Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

I agree with your larger argument, that saying our perceptions are not eprfect begs the question, but I have to disagree with this. The fact that we, as a species, have survived merely shows that our perceptions are adequate for that purpose, not perfect. This, to me, is the crux of the argument. By bringing up the fact that there are phenomena outside our perception, Filameter is implying that perceiving those phenomena would be "better." But if you've ever looked at an infraredscope that shows you the differences in heat, it would be so overwhelming that it would lead to input overload. If we could see different parts of the EM spectrum, such that different temperatures were viewed as different colors, we would lose the colors we see them as now. How can anyone claim that seeing those colors are better than seeing the colors we see now?It could be that our perceptions have perfectly weeded out the unnecessary phenomena and allowed us to see the aspects that really matter. While some people see those "important" aspects imperfectly does not mean that there are not people out there who do see them perfectly.

I knew I would get nailed on the use of the word "perfect," I just didn't know how else to express it.I agree with the way you re-wrote it - adequate seems like the better word. Exactly. And for other species, like say bats, other sensory functions have developed that aid them in their environment, adequately. How unnecessary would it be for a bat to develop the vision we use? Likewise, how necessary would it be for us to perceive reality the way bats do?I think the point Filameter is failing to see is that senses evolve to suit the environment, not to suit individual desires.- OniEdited by onifre, : grammer

Yeah, nit-picky, but that's usually all I can comment on here. Exactly. A bat can sense soundwaves in a way much different than us, but were we to have a bat's abilities would it make our lives better? I highly doubt it.

I replied to what appeared to be a challenge to me and irreducible complexity RAZD's thread.EvC Forum: Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments

Just got back from a family reunion in California, so will now try to respond to some of last week's posts. I hope there is still interest, because I want other people's input to help me to better understand the significance of modularity in the organization and properties of life forms, and how, as I have suggested, modularity may be able constrain or refute some versions of the designer hypothesis.Thoughts on the relationship of perception of reality, and survival: individuals perceive but do not survive. All inviduals live for a limited period, then die. Also, no individual human has all versions of the genes of the human genome. The pool of genes, in their multiple versions, which occur in the human population define the human species, not the gene versions in any one individual. Therefore, individuals are incomplete from both the genetic and evolutionary perspectives.The expression "survival of the fittest" refers to those individuals who last long enough to produce viable offspring, because they have advantageous traits which increase their probability of producing offspring. However, many characteristics of species are not the result of selection for advantageous traits, but rather result from chance founder effects, when a small isolated group of organisms of a species multiply greatly, thereby making their chance traits common to a large proportion of future generatons of the species, even though those chance traits do not convey survival (to reproduction) advantages.Species survive but do not perceive. Indivduals perceive but do not survive.Individuals perceive harmonious sounds, i.e. music. Individuals perceive harmonious images, i.e. things which strike the individual as beautiful. What survival value for the species does perception of harmonsous sounds and images have for survival of the species ? Granted that the male urge to mate tends to be enhanced in the presence of a beautiful female, but it is not obvious to me that that reaction to beauty is tied to the potential survivability of offspring. Similarly, how does perception of beauty in sounds promote survivability of the species ?My point: perception of the representations of reality which our minds can generate is not tightly coupled to survival of the species.Does solving Rubik's cube, or Sudoku puzzles help our species survive ? Granted, being able to quickly devise methods for successfully coping with, e.g. predators which might be inclined to eat us can contribute to survival of the species. Honing our skills at doing so by playing challenging games, which is really mental exercise, probably helps us prepare to cope with challenging environmental situations. Many juvenile animals engage in play which emulates the behavior of adults. Play does not itself convey a survival advantage, but the muscles developed through play may later in life help survival by enabling athletic responses to environmental challenges. How could play behavior have been selected for ?Now, getting mack to the signficance of modularity: an intelligent designer possessed of supernatural powers and omnicience would know the future, so would know precisely how a finished life form would turn out and would work. Such a designer would have no expectation of later finding mistakes in the life form designs he creates. Therefore, such an intelligent designer would be expected to employ integrated design and construction of life forms, not modular design and construction.Life forms are largely modular, as evidenced by the fact that functional working modules can be removed from extant life forms. Also, contrary to the dogma in the bible, the properties of life forms are not fixed forever, and not all life forms have existed contemporaneously. Change rather than constancy is the characteristic of the natural universe. Modularity makes change in life forms tolerable. If life forms had fully integrated designs, any change would be disruptive, likely fatal.

