Biological evolution creates capabilities that, in turn, add dimensions to the universe in which life blossoms. That makes life more mathematically complex than (known) High Energy Physics (which does not evolve in higher dimensions as time flows).

No, I am not trying to contradict Darwin’s natural selection, nor Lamarck’s various selective evolutionary mechanisms. I suggest to complement them with new evolutionary mechanisms: ecological and social evolution, and FUNCTIONAL evolution. No, I am not day dreaming: I have explicit examples: flight, brain, consciousness.

I have thought of this for years, but the discussion with Brian Key, a neurobiologist, brought it to the fore.

Professor Key argued fishes could not experience pain (or suffering), because they were not conscious. Brian ascertained the latter point from his inability to distinguish structures in fish brains similar to those found associated to consciousness and pain in human.

Similarly, the drunk searching for his keys, below the closest lamp post.

Some Academics Climb the Tree of Academia, Showing their Bottoms Ever More

Some Academics Climb the Tree of Academia, Showing their Bottoms Ever More

Einstein used a higher level reasoning. I used a higher level reasoning.

What is the brain for? Figuring things out. How does that work? Well, in humans, consciousness helps. Ergo, consciousness appeared at some point in animal evolution.

At which point?

That’s an ethological question. A question of behavior.

In the past, I used to think fishes were dumb machines of the sea. Then, as a fisher, I discovered older trouts to be really smart. Recent studies have shown (some) fishes to be incredibly smart. On some tests, some fishes are found to be chimpanzee smart.

Brian Key: “Patrice raises the idea that “common sense” tells us that animal brains have the same general purpose as humans. I challenge readers to go beyond their everyday experiences because sometimes “common sense” can be misleading.”

If animal brains don’t have the same general purpose as ours, what could their purpose be? And how come we developed a different purpose?

What is the purpose of a human brain? Surviving. If animal brains are not for surviving, what are they for?

All and any animal brain is there to do exactly what the human brain is doing.

A case of the function defining the tool.

Conventional evolution theory looks at the evolution of organisms.

But there is a higher level of evolution than the one of organisms: ecological evolution. And an even higher one: the evolution of functions. For example, the function of flying was evolved by insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats.

Once flying had been invented by insects, it created its own ecological niche, its own universe in which at least birds and bats could evolve. Because at least birds and bats could eat insects, if they learned to fly.

The apparition of brain created its own ecological niche, its own evolutionary force.

This is why the brain capabilities of the brainiest species have been on an ascending trajectory.

The octopus’ eyes do what ours do. And they look very similar. Even though they evolved in completely separate fashion, and are inverted.

Vision defines the eye. Specifics follow.

Same for brains: one needs a reward and punishment (pain) system, and consciousness is useful. A question arises naturally, which philosophers have not answered: what is consciousness for?

The case of birds is clear: although their brains are completely different, they fulfill all functions found in humans.

Homo Floresiensis is perhaps even more telling: these 1.1 meter tall hobbits had completely different, much simpler brains. However, they developed sophisticated weapons.

There too the basic functions were satisfied from completely different neuroanatomy.

I am not claiming neuroanatomy plays no role, and that all animal brains can have as many functions as human ones: supposedly cockroaches keep on drinking, even when their throats are cut. Some insects seem perfectly dumb. However, wasps are smart. And they seem to experience pain. (I have experimented with wasps; my anti-wasp method is to hit them. Once hit, or even after a near-miss, they deduct that they better get somewhere else; conversely, wasp will makes it dangerous to approach a wasp nest!)

Socratic Gadfly claimed that wolves do not discuss hunting. Pendantry rightly asked him how he knew. We know little about animal languages.

It was just discovered that “… chimpanzee referential food calls are not fixed in their structure and that, when exposed to a new social group, chimpanzees can change their calls to sound more like their group mates.”

Drawing massive conclusions, when one knows so little? Is that “scientific”? Is that prudent? Is that wise? Should it be called that intellectual fascism?

Science is not getting animal brains yet.

If it were, it would get ours.

However, from this we got a conclusion: biology does not just evolve, it evolves its environment. The invention of flight by insects incited other species to “invent” flight. The invention of brains made the evolution of consciousness in (some) other species more likely.

Biology is an engineer, a scientist, a thinker.

Systems of thought, and systems of moods, have lives of their own. So does life itself. Life has a life of its own (to speak like Lacan). Life, as it evolves, adds not just complexity, but, outright, new dimensions. The Multiverse may not happen in physics, but, with life, it does, with a vengeance.

A very speculative question in physics (raised by no less than Paul Dirac) has been the permanence of physical laws. Tests have actually been made to test whether physical laws changed (they have been found not too, so far).

However, with life, the laws do change. Biological evolution evolves its own universe (and do not forget that the devil in the details is Quantum mechanical).

Patrice Ayme’





Tags: , , , ,


  1. gmax Says:

    Once I saw a mathematical treatise on the Dimension Theory. It was 800 pages. Do we have to read that to understand you? What is a dimension?

    Anyway, impressed I am. Life is a giant feedback loop?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      A feedback loop, part of it, from another dimension. Dimension here depicts the number of independent parameters necessary for a full description. No need to get into anything more sophisticated.
      But I agree it’s pretty spectacular to notice that life augments the number of parameters. The Quantum is probably necessary to do so (don’t ask).

  2. dominique deux Says:

    I am a bit leery of your language here, Patrice. You keep mentioning the “purpose” of the brain, eyes, consciousness…
    “Purpose”, like “creature”, basically posits that some higher entity designed living organisms, assigning their components, organs, and themselves, some specific “purpose” in some grand scheme. It may have happened that way, but it is not a necessary assumption.
    When I was a lowly student, we were specifically forbidden from writing, even casually, about an organ’s “purpose”. That made us guilty of the cardinal sin of “determinism”. “Function” was descriptive, made no assumption, and therefore was to be preferred.
    You’ll find that substituting “function” to “purpose” in your essay does not alter its sense or general thrust. It does, however, make it more rigorous IMHO.
    Of course purpose exists in nature, if only because man is part of nature. And, as usual in biology, boundaries are hazy, except for sectarians.
    For example, in pre-writing times, song and verse, often in association, had a clear and specific purpose: improving the memorization of texts which could be quite long. Homer never wrote a single word; his whole works, so modern even to this day, were sung by specialized performers maintaining word-perfect transmission. (Laws, decrees and chronicles were maintained in a similar way in W. African empires, through drums. Mistakes were quickly corrected – off with the drummer’s head!)
    Whale songs are specific to given groups (“pods”). One of their functions could be clan identification. Some of them (among the same species) use scansion and rhymes, and this has been correlated with the overall song’s length; in other words, the more song-like a whale song, the easier it is to memorize. Now, what do we have here? A function, or a purpose? With the (assumed) complexity of whale cerebral processes, either could be true.
    Sorry if, as usual, your essay sent me on gratuitous musing!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique:
      Rushing right now, so let me just make preliminary points, before I read the rest of your comment:
      1) We definitively have a creator: BIOLOGICAAL (Baaal?) EVOLUTION. So “creature” is fine with me. I have put a warrant for philosophical arrest of Abraham.

      2) “purpose” comes from Latin PRO (forth, French devant, comme dans ci-devant) and French “POSER”. It does not mean a little green god is creating stuff with purpose. On the other end, ANY Quantum set-up HAS purpose. (This simple fact has purposely created endless confusion in the Foundations of QM.)

      3) I believe, with Lamarck, that biological evolution is teleological. The mechanism is obvious (to me): the QUANTUM. Non-local and everywhere, like Abraham’s boyfriend. I have suggested some of this to the principal of a massive grant proposal finalist from what is arguably the world most productive university. We are talking about more than 50 million there. (The grant was not given yet, but the simple fact it’s a finalist exerts pressure: the ideas are percolating up… or, more exactly, down…)

      OK, more later, got to run…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      That the Quantum has local purpose is a fundamentally new insight. All the more as that “local” can be light years across.

      In general, I am a partisan of general semantics. Too much precision, when, in truth, we do not know, is erroneous. Truth comes not from precise words, but coordinating thoughts.

      Those very serious professors of old, perfused as they were by their gravitas, had not reason to believe in lack of “purpose”, but for their arrogant to believe they had completely figured out, as the gods they were, the theory of evolution.

      Well, they did not. I have my own very serious people, at the peak of their profession now, who were not yet born when the old paradigm reigned, who are listening ENTHUSIASTICALLY to what I am saying. I am sure it’s a matter of just 5 years before the result are going to come flowing in, and evolution will, AS THE QUANTUM, be viewed, in part, to be TELEOLOGICAL.

      Your comment is neither gratuitous, nor a musing. But quite interesting, and nothing is off subject. It helps me to have more ready retorts to people commanding actually huge budgets.

      I explained to them how Quantum equips DNA with a kind of intelligence… or at least intelligence of its changing environment: DNA, I claim, is a QUANTUM COMPUTER… You read it here first, hahaha.

  3. dominique deux Says:

    “Once hit, or even after a near-miss, they (wasps) deduct that they better get somewhere else”

    It is generally accepted that sharks have about the same intelligence as lawyers. Now you positively demonstrate that wasps are way more intelligent than telemarketers.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Sharks are actually clever fishes… I have known lawyers who were very smart, and others, who were very dumb. Sometimes, its clever to behave as if one were dumb, or even to be completely idiotic. Just ask G W Bush… Or Obama, for that matter…

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: