Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Re: Mathematical Realism and Darwinism, I think it depends on the question of whether Darwinism has to be materialist.

One might even have a kind of dualism, where there are still extant Platonic entities for mathematics but they end up accessible via the luck of natural selection. Or rather, in a largely ordered universe without evolution-beneficial Psi, it pays to evolve toward grasping of the Mathematical Objects.

Is this ultimately defensible as a thesis? If so, then Mathematical Realism and Darwinism would seem to be compatible?

I think that all the leading Darwinists at least of the 20th and 21st centuries have been strict materialists. This position is typified by the famous quote by Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin (1997). Notice that he claims that this materialism is and must be absolute:

"We have an a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

It would be interesting if you could cite a leading expert in the field who has  espoused some form of spiritual Darwinism. The only one I can think of is the co-creator at the same time as Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection, Alfred Russell Wallace. 

I suppose there could be some form of dualistic Darwinism (a truly uneasy pairing) where the physical brain is a product of evolution with the genetic variation part being a combination of random mutation (mostly microevolution of minor optimizations), and other macro genetic changes manifested from a transcendental source. The other part of the process is the selection pressures, which are part of the natural world. Outside spiritual influences would have attempted to guide evolution for better function as a transmitter of consciousness. This would be a sort of dualistic evolution where the main difference is that in the dualistic version what brains have evolved to do (in part at least) is to access independently existing consciousness, rather than to generate it.

It would be interesting if you could cite a leading expert in the field who has  espoused some form of spiritual Darwinism. The only one I can think of is the co-creator at the same time as Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection, Alfred Russell Wallace.

I was thinking more the other way around - How [d]o Mathematical Platonists in academia feel about Darwinism?

This would be a sort of dualistic evolution where the main difference is that in the dualistic version what brains have evolved to do (in part at least) is to access independently existing consciousness, rather than to generate it.

I was thinking there might be some evolutionary advantage to recognizing the mathematical structure. The dualism here, as I see it, would be between the mathematical realm and the material one.

The question is figuring out what a proto-version of mathematical understanding might be like. Obvious recognition of numbers can be an evolutionary advantage, but is there an evolutionary advantage to something that translates to theorem proving capabilities?

Would it have helped if he, in lieu of any model or proof, just talked about the mysteries and magic that might lie within consciousness-less matter?

Fair enough. But I’ll settle for “mystery” over anyone claiming “god”, “MAL”, “aliens” etc... or anyone else claiming they’ve got it all figured out.

Fair enough. But I’ll settle for “mystery” over anyone claiming “god”, “MAL”, “aliens” etc... or anyone else claiming they’ve got it all figured out.

Why do you assume that such people (like me) ‘claim they’ve got it all figured out’? It’s just my favoured opinion.

It would be interesting if you could cite a leading expert in the field who has  espoused some form of spiritual Darwinism. The only one I can think of is the co-creator at the same time as Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection, Alfred Russell Wallace. 

This is from Wiki, which doesn't do these kind of topics justice.

When Charles Darwin died, Romanes defended Darwin's theories by attempting to rebut criticisms and attacks levied by other psychologists against the Darwinian school of thought. Romanes expanded on Darwin's theories of evolution and natural selection by advancing a theory of behaviour based on comparative psychology. In Animal Intelligence, Romanes demonstrated similarities and dissimilarities between cognitive and physical functions of various animals.[20] In Mental Evolution in Animals, Romanes illustrated the evolution of the cognitive and physical functions associated with animal life. Romanes believed that animal intelligence evolves through behavioural conditioning, or positive reinforcement.[21] Romanes then published Mental Evolution in Man, which focused on the evolution of human cognitive and physical functions.[22]

In 1890, Romanes published Darwin, and After Darwin,[23] where he attempted to explain the relationship between science and religion. All of his notes on this subject were left to Charles Gore. Gore used the notes in preparing Thoughts on Religion, and published the work under Romanes's name.[14] The Life and Letters of George Romanes, offers a semi-autobiographical account of Romanes's life.[4] 

Romanes came back to a religious worldview, after being influenced by Darwin.

Why do you assume that such people (like me) ‘claim they’ve got it all figured out’? It’s just my favoured opinion.

Clearly my comment didn’t apply to you then Stan...

I was thinking more the other way around - How [d]o Mathematical Platonists in academia feel about Darwinism?


I was thinking there might be some evolutionary advantage to recognizing the mathematical structure. The dualism here, as I see it, would be between the mathematical realm and the material one.

The question is figuring out what a proto-version of mathematical understanding might be like. Obvious recognition of numbers can be an evolutionary advantage, but is there an evolutionary advantage to something that translates to theorem proving capabilities?

Might as well ask what evolutionary selective advantage would have accrued to the ability to write or appreciate poetry, a Shakespeare play, a Chopin piano sonata, or a portrait by Rembrandt. Or for that matter the capability to undergo a deep NDE. Doesn't seem a sensible question. I think these and other higher human mental faculties must have some other sort of origin or source altogether.

Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as 1,000+ Scientists Share Their Doubts.

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/skepti...ir-doubts/

I encountered a short really fascinating video panorama of the incredible process of embryogenesis (at https://vimeo.com/315487551 ). 

The title is Becoming. It is the development of an organism (an Alpine newt) from a single fertilized egg cell to the complete organism compressed into 6 minutes, in a close-up very high resolution timelapse color video.
 
It basically shows how we all came into physical existence, an incredibly complex choreographed and orchestrated miracle of self-construction and self-organization going from one cell to hundreds of millions in countless structures and mechanisms all working together. Perhaps (at least for the open minded) a fertile ground for contemplation of the likelihood that this all came about from random mutations plus selection. Of course, no incredulity whatsoever with the committed Darwinist, just scorn for the ignorant doubters of the faith.