But the question remains for me —can a brain scan really provide a complete picture of reality?
How can a brain scan reveal the relationship between our subjective experience and the biological processes in the brain, if we are only studying the scan itself? Many in this forum argue that the subjective side of reality is beyond the reach of science, as it cannot be objectively measured, and that we cannot definitively separate what is factual from what is purely personal or experiential. So, how then can we explore something like a sunset using only a brain scan, and still come close to capturing a complete picture of reality?
It must—if science aims to get as close as possible to a more complete picture of reality. Studying how the beauty of a sunset affects the human brain is an important step toward understanding the experience, but it remains an incomplete one. While it can reveal how our brain processes sensory input and emotional responses, it doesn’t capture the full richness of the personal, subjective experience itself.
Reality simply “is”, and science is a method with limitations on how it can explore reality.
Then why do you keep omitting drift? It’s only been around for 57 years.
Which fields? As a researcher, I have only viewed people as doing empirical research.
Absolutely false. It’s the easiest way for laypeople to distinguish between real science and pseudoscience. They not only don’t test any hypotheses themselves, they don’t inspire anyone else to do anything. Contrast that with Kimura’s impact on evolutionary biology with neutral theory.
And since you’re not current on evidence, how would your opinion of their statements matter?
[quote=“LRT, post:170, topic:17513”]
Evolution is undeniably true, but the theory might yet again require an upgrade.
[/quote]It will always be refined. Do you really think we are claiming that it won’t?
I didn’t recommend any reading about epigenetics to you. Please scroll up or search for “Lane” in this thread.
I’m skeptical. Please list the primary literature you have read.
Again, my recommendation had nothing to do with epigenetics or multiple fields. Just one that you cited.
We uncover them using hypothesis testing, not rhetoric. And I don’t know what you mean by “goal,” as one scientific answer tends to lead to 3-10 new questions.
Your statement touches on the crux of the issue. Epigenetic changes do play a role in evolution, but the question is: to what extent? There’s ongoing debate about how much epigenetics contributes to evolutionary processes, but so far, I haven’t come across any compelling arguments suggesting that epigenetic changes directly lead to the fixation of alleles in the population. While epigenetic modifications can influence gene expression and potentially affect fitness, it remains unclear whether these changes are stable and heritable enough to drive long-term evolutionary shifts.
One side may be correct, but to what extent? In other words, how much does it truly contribute to evolution?
I’m familiar with the Baldwin effect and have long advocated for the idea that cognition influences evolution. In fact, you’re the first person I’ve encountered who seriously considers this possibility. So, if we accept for a moment that cognition can influence evolution, does that bring us any closer to the idea that evolution might have some form of intent or purpose—at least an apparent one?
Cognition is tied to consciousness, and consciousness, by nature, is self-aware—it can reflect on itself and the world around it. If cognition can shape evolutionary outcomes, we might wonder whether this influence, brought about by cognition, is conscious or intentional. Could it be that as organisms become more cognitively sophisticated, their conscious choices start to guide their evolutionary trajectory in a more directed way?
This leads us to an intriguing fork in the road. Up until now, we might agree that cognition and evolution are interconnected. But when we ask whether evolution itself has intent or purpose, we enter a more controversial realm where science and philosophy overlap. Are we merely witnessing the result of unconscious evolutionary forces, or is there something perhaps purposeful at work in the evolution of conscious beings?
Our views might align until we reach this point, where one perspective sees cognition influencing evolution in a way that gives the appearance of purpose, while another sees cognition tied to consciousness, genuinely shaping evolution with real purpose. I suppose you lean toward the former, while I find myself in between, awaiting further evidence to help clarify the path forward.
Taking the debate further, if cognition and/or consciousness influence evolution, it would not, I believe, lead to the fixation of alleles. So, the real question becomes then: what kind of impact could they have on evolution? This remains an open question, much like the role of epigenetics, where the influence is still debated. Finally, one wonders if its effect would be even lesser than epigenetics as there might not even be an impact, directly or not, on heritance.
Thank you! I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article. The section on the proposition and postmodern status table was particularly fascinating. It confirmed much of what I had suspected, though I was surprised to learn that there isn’t necessarily any added complexity to the process, as I had expected.
That said, it seems that, even in 2025, some are still attempting to amend the modern synthesis rather than fully embracing the extended version.
I’m using the “Third Way” primarily as a segue to introduce the concept of intent and purpose in evolution—whether they are "apparent” or not. I do acknowledge that it is speculative at this stage, but it is beginning to find support in some emerging evidence. After all, science is about exploring possibilities, and sometimes those possibilities lie outside the mainstream.
