[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 386 KB, 496x384, 1274713657840.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2393275 No.2393275 [Reply] [Original]

The biggest remaining problems in biology:

1. Which exact processes are the material basis of consciousness?
2. Why did consciousness evolve?
3. How exactly did life first start on earth?

(in no particular order)

Anything else?

Discuss.

>> No.2393289

1. Which exact processes are the material basis of consciousness?
>batshit amount of neurons changing information creating the illusion of consciousness
2. Why did consciousness evolve?
>probably little by little, those who were little bit more tend to be 'aware' or what the fuck is the word survived better
3. How exactly did life first start on earth?
>Meteor hit earth in its early stages perhaps ?

I don't know jack shit, this is just my popsci and I know these are way too simple answers.

>> No.2393315

>>2393289

>batshit amount of neurons changing information creating the illusion of consciousness

EXACT processes. And besides, consciousness is not an illusion. It is an actual phenomenon.

>probably little by little, those who were little bit more tend to be 'aware' or what the fuck is the word survived better

Evolutin always works in small steps. The problem is why consciousness should evolve, when, as far as we know, the mental has no impact on the physical. The physical is governed only by the laws of physics. What is the advantage of consciousness then?

>Meteor hit earth in its early stages perhaps ?

Wat? How could that possibly create life?

>> No.2393324

1. Which exact processes are the material basis of consciousness?

some shit in the brain

2. Why did consciousness evolve?

because it works and females like smart males

3. How exactly did life first start on earth?

abiogenesis

>> No.2393344

Continuing with a paradigm that has failed to explain consciousness and basing two of your big questions on the unfounded assumptions of that paradigm means that you will never successfully answer those questions

>> No.2393347

>>2393315

>EXACT processes.
What makes a "computer program" work? It's a bunch of electrons flying around and logic gates, at the very basic. There's no part you can point to and say "Here. This is the exact part where it stops being a bunch of plastic and metal and becomes a computer that can run programmes." (imperfect analogy, but basically it's emergentism)

>What is the advantage of consciousness then?
Identity creates a greater motivation for self-preservation. Even more so when you consider in a community context

>> No.2393351

>>2393315
>the mental has no impact on the physical
dualist detected.
Get the fuck out

>> No.2393355

Anyway the biggest problem remaining in biology is

"How can we finally, simply, resolutely and demonstratively prove evolution so the religious groups can shut up?"

>> No.2393367

>2. Why did consciousness evolve?
Because it's useful for social activities, and for the rest too.

>> No.2393369

>>2393324
Stop being so dumb please.

1) "some shit in the brain" is not an exact scientific explanation
2) Intelligence is not equal to consciousness, and your referal to sexual selection is rather poor.
3) Abiogenesis is the field of study of the origin of life. It is NOT an explanation of it. Just like "mechanics" is not an answer to the question "How does stuff move?" or "marine biology" is not an answer to the question "What is the average life span of a dolphin?"

>> No.2393371

I guess i'll post this here. Some more interesting questions as well as the "problems in neuroscience" which relates more specifically to OP's question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_biology

>> No.2393375
File: 59 KB, 496x384, ohcarl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2393375

>>2393275

>> No.2393410

As a philosophy student I must comment that a lot of you don't seem to understand the philosophical issues behind consciousness.

1) Consciousness is real, it is not an illusion. Consciousness refers to all perceptions.
2) Those perceptions are most likely caused my something physical. The question is what exactly.
3) The perceptions probably don't effect matter, since matter changes only according to the laws of physics.
4) This is not substance dualism. Perceptions are obviously not some form of mystical substance. That is just retarded.

>> No.2393421

>>2393410
Isn't consciousness the awareness of oneself ?

>> No.2393424

>>2393410

we're not saying it's fake, just an emergent property
kinda like how solid objects are real, yet solidity is an
emergent property of atoms (not so solid themselves)
packing tightly together

>> No.2393431

Just my opinions on the matter (not saying evolution does not exist)
1) God made it be
2) God made it be
3) God made it be

>> No.2393434

Before the emergence of consciousness can be explained, we need to figure out what it is. This cannot be done purely in terms of abstract definitions, obviously, it needs empirical input.

