ncastleJC t1_j72aksp wrote
Reply to comment by VoidHuntG03 in What makes humans unique is not reducible to our brains or biology, but how we make sense of experience | Raymond Tallis by IAI_Admin
There’s something intuitive in the evolutionary process. Michael Levin points out how Plenarians, these one-inch words, can be cut up to 200 individual pieces and each one will grow to a regular Plenarian. He postulates the question of what tells the Plenarian to stop growing at one inch and why so symmetrical when it can be cut so much. Some would say “DNA” but he is a biologist who understands the answer is not so simple. Each piece develops it’s own cognition as if it’s an individual once it is separate, but such conflict of growth doesn’t exist once the creature reaches its full state. There’s an underlying executive condition that we don’t understand that guides the genetic information to achieve certain goals. Frog skin cells left in suspension eventually develop their own form and become xenobots and have the capability of developing its own methods of travel and communication, enough so that they can solve basic mazes. Something guides the genetic information we have to experience the world as it is. It’s not so simple as pressure and environment as anything can be scaled, just like how we know there were bigger insects before on earth. Why doesn’t evolution adapt an insect of the past to maintain its giant form despite the pressure from the environment? Couldn’t it have figured out a way to maintain itself? The executive element is the question and how it guides our genetics to adapt.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j730nwk wrote
> Why doesn’t evolution adapt an insect of the past to maintain its giant form despite the pressure from the environment? Couldn’t it have figured out a way to maintain itself?
What? That's well known. The O2 content of the atmosphere.
This whole post is just bollocks appealing the to mysticism of the unknown. But bro, other people know more than you and have answers.
Gondoulf t1_j7444n5 wrote
So what's the answer to the plenarian and the frog developing its own cognition. I would like to know.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j748kj0 wrote
It's the worm's DNA. A blueprint for what the thing is supposed to built.
The dude's post saying "Nuh-Uh!" does not a legitimate argument make.
The frog skin isn't cognitive like a brain, it's reacting as it ought as if it were on a frog. Which, hey, could be useful.
EDIT: GEEEEEZE, if you ask for an answer TAKE IT when it's given to you instead of saying "NUH UH!" over and over.
Gondoulf t1_j7bvk1f wrote
So the worm's DNA has the information required to build itself fully from a few cells. So the question is why any other animal's DNA (except the hydra) doesn't do the same when it's cut. You have the example of the lizard's tail right, but it doesn't quite satisfy the issue which is that why hasn't this particular regenerating factor been selected. Which then leads us on the question ; why hasn't sissiparity been selected ? Why would natural selection "choose" reproduction with a partner over this one is simply not known. I agree the first post wasn't exactly right, but this doesn't mean the question isn't interesting.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j7cxy7d wrote
> So the question is why any other animal's DNA (except the hydra) doesn't do the same when it's cut.
Because that's not part of the design in the DNA, except for hydras. (And some lizards tails, salamander legs, starfish... Here we go
>why hasn't this particular regenerating factor been selected [in other animals, like humans. I want to regrow a limb!]
Evolution. It's not selecting what's best or what's coolest, it's just whatever works. Like how it's be really nice we didn't get cancer as often, like whales. But the species gets on just fine without that. Or polarized vision of the mantis shrimp. Or the echolocation of bats. Just on and on and on and on. Species envy is real. For every neat trait though, there's typically some drawback. Did you know cat vision is blurry? They sent the light through their sensors twice, and have great lowlight vision, but it makes things blurry. Humans having to work out for their muscles is actually a FEATURE to survive lean times. Ugh.
No, this is only interesting to people who don't know how evolution works. Which, admittedly, is a depressingly high number even among "educated" people. If talking about it helps people get some learning in them, then all the better. But posing it as "haha, humans are magical creatures with souls and special purposes instilled by God because we're so special" is just plain bollocks. The post is literally anti-science. It's questioning the well known and obvious answers that science hass provided. Hey, this is r/philosophy, the place for question. But it's like questioning if the Holocaust happened. Some people are going to take offense. Please mind your lane and keep the philosophical drivel out of the science's territory. Or you will be told how wrong you are.