You miss my point, which was simply that your conclusion didn’t follow from your premise. This is quite aside from whether your conclusion is correct.
The problem is that you seem to have an idiosyncratic notion of what that sentence means. One questions whether you know what you meant.
If it’s to be intentional, that would require that the organisms involved understand evolution. Now we know that happens: selective breeding, artificial selection, is a form of intentional evolution. But only humans do this as far as can be told. And I think you’re talking about cognition influencing evolution within a single species, and not as I said by altering the environment but in some direct, perhaps mystical way. Or am I wrong about that?
How would that work?
Then whatever could it have to do with evolution? What other way to have evolution is there?
It doesn’t; it remains a vacuous question that nobody is asking other than a few mystics who have no clear concept of what evolution means. And I suspect you are among that number. I have to ask whether you have any idea what you’re talking about.
This implies that you think that teleonomy, the fact that there are things in biology which can merely appear-as-if-but-aren’t-actually intended for a purpose/function, is somehow in tension with evolution as a purely blind and purposeless process. As if such a process should not be thought capable of producing things that can give the wrong impressions to observers.
But there is no such tension, so your insinuation is mistaken. That’s what I am saying.
Both Horace’s odes and Shakespeare’s sonnets are part of a “complete picture of reality”. However, if you suggested that science should be able to tell you which of them is more beautiful, then I would suspect most people would look at you funny – and that most philosophers of science would give you the funniest looks of all.
Only if you re-define science into a metaphorical Swiss army knife for exploring every single aspect of reality.
Otherwise science is simply staying in its lane, and not attempting to do things for which it is patently unsuited.
Is it a “limitation” of hammers that they can’t be used to drive in screws? Should we attach a flat-head to the end of them, a Philips-head to one side and a Torx-head to the other? Then you would be able to use it to drive in screws – albeit, rather clumsily.
There are aspects of reality that, if you insisted that science needs to be enlarged to encompass them, it would be similarly clumsy in handing.
I’m not trying to change science—it works great as it is. My concern is that relying on science alone gives us an incomplete view of reality because it leaves out subjective experience.
To use your metaphor: reality has both round objective pegs and square subjective ones. Science handles the objective side well, but we shouldn’t assume it can explain everything. That’s a philosophical belief, not a scientific fact.
Consciousness and subjective experience aren’t mystical—they’re undeniable parts of our existence. But science often reduces them to physical processes or overlooks them entirely. By doing this, we miss an essential part of reality.
Recognizing science’s limits isn’t an attack on its value. It’s just being honest about what science can and can’t explain.
I’m really trying to engage in a conversation and learn from you, but I’m having trouble connecting. You have more knowledge, and I have less, so I should be learning, but it doesn’t feel like I am.
Yes, but I don’t think that is due to any limitation inherent to the scientific method. Rather, it is due to the very nature of “beauty”, itself, as a subjective response by members of the human species (though possibly of other species as well). As a result, it is simply not the case that one poem is objectively more beautiful than another.
That said, it is entirely possible that we will one day understand the brain well enough to determine, just from a functional brain scan, whether a particular person finds a particular object beautiful. We might also be able to determine exactly what stimuli evoke the pathways of an individual brain that lead to the perception of beauty. We might then be able to predict beforehand what a person will find beautiful or not, again only from a brain scan.
If that ever happens, I would say we then understand beauty as well as we do anything else in the physical world.
What is the toolkit for exploring “subjective experience” and for exploring consciousness in a non-scientific manner? Does it have sufficient rigor that it avoids being dismissed as mere “navel gazing” and thus could loosely be termed ‘mysticism’?
Is it possible that a “complete picture of reality” contains elements that are sufficiently ill-defined and/or ephemeral that their parts of the picture will be inherently fuzzy or out-of-focus?
Are the ‘limitations of science’ the real issue, or the limitations of these alternative toolkits? If these alternative toolkits were sufficiently satisfactory, would we feel the need to have science “reduce [these phenomena] to physical processes” in order to study them, or have people expressing concern that it “overlooks them entirely”?
I reviewed the thread but couldn’t find any mention from you about the superb book you referred to. Perhaps I missed it—could you kindly provide the reference again?
As for the mention of epigenetics, I may have confused your response with someone else’s.
Regarding your point about my approach being mostly rhetorical, I respectfully disagree. I’ve cited several references, and my statements are based on previous readings.