A subjectivist approach to consciousness is unlikely to ever answer questions, what we need to do is figure out how and if various parts of conscious experience can be cashed out in biochemical terms.

>> No.2393436

>>2393421
You mean self-consciousness
>>2393424
Consciousness is caused by material processes, but it is not simply a state of matter. That is just silly. You couldn't say something like "3 atoms x + 4 atoms y = perception of red". Even if the left side of this equation was a lot more complicated, but you should get the point.

>> No.2393438

we cannot know until we may operate freely on live human beings
we have to put them in particle accelerators and shit which is not allowed at the moment

>> No.2393441

>>2393438

Put humans in particle accelerators?

I am ashamed to be of the same species as you right now, and it is not for ethical reasons.

>> No.2393448

1. Which exact processes are the material basis of consciousness?
I take it you know nothing of how your hard drive works.
2. Why did consciousness evolve?
Survival of the fittest.
3. How exactly did life first start on earth?
Why does this have to be answered? There are a number of theories that all can be proven to be a method of creating life. They are theories in that it can't be proven which one actually happened.

>> No.2393451

>>2393436

Have you ever studied computer science in the least bit?
We can put, say, some array of binary bits on one data path, some on another, have them added together in some long complex logic chain and somewhere down the line we have a the emergence of a chess player able to beat any human. It's simple in it's working, just not it's action.

>> No.2393457

The biggest remaining problems in biology:

1. How exactly did life first start on earth?
Oparin-Haldane theory pretty much explains it. Primordial Soup thery, btw.

2. Why did consciousness evolve?
>I like to think that we forced our brain too much then we started to be conscious since we started to live in the first societies. Also, grown human beings estimulate their sons, teaching them to talk, read, think logically. I guess if we just left a human being into the wild with the due security, but with no social estimulation, he/she wouldn't have any trace of consciousness... after the brain fully evolved, of course

1. Which exact processes are the material basis of consciousness?
>Lots and lots of electrical pulses, nothing special, we just have a hijacked brain.

>> No.2393465

>>2393315
>the mental has no impact on the physical
>does not notice dwelling crafted by human sentience

>> No.2393470

>>2393448
>I take it you know nothing of how your hard drive works.
Hard drives are not conscious.

>Survival of the fittest.
Exactly. Not survival of the most conscious. So what makes those that are the most conscious also the most fittest?

>Why does this have to be answered? There are a number of theories that all can be proven to be a method of creating life. They are theories in that it can't be proven which one actually happened.

Exact methods have, to my knowledge, not been proposed yet. There are good ideas like the RNA world hypothesis, but they don't give an exact explanation. We may also be able to figuer out which methods are more likely by looking at geological (and other) evidence

>> No.2393476

>>2393457
neurons are chemically controlled. the illusion of electricity is in the voltages used to control ion channels from opening in the membranes of the neuron

>> No.2393483

>>2393465
Buildings are not build by ideas or perceptions. They are build through physical processes.

>> No.2393488

>>2393451

What is your point? Computers are still not conscious.

>> No.2393501

>>2393483
no it is built through a mental process of developing new materials to better suit your situation.

>> No.2393510

Oh my /sci/... I haven't seen a single intelligent post in this thread yet that wasn't made by me...

is "hurr durr consciousness evolved cause of survival of the fittest" seriously the best you can come up with? You are a disgrace.

>> No.2393513

>>2393483
>YOU THINK THEREFORE YOU ARE.

If you make a choice you have thought. Clearly thinking about better scenarios has a large impact on your physical being.

>> No.2393520

>>2393501
I think you seem to be mixing up "What our brain does" with "Consciousness"

Consciousness is, no doubt, caused by our brain. But the question is why our brain can't function without it just aswell and still cause our muscles to move in the right way, e.g. to build houses in increasingly better ways, using increasingly better materials

>> No.2393526

>>2393513

"Cogito ergo sum" is not a causal explanation but rather one of argumentation. Descartes argued that we can know that we exist, because we think. This is a completley different matter. It is dumb of you to think it has anything to do with the topic.

