effect of non-random mating and small population size on allele frequency within a population. Natural selection exerts a much smaller force on the genome than plain old genetic drift -- although when present its force is powerful." quote

Could you expand on genetic drift? By statistical phenomena you are then infering they have no bases in reality? Are they not an expression of the conditions phenomena are subject too?

"Adaptation is both biological and behavioral. We adapted to create clothing rather than biologically evolving to grow fur. Etc." quote

These two things cannot be considered of different natures, your behaviour is an expression of your biology. Adaptation is a reaction, weather your biology reacts to grow a fur coat or you adapt to create clothing----its all reaction.

"Easy -- we genetically engineer every single embryo and we selectively abort fetuses that do not meet our standards. That way our genetic evolution is our own doing." quote

Like you said, you were dipping into science fiction, There is only one thing biology can do, and that is react to its environment. It is true there are many choices, many possiablities, but whatever you choose, it will be, a reaction to your environment.

"But outside the realm of science fiction, I don't really understand what motivates your question. Sure, it would be great if our intellect and reason ruled the world. But the fact of the matter is we're animals and we're beholden to the constraints of our biology and the permissiveness of our environment -- and nothing can change that." quote

I could not agree more, that was my point, but, you cannot even say that the environment acts, unless you mean by that anything which exists is acting, the environment simply is, and it is to the envioronment that biology is bound to react to.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by boagie

... you tell me, how it is, that humanity can in fact get out of this reactionary situtation and become the actor.

Don't do it! It's a trap!

Didn't we already well establish that any action is comprised of elements to which one could say we're reacting? The only way to get around this is to come up with any action taken which does not have any elements (of any type), at all.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Boagie, I'll try not to be lured into to many comments, but I figure this might help.

In evertything that exists there is consciousness because consciouss is the possibility to be acted upon. Even on vacuüm can be acted in the sense that the vacuüm cannot exist where matter exists. Consciousness, therefore, exists universally. Only something which has the possibility to create a 'database' of past actions upon itself has the possibility to come to 'reason'. To the best of my knowledge only matter has the possibility to create such a 'database'. That is why only material things can come to self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is the cognitive realisation of being acted upon by the comparrison of different 'states' the material thing has been in by use of the 'database'.

Consciousness is the reaction to being acted upon, the growing of grass due to water and sunlight for instance, or the 'carrying' of one rock by another which lies below it. Self-consciousness is the possibility of realisation of being acted upon. Because of self-consciousness the object responds to being acted upon in a second manner which has no physical causal relation to being acted upon; the drive to re-act. By such a drive the object, if it has the means to do so can re-act. The possibility to do so lies in self-consciousness, the 'database'. It creates the possibility to re-act by the non-physical 'movement' created in the database by the physical movement.
Hope this helps.

Arjen,

I would say consciousness is reaction as effect. If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that the physical world is acting upon the organism, I would agree if, it is said that being itself is acting, thus the greater the manifestation, the more enduring its existence, the more it evokes reaction-- and thus establishes relation.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Don't do it! It's a trap!

Didn't we already well establish that any action is comprised of elements to which one could say we're reacting? The only way to get around this is to come up with any action taken which does not have any elements (of any type), at all.

Khethil,

Well, weather we did or no, your statement is right on the money. Actually I would rather think in terms of cooperation than anyone setting traps--------sounds kind of negative. This business of action on the part of the physical world, I do not know quite what to make of that, is that which is being, is existence, of neccessity acting? It would seem your contribution answers that for us, yes its very existence is mutual reaction, but is its relation to a organism one of action, the action of being, the action of presence, existence? What say you Khethil??

An emergent quality is not of cause, but relational transformation of the elements of at least two objects, conditions or substances. The essence of what will be is in the nature of what is called cause and effect, two constitutions that react to emerge as something new or to produce something new.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Arjen

In evertything that exists there is consciousness because consciouss is the possibility to be acted upon. Even on vacuüm can be acted in the sense that the vacuüm cannot exist where matter exists. Consciousness, therefore, exists universally. Only something which has the possibility to create a 'database' of past actions upon itself has the possibility to come to 'reason'. To the best of my knowledge only matter has the possibility to create such a 'database'. That is why only material things can come to self-consciousness.

Darwin's theory is supporting the idea that evolution occurs gradually right? Based upon succession. Mutation is random so they go on all the time and only some will succeed and most will fail as they can't be in correspondence to the environment.
But with consciousness as universal, does that mean that the genes with the possible mutations and other info could be gathered and stored for a period of time until when a reason is resolved (to have a more successive genotype) due to a vast expanse of genetic information, of past generations, and present entity, there would be a very quick instance in which that 'reason' would be fulfilled, thus making evolution happen in instances, not gradually. Therefore, are you purposely denouncing darwin's theory of evolution like I am.