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.