Again, not necessarily. A designer with unlimited knowledge and some amount of supernatural power may still find it a more efficient use of time to make creatures which are modular rather than each one unique. It may also be that these supernatural powers could not change the occurrence of mutation, or make a completely flawless transcription method, so errors are going to creep in. In that case a modular design would give greater durability compared to one where any minor genetic damage causes the organism to fail.While a limited deity might be capable of making an integrated design, the fact that it is limited gives strong arguments for modularity. An unlimited deity has no restraints on its actions whatsoever so it would really end up being preference.

I have two comments on this- an intelligent designer does not need to be supernatural or omniscient.
- It's not possible to draw reliable conclusions about how an intelligent designer would design life. If I had the opportunity to design life, I might do it in a modular way to minimise the amount of design I had to do. Someone else might not. Any intelligent designer would not be human - how do we know how they might think or what their motivations and internal constraints would be?This argument has no force and resembles the kind of spurious argument often put forward by creationists. I think you should forget it!

Would you not agree that our 5 sense are beneficial and necessary for survival?Using our sensory system is how we perceive reality, through them we get a mental representation of reality. Without them we would not be able to perceive reality, and without such an ability the individual would not survive.Sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching...without these, setting aside technological advancements, there is no chance for survival - for the individual. And since each of these traits are common for our species, we can say that the evolvement of these traits were beneficial to the survival of our species as a whole.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Incidentally, we all possess a sixth sense, which is usually overlooked: the ability to sense gravity. Certainly we depend on our senses to navigate through the environmental challenges we encounter. However, as I said previously, individuals all die. Individually, we only "survive" short-term.As to the evolution of our senses as a factor in the survival of our species: our senses, e.g., of smell, vision and hearing are quite poor compared to many other animals. Do you think in the course of evolution we lost some of the capabilites of our senses, compared to other species relatively close to us in the evolutionary tree, which implies a common ancestor ? How would having poorer vision, hearing and smell improve our species' chances of survival ?Also, humans are able to survive short-term in space and in ocean deeps, despite never having previously had to. How do you think those capabilities evolved without subjecting our ancestors to a relevant selection pressure ?What is/was the evolutionary advantage which selected us, but no other primate, for loss of body hair ?My point: I think it is a mistake to assume that our characteristics are all the result of selection for short-term survival advantages.

I don't agree with you either that life is modular, or that integration - as you mean it - is a feature of designed systems. In fact, it's very much the other way round. I made this point way back on page 1, in posts 11 & 12, before the whole thread got sidetracked.Could you respond to the points I made in those posts?

One quibble: Living in space or deep in the ocean is not an evolved ability. If I dumped you in space or in the deep ocean without any technological support, you would die. Period. We have developed technology to overcome our inability to live in areas we have not eveolved to live in. 1) Different environment. Plains vs. jungles.
2) Not all traits that evolve are purely by improved life expectancy. Some of it is sexual selection, which is often a detriment to survival, or plain ol' genetic drift. Perhaps because each increase in ability requires energy to produce the brain regions sufficiently to discern minor differences in smell or color or brightness, etc, which then requires energy to run, and takes up space that could be used for other mental faculties. If you'll notice, animals with the most sensitive sense in one area generally have less acuity in another sense. (Similar to how a person lacking one sense compensate by developing another sense to a higher than normal degree.)We don't need to be able to see like an owl, hear like a bat or smell like a bloodhound, so it is an unnecessary waste of energy to develop the brain regions controlling sight, smell and hearing to those degrees, and doing so would require the space that we currently use to think, reason and imagine or a head shape that would prohibit us being born through the female hip/pelvic structure.

It doesn't necessarily improve our chances of survival much if atall. It's simply that if selection does not constantly act to maintain a capability, mutations will ensure it decays.For example, the loss of hundreds of olfactory genes in monkeys and apes that use vision to find food rather than smell. Those that have evolved 3-colour vision have lost a large proportion of olfactory genes - and this has happened independently at least twice.

Which sensory input does that? And yet we are at the top of the food chain and control most of the world. Our accumulated sensory functions have made us highly intelligent by comparison. They have served well in our survival as a species. I could not answer that question intelligently lacking the knowledge in that field.My educated guess would be that what we have lost has not been necessary, yet what we have gained has placed us at the hierarchy of the animal kingdom. If we do have poorer vision, hearing and smelling, BUT, are highly intelligent, much more than all other species (by our scale), then I'd say the trade off has more than made up for it. What we lack in sensory functions we make up for in intelligence. Perdition gave a great answer to this in his post. But they are how we mentally represent reality in our minds, therefore they must be beneficial to our survival because without them we can't get a proper representation of reality.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Our vestibular system (sense of balance and spacial orientation). Though it does more than just "sense gravity". That is a simplistic description of the function of this system.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

I'm not making any judgment if it is off-topic here, but there is an existing more specific topic: How many senses are there?If you wish to discuss "senses", the above cited topic would probably be the best place to go.Adminnemooseus