>> No.2393535

>>2393520
i think you may be over complicating an issue to sound smart. Animals with a conscious have evolved to a greater standard of life, thus it has had an effect on the physical form of humans.

If this isn't "why" enough for you, feel free to argue with your humanities prof later.

>> No.2393538

>>2393275
Who is the guy in that pic again?

>> No.2393542

>>2393535
you clearly don't understand the problem

The problem is that, from all we know, consciousness does not effect the physical processes in our brain at all. The opposite is the case. Consciousness is caused by our brain. So if consciousness has no effect on our brain, and by extension on our actions, what is the point?

>> No.2393545
File: 222 KB, 468x382, 1283538514363.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2393545

>>2393538

>> No.2393562

>>2393545
Just tell me I only lurk /sci/ sometimes for the funny discussions.

>> No.2393565

Carl Sagan

>> No.2393571

>>2393562
Neil DeGrasse Tyson

>> No.2393575

>>2393571
Thanks
>>2393565
Fuck you troll.

>> No.2393576

Consciousness is not the same as free will, which are both not the same as subjectivity.

Consciousness is probably best described as the brains simulation of itself. It is a way to analyse what we did, and predict what we might do. This is very useful, since it allows us to self-assess and anticipate future challenges. We don't have a handle on this yet, but there is no reason to believe that the brain alone does not do this.

Free will is best described as the brains decision making process. There is nothing weird about this either. Data goes in, decisions come out. It is deterministic, but obscenely complicated. This is even more solved than consciousness, since we have studies that show decisions occurring before they are consciously recognised.

Subjectivity, the unique qualia of experiencing things from ones own perspective, well, that is the problem, isn't it? I am of the opinion that every aspect of human behavior and thought processes will be explained by science, but that will still make no headway on the problem of why I feel like I am me.


As for life starting on earth; this is an open question as well. And to be frank, not one that needs an answer. One can apply the anthropic principle to any problem of rarity, to neatly solve that. I hope that we figure this one out to a reasonable degree of certainty, but it is not required to fill any gaps in our understanding of the rest of biology. And since it was a rare historical event, with no witnesses and likely no direct fossils, we can never be sure by any means.

>> No.2393583

What is the cause of the apparent rapid diversification of multicellular animal life around the beginning of the Cambrian, resulting in the emergence of almost all modern animal phyla?

Ideas ?

>> No.2393598

>>2393583

Evolution by means of natural selection.

>> No.2393611

>>2393598
Why in that specific era then ? Why so fast in that era ?

>> No.2393631

Consciousness is just a sort of a feedback loop, allowing you to analyze the reasons of your actions.

The conscious mind is usually the last part of the brain to receive information of a decision being made.

>> No.2393653

i dont have much valid input for this topic, but after eating acid about a month ago its been bugging the shit out of me :P

http://socyberty.com/philosophy/do-nano-wormholes-compose-the-matrix-of-a-cosmic-over-mind/

this article doesn't explain what is actually going on, but it dabbles into some interesting theories about where to look for answers.

mainly, it talks about microscopic sub-particle sized wormholes (to the point where billions to trillions could exist between 2 atoms at any given moment) and how they could be the basis for our perception of time and possibly explain why we feel that little slither of the 4th dimension that we do. they have theories of these wormholes connecting particles in our brain in some way to a "matrix of consciousness"

lastly, id check out anything on the "god-particle". many people believe this "particle" is the reason that certain particles can have mass at all, and that it also may be related to the existance of consciousness

again, this is just me googling random stuff.
i dont think there are any solid answers about the origins of consciousness, but i think we're getting closer

>> No.2393664

>>2393653
Not h8ing, but
>mainly, it talks about microscopic sub-particle sized wormholes (to the point where billions to trillions could exist between 2 atoms at any given moment) and how they could be the basis for our perception of time and possibly explain why we feel that little slither of the 4th dimension that we do. they have theories of these wormholes connecting particles in our brain in some way to a "matrix of consciousness"

Sounds like... popsci/moviescience.

>> No.2393673

It, like everything else, evolved randomly and propagated because it was effective.

>> No.2393707

not sure if serious, but anyways...

>1. Which exact processes are the material basis of consciousness?

sensing of internal and external environments, transmitting sensory signals, processing of sensory signals for pattern recognition, memory, visualization, comparison of sensory signals to remembered patterns, editing of sensory information for patterns, internal manipulation of sensory information and memories to produce preditiction, and integration of these processes in real time to produce qualia.

>2. Why did consciousness evolve?

an organism that senses its environment has an advantage.

an organism that recognizes patterns in those environments has an advantage.

an organism that remembers patterns in past environments has an advantage.

an organism that can compare past patterns to current patterns to extrapolate possible future outcomes has an advantage.

an organism that can do all these things while chewing gum and walking has a lot of advantages.

>> No.2393740

>>2393707
All those things you described can be produced without consciousness.

>> No.2393776

>>2393611

It was not really significantly faster than in any other epoch. The unfamiliarity of body plans makes it seem more exotic, but that's only because modern body plans only arise far later. Saying all modern phyla's arise there is misleading, since while it is technically true, they do not appear in anywhere near current form, there is still a lot to go after that point.

In the lead up to the arrival of complex multicellular life, we see a gradual increase in the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. This is a good source of quick energy for life, but the processes that unlock it can take a long time. So we need a reservoir of it to start off.

>> No.2393791

>>2393740
Individually, yes.

you don't think consciousness sprang up fully formed one day, do you?

>> No.2393819

>>2393791
Collectively, or individually.
I can make a computer program that can demonstrate prediction, pattern recognition, memory and so on and yet I wouldn't say it is conscious.

>> No.2393827

>>2393819
integration problem.

if you overcome it, I would guess you'd have consciousness- so long as you designed environments for it that have the basic structure of life and its environments.

>> No.2393861

How does evolution explain how sex came about?

>> No.2393897
File: 592 KB, 800x675, 1295715664170.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2393897

>>2393861

sex is why evolution exists in the first place

>> No.2393899

>>2393861
See: conjugation of bacteria. Sexual reproduction happened in ancestors of eukaryotes, it can lead to increased survivability.

>> No.2393939
File: 292 KB, 1157x1637, 1290852487534.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2393939

why are people feeding this troll?
we all know conciousness is caused by the fucking brain, and what survival advantages it endows it's user with. This guy is just a religious troll stirring up shit, so have some gay porno for all the good this thread will do.

God speed whoever gets /sci/ janitors position.

>> No.2394277

>>2393939

To be fair, subjectivity is a big problem. It's just that nobody, not science, not religion, not philosophy, nobody, has any idea why we feel like we are us.

The decision making process, the running commentary of what is going on in our own brains, and so on, these are solved problems, so far as I am concerned. Certainly more solved than the link between the quantum and the relativistic.

>> No.2394304

>>2393897
herp asexual reproduction derp

>> No.2394312

>>2393861

Sex is like evolution on crack, but evolution happens fine without some form of recombinant process.

>> No.2394320

>>2394303

>> No.2394335

>>2393861

Not a biologist, but here is my explanation:

>Sexual reproduction increased the rate of mutation. Asexual reproduction is essentially cloning, so the rate of mutation would be very low. Combining two sets of genes increases genetic diversity, increases the likelihood of mutation, and allows species to adapt quicker. Three or more sexes would be superfluous, physically difficult (both the actual sex and the process of finding two or more other mates), and the rate of mutation would be detrimental instead of beneficial, since most mutations are harmful.
>Sexual reproduction divides tasks between sexes and is more efficient (the males hunt, the females raise the young), promotes socializing (complex social structures can now develop, a human-like species could not be asexual).