Gondoulf t1_j7ev63y wrote
Indeed, but sissiparity definitely works better than reproduction with a partner, so why has it not been selected. The primary factor ; natural selection, selects the traits that are most likely to get you reproduced ; so to say it's just what works doesn't quite satisfy the definition. I ask you again the question about sissiparity. Whales don't have less cancer, but more, their large bodies making their cancer having cancer a probability to why they don't die as much as we do for it. I'm not saying there should be perfect animals because it's always selecting the best trait, there's always the intraspecific and interspecific relations that results in much of what we see. I agree with what you say but keep the arguments with the traits of animals, and not the cancer one because that would relate only to mutations and genome errors unlike the selected mutations of the traits. I don't know if that's clear.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j7exc5n wrote
> but sissiparity definitely works better than reproduction with a partner
Bollocks. Asexual reproduction depends on mutation to bring in new genetic material. Sexual reproduction reaps a geometrically increasing history of tests. You really need to read up on this more.
>their large bodies making their cancer having cancer a probability to why they don't die as much as we do for it.
. . . what?
>but keep the arguments with the traits of animals, and not the cancer one because that would relate only to mutations and genome errors unlike the selected mutations of the traits.
oooooooh. Dude. Whales (and all larger animals) have a better system of screening and checking for "mutations and genome errors". This is literally one of their "selected traits". They don't suffer from cancer as much as they ought given they have so many cells.
You REALLY have to learn more about these things before you start trying to stir up philosophical questions about the nature of man.
Gondoulf t1_j7go4o9 wrote
Here's the second phrase of the Wikipedia page you sent : "Currently the adaptive advantage of sexual reproduction is widely regarded as a major unsolved problem in biology". Please don't say it's "bollocks" when it's clearly not clear, and stop with the passive-agressive statements. Now that we know that question of sissiparity is not solved ; the philosophical question can take place. About the whales and the other argument, I was referring to that kurzgesagt video on cancer and whales ; where they do posit the screening system argument and the other which was "more cells, more cancer, but cancerous cells can also get cancer" but now that the research has been made clear on that recently, I understand my lack of knowledge in the whale's cancer departement.
Fluck_Me_Up t1_j731upo wrote
I love how you think about things, and I’m probably going to read about frog skin cells for hours. Thanks for the rabbit hole.
A few points I’d like to make however: for the insect example in particular (and speaking of evolution and executive choice in general) it doesn’t seem to be guided by anything except fitness on an individual and species level.
All of this is, as far as we can tell, guided by emergent properties of the fundamental laws of physics (and speaking generally, the ability to both better use chemical and electromagnetic energy, and ensure offspring survive to reproduce.)
Insects aren’t as large today as they were at one time because atmospheric oxygen levels are much lower.
Insects largely absorb oxygen through their skin, and volume increases much faster than surface area as objects get larger.
This means that large insects were selected against for millions of years, as they couldn’t support their metabolic needs as efficiently as smaller insects due to reduced oxygen in the atmosphere.
There is no “it” to “figure out how to maintain itself”, anymore than the speed of light or an asteroid is an “it” with a sense of self that seeks to preserve itself.
It’s just deceptively simple rules on the smallest scales leading to larger and larger emergent properties and systems that give rise to self perpetuating systems like life.
Just like Conway’s game of life or pareidolia, it’s easy to ascribe an identity to something that has none, simply because some of its properties are reminiscent of systems we are familiar with that have some level of agency and awareness.
medbud t1_j72yxbh wrote
You've misunderstood Levin a bit. His claim is that environment guides cellular development. Specifically, intercellular electrical gradients.
ncastleJC t1_j733cg9 wrote
If you watch his podcast with Lex Friedman he doesn’t really make this claim. I would have to listen back but he doesn’t come to a complete conclusion as he is asked about the nature va nurture debate in it as well. Unless he’s updated the way he explains it in more recent talks since.
medbud t1_j73qc8q wrote
This contains lots of details...https://youtu.be/RwEKg5cjkKQ
He's basically on the same page as Friston with Active Inference and the Free Energy Principle...I can't quite tell what that means in terms of philosophical claims.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments