|
 johnm214
 
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
 Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory?
#10502356 - 06/13/09 10:41 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
After discussing the issue at length in this forum we finally got to a point where no proponent of ID as scientific or testable could actually demonstrate that it actually means something concrete enough such that its neccesary consequences could be observed and therefore tested- rejecting or supporting it. It can't be shown to be science cuz it doesn't actually mean anything that can be observed and tested.
Simply put, I've never seen any way in which ID could be tested, refuted, or supported. Some vague claims have been made by some, but they seem obviously problematic and when you get right down to it they refuse to actually lay out the methodology for testing their predictions nor do they explain how the failure of any of these predictions could ever falsify ID (unless you limit ID to be quite narrow: the flagellum is designed, or soemthing like that).
Usually at this point the proponents switch to bitching about evolution- with the implicit unstated assumption that a failing of evolution is a support of intelligent design (how this is so isn't explained). It seems ID at times doesn't even mean anything- its just such that occupies the negative space of evolution- that which we cannot reliably prove is ID (can't show exactly how primates evolved? Score one for ID).
I was struck by this quote from the Dover School decision regarding this curious phenomena:
Quote:
ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed “contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach” and that “(i)n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago.
... Irreducible complexity additionally fails to make a positive scientific case for ID, as will be elaborated upon below....even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design.
pg 71 of opinion
Is this accurate? Agree disagree?
If your hypothesis has no neccesary consequences it is not scientific, as it can never be tested or disproven. The court seems to think this is the situation with ID thought presented to it, and it seems similar to the arguments we've seen on this board.
What do you think?
|
 dill705
Amazed
Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10502458 - 06/13/09 11:00 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You pretty much covered it. Meaningless claims, illogically linked to the complexities we see in the natural world and evolutionary biologies current lack of explanation for some of these complex structures.
--------------------
My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end.
-Icelander-
I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW!
~dill705~
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: dill705]
#10503041 - 06/14/09 01:36 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well actually i think that intelligent design does account for the alternatives to evolution.
Think about it this way:
start with the premise that this universe contains clearly observable order.
Order occurs when factors of the world end up that way. One way this can happen is if conscious beings channel the factors into a specific scheme.
One theory is that this order was put in place by some intelligence (instigator) that is inaccessible to us. Essentially, it is a logically valid (but completely unproven or unevidenced) theory.
The alternative to this is that the order we see was not channeled into being by a conscious instigator. This is the theory that was developed primarily during the enlightenment when it became clear that there was evidence for naturally occuring order, whereas there was no evidence for a god.
So this other theory states that as soon a self-replicating systems occur by chance, they will continue to develop towards greater complexity.
What other options are there?
well there is the option that life has always existed
But this is not really an alternative theory, but a disclaiming theory. it says 'there was no beginning so there is no point asking how life began'
but if you assume there was a beginning point/flux to life then there is the question of whether that occured 'with' or 'without' intelligent influence.
'with' is intelligent design
'without' is evolution
it seems like a very clear dichotomy to me...
but it is true that stupid people use evidence that is against evolution to credit intelligent design. that is trully falacious.
It is actually quite interesting now that i think about it
most 'evidence' for intelligent design is not evidence at all, it is merely 'credence' to the idea of evolution. because evolution has heaps of holes and it is perfectly consistent that those holes are filled by intelligent design.
in this way, evidence against evolution is often a matter of shining light on holes for evolution.
i dont think there is any 'evidence' for evolution. it is not a real scientific theory. there is only more and more support to allow us to believe evolution is true.
so I think that it is all that intelligent design theorists can do - is show that evolution cannot explain certain things.
both intelligent design and evolutionary theory are possible.
Intelligent disign, i should add, has nothing to do with any existing religion here on earth.
Im thinking that 'intelligent design' should be replaced by the notion of 'undescoverable answer'.
hmm. society has told me that if you cant find an answer to something, you should forget about it.
maybe that is the third option???
the one that has a way of dealing with having no answer to the question. A standpoint that can help people understand what is right and wrong without dictating the origin of the universe to them, or giving them something to live for after life.
??
--------------------
 
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10503273 - 06/14/09 03:59 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i dont think there is any 'evidence' for evolution. it is not a real scientific theory. there is only more and more support to allow us to believe evolution is true.
That's how all scientific theories work.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10503360 - 06/14/09 04:59 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
scientific experimentation aims at creating situations where a hypothesis can be tested.
There is no testing. no expeirment, for 'evolutionary account'. Only a theory.
The problem of falsifiability takes front stage when it comes to scientific explorations. But that is because science can only be used to compare falsifiable theories. Falsifiability, however, has nothing to do with whether something is the case or not.
When we ask between evolution and intelligent design, we dont have two falsifiable claims. We have one falsifiable claim, and one unfalsifiable claim, and the falsifiable claim (evolution) could only ever be falsified with experiments that surpass any time span of many human lives.
So essentially, pragmatically, we have to unfalsifiable claims.
science does not apply
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10503517 - 06/14/09 06:22 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You're making the same mistake MM made, of thinking that examination of evidence doesn't count as a test. It does. Every time we examine a fossil, we're testing the theory of evolution. If the evidence doesn't fit, then the theory is falsified and a new one created that matches the entire body of evidence.
The theory of how we evolved is falsifiable. It's been falsified many times. It just happens that when we replace the theory with a new one, a central tenet remains unchanged - that of Natural Selection. This is simply because we haven't found any evidence that disproves it yet.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10503663 - 06/14/09 07:58 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think about evolution as a theory. Rather I think about evolution as a system where competing algorithms survive depending on how well they are able to perform compared to other algorithms, and where random changes are made into the codes of the replicas when the algorithms are self-replicated.
Isn't this a type of system, rather than a theory? And isn't there like billions of evidences that this system applies to biology?
Edited by Zanthius (06/14/09 08:11 AM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 13,632
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10504517 - 06/14/09 12:09 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
id is the antichrist
an imposter
a joke
--------------------
~~~~~
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10504880 - 06/14/09 01:32 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
There is no testing. no expeirment, for 'evolutionary account'. Only a theory.
huh? How so? As zouden observes, we look at the evidence and test our theory against it. When a new fossil is discovered, we can observe whether it is supportive of evolution. If it is not compatible with evolutionary theory then we would have to make some changes- either in our analysis of the fossil or in the theory. After many tests like this we determine what the most supported explanation is, that looks like current evolutionary theory.
There is a bunch of ways we can test evolution- look at the genome of related organisms, genetic information over time, look at structures and how they appear to evolve, look for organisms that cannot be explained by evolution and see if they are inconsistant with evolution.
How are you saying the theory isn't testable? You can't just claim something like that and not back it up.
Quote:
So this other theory states that as soon a self-replicating systems occur by chance, they will continue to develop towards greater complexity.
ugh, are we conflating abiogensis with evolution here? Greater complexity is not the goal or the push, the push is to survival. Bacteria still flourish and they are much less complex than other life, why is this? Cuz complexity is not favored, survival of the genome is.
Quote:
The problem of falsifiability takes front stage when it comes to scientific explorations. But that is because science can only be used to compare falsifiable theories. Falsifiability, however, has nothing to do with whether something is the case or not.
So what?
Are we again descending to the metaphysical analysis of what reality is? Who cares, science isn't attempting to explain that. We look at what we can observe. If a hypothesis is so meaningless that it doesn't have any neccesary consequences that we can detect then what does it matter anyways? Of course it doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means its not science cuz we could never determine it to be false, and thus we have no way of knowing if it is or not cuz its consequences cannot be tested. This seems to be the case with ID.
Quote:
hmm. society has told me that if you cant find an answer to something, you should forget about it.
maybe that is the third option???
this seems like more metaphysics.
We can find a bunch of evidence for certain phenomena, that we can never know if there's another layer under the observable shell of the onion is immaterial. We are looking for what effects our world- observable phenomena. If it is not observable it is not science and some would say it is totally immaterial to anybody.
Your third option is just a demurrer. I think your operating under the mistaken assumption that the intent of science is to analyze what reality is rather than what the observable universe operates like. Science doesn't purport to say god isn't directing things behind the scenes, only that we cannot know one way or another without some evidence of such and until that time it is pointless to allege something that cannot be tested.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10505804 - 06/14/09 04:28 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Evolution is only falsifiable under chance conditions that you will find an anomoly. You cannot design an experiment that can falsify evolution. There are plenty of Intelligent design theories that purport a mix between a creator and the effects of natural selection here on earth - so evidencing evolution does not falsify intelligent design. The only way to use science to show that evolution of species is true is either to show that it is impossible for a creator to have designed life, or to show at least that evolution can generate a new species with new morphologies.
Merely looking at all the fossils and how they are arranged makes it SILLY to deny evolution is at least happening. However to go from there to the point where you say that 'LIFE AROSE ON EARTH THROUGH THE PROCESS OF NATURAL SELECTION FROM NON-LIVING SUBSTRATE' is not science.
as for mixing up evolution with abiogenisis, im sorry that it seemed that way. I was referring to the inherent complexity difference between living things and non living things when life was emerging from primordial soup, not between individual living things in today's world.
--------------------
|
Arden
לנשום
Registered: 09/01/08
Posts: 7,648
Loc: Α & Ω 
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10507615 - 06/14/09 09:32 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
ID theory, like any other speculations arising from transient components which are indistinguishable from the same system they attempt to describe, will be swallowed whole by the movements of time.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Arden]
#10508537 - 06/15/09 01:05 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Evolution is only falsifiable under chance conditions that you will find an anomoly.
So it is falsifiable.
A scientific theory doesn't have to be easily falsifiable, or likely to be falsified, for it to still count as a scientific theory.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10508542 - 06/15/09 01:07 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Right, in fact its quite the opposite. By the time it gets theory status the evidence is so one sided it is hard to falsify.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,115
Loc: Between
Last seen: 9 hours, 37 minutes
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10508630 - 06/15/09 01:37 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think evolution is intelligent 
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10509277 - 06/15/09 06:43 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Evolution is only falsifiable under chance conditions that you will find an anomoly.
So it is falsifiable.
A scientific theory doesn't have to be easily falsifiable, or likely to be falsified, for it to still count as a scientific theory.
ok, more clarification:
when something is said to be 'falsifiable' it means that it can be falsified. This might be due to chance occurence that it can be falsified at some moment,
or it might be because there is a way that someone could falsify it if they wanted to.
Since the falsifiability of evolution is something we will just have to wait for, it is not quite the same falsifiability as other real sciences, whereby an experiment can be set up to FALSIFY something.
The difference here is between:
falsifiabilty IN A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT,
and 'falsifiability' as the general hypothetical possibility.
Evolution has never been tested and it remains a matter of economics, philosophy, history, etc. It is the best theory we have. But its not science! its just scientifically sensible. ie, compared to all the other theories that are completely unsensible, in a scientific way.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10509500 - 06/15/09 07:31 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't understand yor point unless your claiming that no experiment can be done to test evolution and that this means it isn't falsifiable.
You can test evolution with experiments and you can falsify it.
Numerous examples of how this could be done have been mentioned, if you disagree please be specific.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10509666 - 06/15/09 08:06 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
You're making the same mistake MM made, of thinking that examination of evidence doesn't count as a test. It does. Every time we examine a fossil, we're testing the theory of evolution. If the evidence doesn't fit, then the theory is falsified and a new one created that matches the entire body of evidence.
The theory of how we evolved is falsifiable. It's been falsified many times. It just happens that when we replace the theory with a new one, a central tenet remains unchanged - that of Natural Selection. This is simply because we haven't found any evidence that disproves it yet.
We have not found any evidence disproving intelligent design?
And I am out of the loop because I havnt seen any experiments that could be constructed that could determine whether evolution was true or not.
You can only show that evolution is a plausible idea. Once something has a contradiction, it becomes implausible. That is why anything to do with the bible is implausible. But intelligent design itself is very plausible.
so its a question of what is more plausible
To some people, the 'scientists'; the lack of any evidence showing a god is frustrating, while at the same time they feel confident in using their imagination to suppose that evolution from non-living to living is possible.
To other people, the 'believers'; the lack of any evidence showing evolution from non-living to living is frustrating, while at the same time they feel confident in using their imagination to suppose that a god is possible.
Thus they end up with different ideas of which is a more plausible idea
Science has merely made evolution from non living matter a serious possibility, because all of our fossil records can be described by its theory.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10509778 - 06/15/09 08:35 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
whether evolution was true or not.
no, whether evolution is plausible in light of the evidence or whether it is inconsistant with the evidence. We are not searching for metaphysical truth, we are searching for verifiable theory explaining the many observations we make.
Quote:
the lack of any evidence showing evolution from non-living to living is frustrating
This has nothing at all to do with evolution. It is completely unrelated.
Quote:
But intelligent design itself is very plausible.
so its a question of what is more plausible
No, its a question of what the evidence supports. We can observe the forces of evolution.
We can not observe anything at all to do with supernatural or natural design of life.
Thus evolution has support while intelligent design does not.
Moreover, ID cannot be falsified so it is impossible to disprove and not science for the same reason imagining a cookie monster is behind the scenes controlling everything isn't- we can never find evidence that it isn't so and we have no evidence that it is so.
This has nothing to do with plausibility- it has to do with what evidence we have and whether the hypothesis may be disproven.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10511656 - 06/15/09 02:44 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Evolution is only falsifiable under chance conditions that you will find an anomoly.
So it is falsifiable.
A scientific theory doesn't have to be easily falsifiable, or likely to be falsified, for it to still count as a scientific theory.
ok, more clarification:
when something is said to be 'falsifiable' it means that it can be falsified. This might be due to chance occurence that it can be falsified at some moment,
or it might be because there is a way that someone could falsify it if they wanted to.
Yes, I see what you're saying, but I disagree. Science doesn't care whether something is easily falsifiable, it just has to be theoretically falsifiable. You can't easily falsify gravity, but it's still a theory.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10511758 - 06/15/09 03:03 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Science doesn't care
I want a methodology that is concerned about my feelings! 
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast
Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 3,824
Loc: Ohio
Last seen: 1 day, 50 minutes
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10515601 - 06/16/09 06:32 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I won't comment on a single Evolution/ID thread after this.
The only answer to all the uneducated, and some of you seem really smart just uneducated, is to read "The God Delusion."
Just do it FFS or keep on eating with the herd of sheople. 
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
 
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10521235 - 06/17/09 12:46 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
whether evolution was true or not.
Quote:
the lack of any evidence showing evolution from non-living to living is frustrating
This has nothing at all to do with evolution. It is completely unrelated.
Ok. WHAT????
That evolution occurs is not up for discussion.. it is a necessary outcome of our universe... It is not just a matter of science but it is a matter of pure logic.
The question of evolution is: whether evolution can lead to the sort of complexity that we see around us, all by itself.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10521275 - 06/17/09 12:54 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
No, thats not the question. Nobody claims that evolution happens all by itself. It is a product of mutation and natural selection. There are real, tangible mechanisms behind evolution.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10521310 - 06/17/09 01:04 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Like aliens genetically altering primates to form humans...
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10521333 - 06/17/09 01:11 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Mutation and natural selection are necessary processes though. We know that dna is subject to physical pressures, thus mutation is a necessary consequence. We know that only a certain number of organisms can survive on given resources and thus natural selection necessarily occurs whenever two organisms try to live in teh same environment.
The tangible mechanisms you talk about are nothing special. They are undeniable concepts, definately derived from scientific discovery.
Who denies evolution?
People who support intelligent design do not deny that evolution occurs.
no one denies that evolution occurs? (or do they?)
The question is whether evolution can make morphologically distinct creatures emerge, as opposed to just creating a change within species?
--------------------
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10521338 - 06/17/09 01:12 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
People who support intelligent design do not deny that evolution occurs.
uhhh... yes they do.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10521343 - 06/17/09 01:13 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I havnt heard any argument that suggests that? Can you give an example?
oh. ps. i just remember that an old argument that was touted was that everything that god makes is perfect and thus would not change. But I think that can be doused by religious reasoning without the need to impose evolutionary theory. eg. A perfect life form would have to be adaptable
--------------------
Edited by Noteworthy (06/17/09 01:15 AM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10521354 - 06/17/09 01:16 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
People who support intelligent design are generally not very intelligent so maybe everything is magical to them.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10521359 - 06/17/09 01:17 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What? That's the whole thing about intelligent design. Followers deny that evolution occurs.
Quote:
We know that dna is subject to physical pressures, thus mutation is a necessary consequence.
Yes, of course. This is why it's so ridiculous that such a large number of people think that life on earth hasn't changed since the moment God put it all here over the course of a few days.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
rebus_minus
Registered: 05/15/09
Posts: 667
Last seen: 1 month, 6 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10521367 - 06/17/09 01:19 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
People who support intelligent design are generally not very intelligent so maybe everything is magical to them.
Wake up and smell the roses, old man.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10521411 - 06/17/09 01:30 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
What? That's the whole thing about intelligent design. Followers deny that evolution occurs.
Quote:
We know that dna is subject to physical pressures, thus mutation is a necessary consequence.
Yes, of course. This is why it's so ridiculous that such a large number of people think that life on earth hasn't changed since the moment God put it all here over the course of a few days.
.. I dont think CREATIONISTS should be used to depict I.D. followers.
Intelligent design is totally, 100% compatible with evolution
Id like to point out however that I do not live as an intelligent design follower. I believe the mystery of the matter needs to be respected more. But 'Evolution' is not an answer to the question 'how did we get here?' because no human on earth has any idea how evolution could cause life to exist in a lifeless universe.
Well i mean plenty of ppl have 'ideas'.. vague notions.. that merely suffice for the sake of intuition.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10521419 - 06/17/09 01:32 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
.. I dont think CREATIONISTS should be used to depict I.D. followers.
Documented evidence of the creationist movement rebranding itself as I.D. in an attempt to circumvent a supreme court ruling says otherwise.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10521438 - 06/17/09 01:37 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well maybe it would help, in teh discovery of this universe, to concentrate on the arguments rather than the people?
The relevance of creationists getting into the public system is a political and social dillema, not a philosophical one.
The stance of Intelligent Design is so much more than anything the BIBLE could possibly deal with.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10521451 - 06/17/09 01:42 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
But 'Evolution' is not an answer to the question 'how did we get here?
And chocolate is not the answer to the question 'how much is two plus two?'
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10521461 - 06/17/09 01:45 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Not to be rude, but you have the wrong idea what Intelligent Design is. You're getting it confused with something else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Quote:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]
ID is most certainly not compatible with evolution. It's creationism, under a different name.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10521495 - 06/17/09 02:00 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well thanks for trying not to be rude.
I will try to do the same when I say that you seem to care more about 'beating' creationists than finding the truth.
If Intelligent Design is just creationism, then what do you call genuine Intelligent Design followers? Ie. non-creationist intelligent design followers?
(I call them 'genuine' because the lack of specifying what the creator is, is essential to intelligent design theory, even if most ID followers indeed specify the creator very specifically as God of the bible)
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10521557 - 06/17/09 02:20 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't see how skirting around the issue of the designer's identity makes ID any different to creationism. They still make the same claims that go against the available evidence. They make all the same tired old arguments.
To me it doesn't matter if someone says that humans were designed by God, or that humans were designed by an "unknown designer" - it's still scientifically fraudulent.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10521668 - 06/17/09 02:48 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I would say that creationism conflicts with the evidence, and that is why it is scientifically fraudulent. However, Intelligent design does not conflict with any 'evidence'. It does not in any way contradict with science or any of the observed states of the universe. Because this is SIGNIFICANTLY different to creationism, which totally supposes things that CONTRADICT with science, dont you think the two types of ID followers are meaningfully different?
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10521765 - 06/17/09 03:24 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
ID states that life on earth was designed. So does creationism. This is a position that contradicts the evidence. I think they are both scientifically fraudulent.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10521838 - 06/17/09 03:44 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What evidence is there that shows 'the earth was NOT designed'? wtf?
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10521985 - 06/17/09 04:23 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
ID states that life on earth was designed. So does creationism. This is a position that contradicts the evidence. I think they are both scientifically fraudulent.
Who are you to say that the laws of nature were not designed by some cosmic consciousness?
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10522306 - 06/17/09 06:12 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
ID proponents argue that life was created as-is, but this disagrees with all the evidence in favour of evolution. Of which is there is a lot.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10522356 - 06/17/09 06:28 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I dont give a shit what some dumb bufoons told you, I want to know what sort of evidence CONTRADICTS with the notion of intelligent design. So far ive seen none and youve suggested none.
Please, this should not be about creationists!!!
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10522394 - 06/17/09 06:43 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
ID proponents argue that life was created as-is, but this disagrees with all the evidence in favour of evolution. Of which is there is a lot.
I certainly believe in evolution, but I am also open to the possibility of inherent consciousness/intelligence in nature.
If you were the size of an atom and living inside of your body, you would never be able to perceive your own body as a conscious being.
Compared to the size of the universe, we are almost like atoms compared to your body, and because of the huge difference in size it is extremely difficult for us to perceive the universe as a conscious being.
Edited by Zanthius (06/17/09 06:51 AM)
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis
Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,012
Loc: Boston
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10522684 - 06/17/09 08:10 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This is a problem you get when human beings are capable of anthropomorphic floating abstractions but fail to see that abstractions are nonsense when one is unable to break them down into observable concretes.
In other words, ID is total nonsense because it does not relate properly to anything in observable reality and as such is the antithesis of rational scientific method and reasoning.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: RationalEgo]
#10522790 - 06/17/09 08:52 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RationalEgo said:
In other words, ID is total nonsense because it does not relate properly to anything in observable reality and as such is the antithesis of rational scientific method and reasoning.
Sorry, but I think Christopher Langan is a lot more rational than Ayn Rand, which I believe wrote the egocentric book you have taken your avatar from. Holism incorporates a larger perspective than individualism, and is therefore at least as rational.
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis
Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,012
Loc: Boston
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10522799 - 06/17/09 08:54 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
RationalEgo said:
In other words, ID is total nonsense because it does not relate properly to anything in observable reality and as such is the antithesis of rational scientific method and reasoning.
Sorry, but I think Christopher Langan is a lot more rational than Ayn Rand, which I believe wrote the egocentric book you have taken your avatar from. Holism incorporates a larger perspective than individualism, and is there for at least as rational.
Way to go totally off topic and evade the issue. The last recourse of a person without a rational argument to offer. 
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: RationalEgo]
#10522827 - 06/17/09 09:03 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RationalEgo said:
Way to go totally off topic and evade the issue. The last recourse of a person without a rational argument to offer.
I am not a proponent of intelligent design. Christopher Langan is however, and I give his rationality a lot more credit than I would ever give to Ayn Rand.
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis
Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,012
Loc: Boston
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10522833 - 06/17/09 09:05 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why should I care and what relation is this to the topic of this thread. Do you have a rational argument to present?
Edited by RationalEgo (06/17/09 10:43 AM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: RationalEgo]
#10522847 - 06/17/09 09:09 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RationalEgo said:
Thats nice for you. But why should I care and what relation is that to the topic of this thread?
Who cares about the boring topic of evolution VS intelligent design. It is much more fun to discuss holism VS individualism. There are billions of evidences for evolution, and there isn't necessarily any contradiction in believing in evolution and intelligent design at the same time.
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis
Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,012
Loc: Boston
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10522856 - 06/17/09 09:10 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
RationalEgo said:
Thats nice for you. But why should I care and what relation is that to the topic of this thread?
Who cares about the boring topic of evolution VS intelligent design. It is much more fun to discuss holism VS individualism.
Why not start another thread then?
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10524486 - 06/17/09 02:40 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
I dont give a shit what some dumb bufoons told you, I want to know what sort of evidence CONTRADICTS with the notion of intelligent design. So far ive seen none and youve suggested none.
Please, this should not be about creationists!!!
And I keep telling you, the lack of any evidence that the earth was created, combined with the overwhelming evidence that life evolved, means that evolution is a far more likely theory than intelligent design. Beyond that, though, it's impossible to disprove intelligent design, because we can never say for sure that the plants and animals weren't created and just made to look like they evolved. Because it is unfalsifiable, ID is not a scientific theory. It's religious doctrine dressed up as pseudoscience.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10524534 - 06/17/09 02:48 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
RationalEgo said:
Way to go totally off topic and evade the issue. The last recourse of a person without a rational argument to offer.
I am not a proponent of intelligent design. Christopher Langan is however, and I give his rationality a lot more credit than I would ever give to Ayn Rand.
I give neither any credit. Christopher Langan is an uneducated douchebag. It's a shame that he's wasting his talent with philosophical rubbish like that CTMU junk. His association with the intellectually bankrupt William Dembski justifies my contempt of him. The only reason people give him any attention is because his IQ is so high - but beyond that, he has nothing of import to say. Again, I think it's a real shame.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10524724 - 06/17/09 03:14 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
whether evolution was true or not.
Quote:
the lack of any evidence showing evolution from non-living to living is frustrating
This has nothing at all to do with evolution. It is completely unrelated.
Ok. WHAT????
That evolution occurs is not up for discussion.. it is a necessary outcome of our universe... It is not just a matter of science but it is a matter of pure logic.
The question of evolution is: whether evolution can lead to the sort of complexity that we see around us, all by itself.
The lack of evidence showing things "evolving" from non-living matter to living matter has nothing to do with evolution, that is my point.
Don't confuse what the words "intelligent design" mean with the phrase of the same name. The ID movement is different than what the words themselves would indicate. Yes, ID isn't neccesarily incompatible with evolutionary evidence, but the actual movement's claims are. They claim many things, and demure to vague statements, but basically many try to say higher orders were created rather than evolved. If your going to refer to generic creation than you should indicate that when using the words "ID", as that is different than the phrase's meaning.
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
I dont give a shit what some dumb bufoons told you, I want to know what sort of evidence CONTRADICTS with the notion of intelligent design. So far ive seen none and youve suggested none.
Please, this should not be about creationists!!!
Define ID first as the manner in which your using the words or phrase is unclear.
In any case, aside from the squabble over zouden's comments, it doesn't matter. ID has the burden to produce a testable hypothesis which manifests neccesary observable phenomena. Only then can it actually be found true or false.
Nobody has shown how it even means anything such that it can be tested and refuted or supported. Until this happens it is just a philosophical thought experiment with no evidence to support it. Plausibility is not the requirement for science, evidence is. ID appears unable to be observed or measured in any way and it will remain just a "what if" untill they get their act together.
I suspect its impossible, but that's their burden. Their wedge strategy is actually a great strategy for legitimizing the thought. Unfortunatly I think its impossible without changing the meaning of ID to something they'd be unsatisfied with.
|
ChiefGreenLeaf
Cherriest of All Humans
Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,409
Loc: Pineal Gland
Last seen: 7 months, 10 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10525080 - 06/17/09 04:13 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I need proof that what you asserted is actually science. Could you share your methodology for experiments? How did you come to a conclusion? I have not seen any peer-reviwed studies confirming this. I need evidence. You can't just go around making claims without proof.
seriously though, you are in for a big surprise. it's not your fault though, mainstream corporate 'science' has hi-jacked your mind
--------------------
ABSENCE OF EVIDNCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
|
ChiefGreenLeaf
Cherriest of All Humans
Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,409
Loc: Pineal Gland
Last seen: 7 months, 10 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10525085 - 06/17/09 04:14 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
RationalEgo said:
Thats nice for you. But why should I care and what relation is that to the topic of this thread?
Who cares about the boring topic of evolution VS intelligent design. It is much more fun to discuss holism VS individualism. There are billions of evidences for evolution, and there isn't necessarily any contradiction in believing in evolution and intelligent design at the same time.
--------------------
ABSENCE OF EVIDNCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
|
ChiefGreenLeaf
Cherriest of All Humans
Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,409
Loc: Pineal Gland
Last seen: 7 months, 10 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10525087 - 06/17/09 04:14 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
zouden said:
ID proponents argue that life was created as-is, but this disagrees with all the evidence in favour of evolution. Of which is there is a lot.
I certainly believe in evolution, but I am also open to the possibility of inherent consciousness/intelligence in nature.
If you were the size of an atom and living inside of your body, you would never be able to perceive your own body as a conscious being.
Compared to the size of the universe, we are almost like atoms compared to your body, and because of the huge difference in size it is extremely difficult for us to perceive the universe as a conscious being.
wow man you are spot on
--------------------
ABSENCE OF EVIDNCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 27 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
#10525099 - 06/17/09 04:17 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Thus the universe must be a cosmic being. 
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10525112 - 06/17/09 04:21 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Christopher Langan is an uneducated douchebag. It's a shame that he's wasting his talent with philosophical rubbish like that CTMU junk. His association with the intellectually bankrupt William Dembski justifies my contempt of him. The only reason people give him any attention is because his IQ is so high - but beyond that, he has nothing of import to say. Again
Yeah, but what do yo think of him?
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Lakefingers]
#10525132 - 06/17/09 04:25 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Thus the universe must be a cosmic being.
What if God is mentally unstable and just fucking with us for his own personal amusement?
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 27 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10525151 - 06/17/09 04:28 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That makes sense, so that must be the answer. Solved! Next.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
#10527109 - 06/17/09 08:49 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChiefGreenLeaf said:
I need proof that what you asserted is actually science. Could you share your methodology for experiments? How did you come to a conclusion? I have not seen any peer-reviwed studies confirming this. I need evidence. You can't just go around making claims without proof.
seriously though, you are in for a big surprise. it's not your fault though, mainstream corporate 'science' has hi-jacked your mind
WTF are you actually asking for? A study on the ID claims I've heard? The consequences that are observable among those claims? The whole point of the post was that I've not heard any ID claims that have testable consequences, and I think its pretty clear that no study exists chronicling the material I've been exposed to. If you feel I've missed something in my statements then feel free to throw it out there, but your request for a study showing that I've not seen certain things is pretty bizzarre.
Was this post actually in good faith? I have no idea what you want a study regarding, please clarify. Additionally, are the rules such that comments about another's mind and your evaluation of the consequences thereof are allowed?
Quote:
ChiefGreenLeaf said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
zouden said:
ID proponents argue that life was created as-is, but this disagrees with all the evidence in favour of evolution. Of which is there is a lot.
I certainly believe in evolution, but I am also open to the possibility of inherent consciousness/intelligence in nature.
If you were the size of an atom and living inside of your body, you would never be able to perceive your own body as a conscious being.
Compared to the size of the universe, we are almost like atoms compared to your body, and because of the huge difference in size it is extremely difficult for us to perceive the universe as a conscious being.
wow man you are spot on
No, he's making the mistake of presuming that size is entirely relative and that our solar system could be an atom in a being's figer, or vice versa.
This is obviously wrong- physcial processes dependant upon size do not change linearly as the scale changes. Size actually does have a real meaning- it is not an arbitrary and purely relative thing.
Inherent conciousness in nature seems to have nothing to do with this discussion, but it is similar to the extent that like ID it appears to be more thought experiments with no basis in the real world.
If you can't demonstrate it exists there is no reason for anyone to conclude it does- and if there are no observable consequences of your mystical theory than it is probably wholly meaningless anyways.
|
ChiefGreenLeaf
Cherriest of All Humans
Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,409
Loc: Pineal Gland
Last seen: 7 months, 10 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10527546 - 06/17/09 10:11 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
No, he's making the mistake of presuming that size is entirely relative and that our solar system could be an atom in a being's figer, or vice versa.
This is obviously wrong- physcial processes dependant upon size do not change linearly as the scale changes. Size actually does have a real meaning- it is not an arbitrary and purely relative thing.
Do you have proof of this?
dude, I'm just fuckin with ya. that is how most people respond to my ideas about ID, so I thought that I would give you a taste of your own medicine. seems pretty ridonkulous, no?
and now i know your gonna come back with I'm right and you are stupid because I don't have "evidence". it's cool though I don't need to debate this, it's not like that's gonna do anything. just keep fighting it until your last breath. if luck has it you will "see" before then. may we all realize our true selves. namaste
--------------------
ABSENCE OF EVIDNCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
#10527738 - 06/17/09 10:49 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I have seen no evidence that can confirm any written hypothesis that evolution allowed life to arise from non-living matter. I can just keep repeating this and maybe one day someone might get it. Evolution is a great theory. I support it all the way. But no part of evolutionary theory - no scientist on this earth - has an idea of how this theoretical process occured. Evolution is one function of this universe. It is a basic tennant along with the other laws of nature. This we know, and we know will affect us right now. Evolution is a significant theory.
Evolution is different to the theory that all complexity came from evolution. The latter, which I often refer to as evolutionary theory, is not supported and is merely 'the only idea that we can tie with physical artifacts'.
I love the way that people can keep avoiding the issue by reminding us that evolutionary theory correlates with fossil evidence. Who cares? That just means we need to include it in our idea of the universe. That does NOT mean that we can then hypothesise that it in fact is all there is in the universe.
It is just wrong to ever try to describe the creator, if you are open to the idea of intelligent design. And I think this is where a lot of people become insecure. Because everyone wants to know the full story, they cant handle being open to intelligent design because they cant handle keeping that aspect of their reality unknown. But if you just stop and dont claim to have any idea what the designer is like, then intelligent design becomes a matter of 'unknown factor'. In positing the origin of the universe, we have some mechanisms, eg evolution, that we know were involved. However since that is not the whole story, we have another bunch of factors, which we can gather together as 'unknown factor'.
This 'unknown factor' cannot be denied. We dont know how life came to be. But it is here. Some factor was involved, and we dont know it.
We know that a certain amount of variation in life is accounted for by evolution. The rest of the variation is unnacounted for.
And thus you have two options: to suggest that evolution indeed was responsible for the diversity and complexity of all life.
or suggest that some other influence was also involved.
This other influence could be anything.
It is just as probable than evolution, because neither theories have been shown any validity.
However evolution is already known as a process and thus we can be confident about it, whereas any specific 'designer' that people propose is just.. well.. imaginary.
This can blind us to the fact that even though evolution is evidenced, it is not evidenced in the matters that we are most concerned about - eg species proliferation.
Thus evolution is not really evidenced.
Because science cannot make an experiment to test evolution.
It can only maintain that evolution is not a contradiction.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10527800 - 06/17/09 11:00 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Because science cannot make an experiment to test evolution.
It can only maintain that evolution is not a contradiction.
All scientific theories are tested by looking for contradictions.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10527811 - 06/17/09 11:03 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes and so far this science has allowed us to find contradiction in creationism, therefor creationism can be discarded.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10527901 - 06/17/09 11:24 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I have seen no evidence that can confirm any written hypothesis that evolution allowed life to arise from non-living matter.
Dude, we've been around this bend before. Evolution has nothing to do with things coming from nonliving matter. This issue is one of the straw men people beat up on when they don't like evolution but it has nothing to do with it.
Anyways, while things could come frmo chance it seems, there is no way I know of to determine how life arose. The best we can do is try to determine conditions and the plausibility of certain events occuring, but it would be difficult to find any evidence of what happened it seems to me.
Chiefgreenleaf- I'm referring to the fact that numerous properties depend on the scale of the item and they don't change linearly with respect to themselves as the scale increases. For example, the volume of a sphere increases faster than the surface area with respect to the radius. Because of this, a very large cell would be unable to sustain anything remotely similar to any life we know of for the same reason you don't have animals or bacteria with cells even an inch big.
When the volume of a cell is quite large relative to its surface area it becomes difficult to sustain life within that cell. Diffusion becomes quite difficult to use, and you become unable to sustain life. Its one of hte reasons the things with large cells generally have slower metabolisms, otherwise they couldn't get enough stuff into them to sustain life.
And in any case, I just enjoy discussing things I'm interested in. If you don't think you'll change your mind then that's fine, but I enjoy discussing them just the same.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10528024 - 06/17/09 11:49 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
A straw man eh? I dunno Im sure you think the same of me but I think youre on the wrong boat mate. Evolution doesnt have anything to do with life originating from non-life eh?
Look ive not been living under a rock, I know very well that people all over the world are argueing over whether evolution allowed life to arise in an otherwise non-living universe.
The question of whether evolution occurs or not is no longer a matter of much debate. Science has proven evolution does occur. The morphology of the significant numbers of any given species will change over time given any environmental stress.
I think you are wasting your time with creationists if you still think the argument is whether evolution exists or not!
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528202 - 06/18/09 12:33 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Look ive not been living under a rock, I know very well that people all over the world are argueing over whether evolution allowed life to arise in an otherwise non-living universe. .....
Well then they have no idea what the theory of evolution is and should probably figure that out before they presume to take issue with it.
Your argument seems to be akin to the "teach the controversy" argument of the dover schools ID case. Just cuz lay people bitch about ID and evolution doesn't mean there is a legitimate scientific controversy over it that begs teaching. As relevant to this thread: just cuz you claim people debate whether things 'evolved' from non living matter doesn't change evolutionary theory to encompase it.
Evolution has to do with the way life changes over time due to natural selection and other events, it has nothing to do with life coming from nonliving matter- at all.
While the word "evolution" may be used to describe many things (evolution of clouds, evolution of philosophy, et cet) the theory of evolution itself says nothing about them and it says nothing about abiogenesis. It would be helpful if critics could understand what they are arguing against before presuming to do so.
(BTW, I wasn't saying you were deliberatly constructing a straw man, I was just saying it was a straw man argument often used by people either ignorant or intentionally seeking to argue against evolutionary theory on spurious grounds)
Quote:
I think you are wasting your time with creationists if you still think the argument is whether evolution exists or not!
Why would you presume i am not a creationist? And what evidence do you have to suggest they generally believe in evolution? Unless your using the word in general (in which case you shoudl surely specify such given the topic of this thread regards the theory of evolution rather than the generic word) they absolutely do take issue with it. There's a great many people that accept small changes (I guess to explain why their kids have obviously novel traits at times) but deny evolutionary theory is plausible as the age of the earth is too young, their is no evidence to support it, the bible says animals where created outright, and there's no ape-men. Do you really doubt this fact? It is easy to find creationists discussing their views that higher order animals where created and so I've not cited any. Is it neccesary?
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528295 - 06/18/09 12:55 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Look ive not been living under a rock, I know very well that people all over the world are argueing over whether evolution allowed life to arise in an otherwise non-living universe.
Well, there are scientific theories about how life could have originated (abiogenesis), but it's a separate matter to how life evolved. Two different questions.
Quote:
Science has proven evolution does occur. The morphology of the significant numbers of any given species will change over time given any environmental stress.
Agreed.
Quote:
I think you are wasting your time with creationists if you still think the argument is whether evolution exists or not!
Only 13% of Americans believe in evolution, while 45% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago.
Here in Australia it's a very different story.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10528345 - 06/18/09 01:16 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
In the context of the creationist furor,
many ID proponents want ID to be tought in schools along side evolution as an explination for the diversity of life.
This would not be an issue if it was not being tought by science curriculums.
I think that schools should not be allowed to tell students things like where diversity of life came from because humans dont know that.
Since we mostly disagree on what people agree on, it is hard to make any claims, but I am under the impression that many schools teach evolution as if it has been proven to allow diverse species to arise from eachother.
I am under the impression that schools teach children that the giraffe has a long neck because those pregiraffes with longest necks had the best survival chances, and eventually the girraffes without long necks were so disadvantaged that they became extinct, leaving the long necked pregiraffes to make up the living gene pool.
However this is pure speculation that has not been proven scientifically.
The mechanism of evolution should be tought to all people on earth
but the implications of it are another matter.
And should not be tought at schools, just like how we believe creationism should not be tought at schools.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528381 - 06/18/09 01:37 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
However this is pure speculation that has not been proven scientifically.
It's not pure speculation. It's educated speculation. Like all science.
Do you think schools shouldn't teach Newton's theory of gravity either?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528542 - 06/18/09 03:05 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
I think that schools should not be allowed to tell students things like where diversity of life came from because humans dont know that.
Of course we know that the diversity comes at least partially from evolution. There might be hidden variables involved in how the biological diversity was formed, but we know that a lot of diversity comes from what we currently identify as evolution.
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
I am under the impression that schools teach children that the giraffe has a long neck because those pregiraffes with longest necks had the best survival chances, and eventually the girraffes without long necks were so disadvantaged that they became extinct, leaving the long necked pregiraffes to make up the living gene pool.
However this is pure speculation that has not been proven scientifically.
Sounds like science to me, and biological sciences are a lot more scientific than social sciences. There might be hidden variables involved in how the Giraffe attained its long neck, but the best explanation biologists can give today, is that the giraffes with long necks had a higher survival rate.
Edited by Zanthius (06/18/09 03:12 AM)
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528592 - 06/18/09 03:42 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why do we need to talk about our best explination as if it is an answer to anything? Why cant we accept that we dont know?
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10528660 - 06/18/09 04:26 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why cant we accept that we dont know?
When have humans ever accepted that?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10528725 - 06/18/09 05:13 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This isnt about what it is likely for humans to do/think, but what is rational. I mean, when have humans ever thought freely? Some do but most dont. And most dont care if theyre thinking right or wrong, they just care whether they are approved by their peers.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10528745 - 06/18/09 05:21 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Well, there are scientific theories about how life could have originated (abiogenesis), but it's a separate matter to how life evolved. Two different questions.
And yet, the exact same IDers/Creationsists must bring this exact same flawed issue up multiple times in every single thread on Evolution no matter that it was covered in detail in the previous thread. It is almost as if they want to publicly demonstrate their inability to learn and are proud of it.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10529117 - 06/18/09 07:54 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
No, he's making the mistake of presuming that size is entirely relative and that our solar system could be an atom in a being's figer, or vice versa.
This is obviously wrong- physcial processes dependant upon size do not change linearly as the scale changes. Size actually does have a real meaning- it is not an arbitrary and purely relative thing.
So what? That physical processes depend upon size and don't necessarily change linearly as scale changes, doesn't necessarily forbid consciousness to exist at larger scales. There might be a completely different type of consciousness at a larger scale. Perhaps a much higher form of consciousness than what you are possessing.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10529394 - 06/18/09 09:09 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Why do we need to talk about our best explination as if it is an answer to anything? Why cant we accept that we dont know?
Because a best guess is better than no guess.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
  
|
ChiefGreenLeaf
Cherriest of All Humans
Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,409
Loc: Pineal Gland
Last seen: 7 months, 10 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10530642 - 06/18/09 01:21 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Like aliens genetically altering primates to form humans...
--------------------
ABSENCE OF EVIDNCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
|
ChiefGreenLeaf
Cherriest of All Humans
Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,409
Loc: Pineal Gland
Last seen: 7 months, 10 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: BlueCoyote]
#10530655 - 06/18/09 01:23 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BlueCoyote said:
I think evolution is intelligent
case closed
--------------------
ABSENCE OF EVIDNCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10531405 - 06/18/09 03:38 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
No, he's making the mistake of presuming that size is entirely relative and that our solar system could be an atom in a being's figer, or vice versa.
This is obviously wrong- physcial processes dependant upon size do not change linearly as the scale changes. Size actually does have a real meaning- it is not an arbitrary and purely relative thing.
So what? That physical processes depend upon size and don't necessarily change linearly as scale changes, doesn't necessarily forbid consciousness to exist at larger scales. There might be a completely different type of consciousness at a larger scale. Perhaps a much higher form of consciousness than what you are possessing.
Ok, I was just responding to the comment that people or solar systems could be but an atom on our finger or the corrolary of our solar system being an atom or whatnot.
Since I have no idea what this "different type of consciousness at a larger scale" actually means I have no comment on it except to say that it seems so vague as to be meaningless.
There's all sorts of things that are possible. God could be controlling me, flowers could be made of fire, we could go to an afterlife in a puppy's belly, but untill there's any evidence for them the whole thing seems pointless to suggest.
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Well, there are scientific theories about how life could have originated (abiogenesis), but it's a separate matter to how life evolved. Two different questions.
And yet, the exact same IDers/Creationsists must bring this exact same flawed issue up multiple times in every single thread on Evolution no matter that it was covered in detail in the previous thread. It is almost as if they want to publicly demonstrate their inability to learn and are proud of it.
Yeah, its frustrating to see people just make up a ridiculous tennant of evolution and then attack it when that tennant has nothing to do with evolution. Especially when it is CONSTANTLY done and anybody remotely interested in evolution or ID shoudl by now be aware of it.
But there's no reason to think noteworthy fits this mold, so I'm not referring to him and I'd disagree with you if you are. It is frustrating, but he may just not be all that in to the discussion on these issues, and there's no reason he should have a perfect understanding of them. We're all laypeople here, mostly.
The problem is when people take political action or make policy decisions on silly grounds. This seemed to be the case with the Dover trial, certainly. They didn't even know what ID was any yet they voted for it!
Quote:
Furthermore, Board members somewhat candidly conceded that they lacked sufficient background in science to evaluate ID, and several of them testified with equal frankness that they failed to understand the substance of the curriculum change adopted on October 18, 2004. (31:175, 181-82 (Geesey); 32:49-50 (Cleaver); 34:117-18, 124-25 (Harkins)).
In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members. Conspicuously, Board members who voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly no grasp of ID. To illustrate, consider that Geesey testified she did not understand the substance of the curriculum change, yet she voted for it. (31:181-82 (Geesey); 29:11-12 (Buckingham); Buckingham Dep. 1:59-61, January 3, 2005; 34:48-49 (Harkins); 33:112-13 (Bonsell); 26:21 (Nilsen)). Moreover, as she indicated on multiple occasions, in voting for the curriculum change, Geesy deferred completely to Bonsell and Buckingham. (31:154-55, 161-62, 168, 184-87, 190 (Geesey)). Second, Buckingham, Chair of the Curriculum Committee at the time, admitted that he had no basis to know whether ID amounted to good science as of the time of his first deposition, which was two and a half months after the ID Policy was
Dover pg 121 of the opinion
These are the people who've decided their ignorance is better than the science teachers reasoned decisions? Wow.
By the way, Noteworthy, regarding your claim that people don't seriously doubt that evolution occurs only how its directed or how life was created:
Quote:
Pandas states, in pertinent part, as follows:
Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. P-11 at 99-100 (emphasis added).
Stated another way, ID posits that animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designer. Defendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point. (21:96-100 (Behe); P-718 at 696, 700 (“implausible that the designer is a natural entity”); 28:21-22 (Fuller) (“. . . ID’s rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism . . .”); 38:95-96 (Minnich) (ID does not exclude the possibility of a supernatural designer, including deities).
The textbook that was central to the case and the defense's own witnesses said the evolution was wrong and that life was created abruptly- contrary to evolution. In any case, there's the demonstration that you asked for.
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Why do we need to talk about our best explination as if it is an answer to anything? Why cant we accept that we dont know?
Because a best guess is better than no guess.
Yeah, plus it seems yet more silliness to suggest that science claims to know anything. Everything we know is predicated upon presumptions that could be wrong- including the conclusions themselves.
Evolution isn't a thought experiment like ID appears to be or like several posters' suggested realities in this thread. Evolution is an explanation for observations that manifests testable consequences that have been found to be correct.
It is fundamentally wrong to suggest that this is all some post hac rationalization when new advances constantly affirm our predictions about evolution. Genetics itself was ahuge test that passed.
We will never know anything certainly and science has nothing to do with this. I find the discussion about metaphysical certainty to be quite silly given that it has nothing particularly to do with evolution. Its a juvenile observation quite plain to everyone and doesn't seem to have anything to do with science particularly, and yet folks routinely assert the opposite without any evidence.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10531767 - 06/18/09 04:44 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Since I have no idea what this "different type of consciousness at a larger scale" actually means I have no comment on it except to say that it seems so vague as to be meaningless.
There's all sorts of things that are possible. God could be controlling me, flowers could be made of fire, we could go to an afterlife in a puppy's belly, but untill there's any evidence for them the whole thing seems pointless to suggest.
It wouldn't necessarily seem so pointless to you, if you were more conscious of yourself and your environment. Perhaps more consciousness is what you need in order to see the meaning of it. Not necessarily more evidences.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
#10531926 - 06/18/09 05:10 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChiefGreenLeaf said:
Quote:
BlueCoyote said:
I think evolution is intelligent
case closed
Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Arden
לנשום
Registered: 09/01/08
Posts: 7,648
Loc: Α & Ω
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10532016 - 06/18/09 05:21 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Evolution is blind.
But he still leaves home, walking aimlessly about.
Wonder where he's going? Maybe to the park to play?
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10532111 - 06/18/09 05:35 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
Please provide evidence for the italicized assertion.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532194 - 06/18/09 05:50 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
Please provide evidence for the italicized assertion.
The fact that no evidence has been shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature to natural selection?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Arden
לנשום
Registered: 09/01/08
Posts: 7,648
Loc: Α & Ω
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10532238 - 06/18/09 05:55 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The fact that no evidence has been shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature to natural selection?
So therefore the opposite is true?
By this reasoning, because there was no amount of evidence to prove the planets in fact revolved around the sun, then by default it was the sun revolving around the earth?
Just playing a logical Devil's advocate here.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Arden]
#10532401 - 06/18/09 06:29 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Intelligent or blind simply aren't characteristics that apply to the process of evolution.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10532545 - 06/18/09 07:00 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
Please provide evidence for the italicized assertion.
The fact that no evidence has been shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature to natural selection?
Well, I could bring up the Donald Rumsfeld defense that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but since there isn't an absence of evidence here, I will instead refer you to the work of Dr. Lynn Margulis, former wife of Carl Sagan, on a phenomenon known as symbiogenesis. Here's a good run-down on her endosymbiotic theory, now generally accepted as the most plausible explanation of the origin of eukaryotic cells. In her phenomenal book Dazzle Gradually, coauthored with her son, Dorion Sagan, she explains how similar purposive, symbiotic behavior of these micro-organisms helped generate complex life. Thus, choices made by individual organisms(in other words, purposive behavior) play a major role in evolution.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532583 - 06/18/09 07:08 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Thus, choices made by individual organisms(in other words, purposive behavior) play a major role in evolution.
... which is not at all equal to evolution being intelligent.
|
 Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate
Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 7,358
Last seen: 2 seconds
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532609 - 06/18/09 07:11 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
Please provide evidence for the italicized assertion.
The fact that no evidence has been shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature to natural selection?
Well, I could bring up the Donald Rumsfeld defense that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but since there isn't an absence of evidence here, I will instead refer you to the work of Dr. Lynn Margulis, former wife of Carl Sagan, on a phenomenon known as symbiogenesis. Here's a good run-down on her endosymbiotic theory, now generally accepted as the most plausible explanation of the origin of eukaryotic cells. In her phenomenal book Dazzle Gradually, coauthored with her son, Dorion Sagan, she explains how similar purposive, symbiotic behavior of these micro-organisms helped generate complex life. Thus, choices made by individual organisms(in other words, purposive behavior) play a major role in evolution.
Reproduction, migration in search of food, and other survival behaviors have biological purposes and catalyze evolutionary changes, but how is that similar to the evolutionary process having intelligence and purpose per se?
--------------------
|
ChiefGreenLeaf
Cherriest of All Humans
Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,409
Loc: Pineal Gland
Last seen: 7 months, 10 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10532612 - 06/18/09 07:12 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
ChiefGreenLeaf said:
Quote:
BlueCoyote said:
I think evolution is intelligent
case closed
Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
how is evolution blind please provide evidence.
so what is a computer?
you have little circuits interacting with each other either yes/no
from this we can build computers that preform computation, process information, analyze, etc.
I look at a cell
It has little molecules and stuff that do things
based on tiny electrical charges of atoms
positive and negative
yes and no
yin and yang
0101010101
so they do their thing
but what makes them do it
electrons zipping about trying to stabilize the outer orbitals and keep electrical equilibrium
more 0101100101 just packaged differently
and I'm supposed to believe from these little packets of energy everything was just randomly created.
once you get down to it you realize that their is an underlying intelligence in all nature
what I'm trying to say is we can design a computer that is intelligent (AI) and at its most basic essence it is operating on strictly yes no relationships well there is quantum computing. i think the most fundamental level of reality (consciousness) operates in a quantum computing type framework and this is how we have free will (kind of)
anywayz....
so my question is, why can't all of nature operate on yes no relationships just like our computers?
and if it does then some power had to go about establishing the circuits. ya know?
DAOISM FTW!!!!
what I'm saying isn't science by any means, but I don't really think our version of science will ever be able to even consider things like this.
especially considering how barbaric we are with our fossil fuels and GMOs and nanotech. It's disgusting.
edit: to the below poster, I'm not saying that this is created randomly. There are set laws that govern nature again the 010100111 stuff. The problem with modern scientific thinking is that everyone has bought into the idea that these laws were randomly created, selected, and implemented, I beg to differ.
--------------------
ABSENCE OF EVIDNCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
Edited by ChiefGreenLeaf (06/18/09 07:25 PM)
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
#10532630 - 06/18/09 07:15 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
and I'm supposed to believe from these little packets of energy everything was just randomly created.
No, your not supposed to believe that at all. Thats not what the theory of evolution by natural selection entails. Review your biology texts...
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10532649 - 06/18/09 07:18 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
Thus, choices made by individual organisms(in other words, purposive behavior) play a major role in evolution.
... which is not at all equal to evolution being intelligent.
I was referring to his comment about natural selection having a purposeful nature. Clearly, intention denotes purpose. QED
--------------------
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532663 - 06/18/09 07:22 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
I was referring to his comment about natural selection having a purposeful nature. Clearly, intention denotes purpose. QED
So anthropomorphizing early life with purposeful intention is sufficient for a QED? Ha, I dont think so.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10532806 - 06/18/09 07:44 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
I was referring to his comment about natural selection having a purposeful nature. Clearly, intention denotes purpose. QED
So anthropomorphizing early life with purposeful intention is sufficient for a QED? Ha, I dont think so.
Behavior that displays intentionality is well-documented among microorganisms. Certain protozoans will eat certain types of food when they are starved, but not under other circumstances, which indicates a decision on whether or not to eat it. Slime molds have managed to navigate mazes to get to the hidden food. There are numerous other instances. One may dismiss this as nothing but unguided chemical determinism, but one cannot easily do so without also implying the same for our own decisions.
--------------------
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate
Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 7,358
Last seen: 2 seconds
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532837 - 06/18/09 07:48 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
I was referring to his comment about natural selection having a purposeful nature. Clearly, intention denotes purpose. QED
So anthropomorphizing early life with purposeful intention is sufficient for a QED? Ha, I dont think so.
Behavior that displays intentionality is well-documented among microorganisms. Certain protozoans will eat certain types of food when they are starved, but not under other circumstances, which indicates a decision on whether or not to eat it. Slime molds have managed to navigate mazes to get to the hidden food. There are numerous other instances. One may dismiss this as nothing but unguided chemical determinism, but one cannot easily do so without also implying the same for our own decisions.
I for one am not uncomfortable implying that. I have observed in myself no evidence of free will.
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Lion]
#10532844 - 06/18/09 07:50 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lion said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
I was referring to his comment about natural selection having a purposeful nature. Clearly, intention denotes purpose. QED
So anthropomorphizing early life with purposeful intention is sufficient for a QED? Ha, I dont think so.
Behavior that displays intentionality is well-documented among microorganisms. Certain protozoans will eat certain types of food when they are starved, but not under other circumstances, which indicates a decision on whether or not to eat it. Slime molds have managed to navigate mazes to get to the hidden food. There are numerous other instances. One may dismiss this as nothing but unguided chemical determinism, but one cannot easily do so without also implying the same for our own decisions.
I for one am not uncomfortable implying that. I have observed in myself no evidence of free will.
Maybe you're not trying hard enough. 
--------------------
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532882 - 06/18/09 07:55 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
And how do you equate intention of an organism to intention of natural selection?
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10532902 - 06/18/09 07:58 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
And how do you equate intention of an organism to intention of natural selection?
If intentional behavior leads to new adaptions then intention plays a role in natural selection.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10532930 - 06/18/09 08:02 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Ahh, so now its 'intention plays a role in natural selection'. Got it. Was that ever really disputed though? Humans have intention, we are involved in natural selection - thats a no brainier. That not the same as evolution being 'intelligent' or natural selection having a 'kind of design or purposeful nature' though.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10532971 - 06/18/09 08:07 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Ahh, so now its 'intention plays a role in natural selection'. Got it. Was that ever really disputed though? Humans have intention, we are involved in natural selection - thats a no brainier. That not the same as evolution being 'intelligent' or natural selection having a 'kind of design or purposeful nature' though.
True. To get into that territory, I'd have to get into the Gaia hypothesis, which is actually more of a model than a hypothesis. Nonetheless, like string theory, it is a coherent model which helps make sense of observed facts, and one that I hold to be both intuitively and rationally appealing.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10533335 - 06/18/09 08:54 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Arden said:
Quote:
The fact that no evidence has been shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature to natural selection?
So therefore the opposite is true?
By this reasoning, because there was no amount of evidence to prove the planets in fact revolved around the sun, then by default it was the sun revolving around the earth?
Just playing a logical Devil's advocate here.
As it stands I see the theory of natural selection working by random mutation as a much simpler theory than one that postulates an intelligence or purpose to each evolutionary step. Occam's Razor FTW.
Quote:
Qubit said:
Ahh, so now its 'intention plays a role in natural selection'. Got it. Was that ever really disputed though? Humans have intention, we are involved in natural selection - thats a no brainier. That not the same as evolution being 'intelligent' or natural selection having a 'kind of design or purposeful nature' though.
Yep.
Quote:
ChiefGreenLeaf said:
so my question is, why can't all of nature operate on yes no relationships just like our computers?
and if it does then some power had to go about establishing the circuits. ya know?
I believe all of reality operates on very fundamental laws at the quantum level, and it is indeed quite possible that some intelligent being designed these laws and created this Universe. I do not, however, believe that some intelligent agency is purposefully guiding evolution or steering natural selection; instead it is more probable that these are operating according to these fundamental laws just like everything else in the Universe.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10534802 - 06/19/09 01:36 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
Please provide evidence for the italicized assertion.
The fact that no evidence has been shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature to natural selection?
can I ask how any evidence -could- be shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature, -IF- it was so?
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10534818 - 06/19/09 01:42 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
God or an alien appears and says "I created you and here's how I did it". That would swing the evidence in favour of ID.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10534848 - 06/19/09 01:51 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
please give more serious answers
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10535044 - 06/19/09 03:41 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I believe all of reality operates on very fundamental laws at the quantum level, and it is indeed quite possible that some intelligent being designed these laws and created this Universe. I do not, however, believe that some intelligent agency is purposefully guiding evolution or steering natural selection; instead it is more probable that these are operating according to these fundamental laws just like everything else in the Universe.
Well, just like you probably would design an evolutionary algorithm on a computer to solve a certain problem, the evolutionary algorithm on earth might also have been design for a purpose. Perhaps it was designed to evolve consciousness.
This scenario is of course much more likely if the first life on earth came on a meteoroid from another solar system. Most scientists believe however that life originated spontaneously here on earth. But even if life originated spontaneously here on earth, there might have come life from other solar systems, and mixed with the life on earth. There might also be intent and purpose in the very laws of nature.
Edited by Zanthius (06/19/09 03:50 AM)
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10535783 - 06/19/09 08:43 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Please provide some sources. Evolution is blind.
Please provide evidence for the italicized assertion.
The fact that no evidence has been shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature to natural selection?
can I ask how any evidence -could- be shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature, -IF- it was so?
To me, there is an apparent directionality in evolution toward greater complexity and greater novelty, and this hints at some higher purpose. It isn't proof, of course, but I would consider it evidence. Of course, many evolutionists refuse to believe their lying eyes, and outright deny any such directionality.
--------------------
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,115
Loc: Between
Last seen: 9 hours, 37 minutes
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10535947 - 06/19/09 09:28 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
To thread:
Thanks for picking up my neverending claim that evolution is intelligent and is a designing process per se, with reality as its designer. I'm serious about that.
Why and how, if evolution is not purposeful would the fittest survive then (that what's the result of that 'process') ?
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10536008 - 06/19/09 09:42 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
can I ask how any evidence -could- be shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature, -IF- it was so?
Observe a colony of bacteria for millions of generations. If the bacteria evolve towards a state of greater complexity and novelty, then it is likely that evolution inherently carries with it a purposeful nature. If the bacteria evolve towards an optimal fit with their environment (as is normally predicted) then we would discard the purposeful nature hypothesis as unlikely.
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Well, just like you probably would design an evolutionary algorithm on a computer to solve a certain problem, the evolutionary algorithm on earth might also have been design for a purpose. Perhaps it was designed to evolve consciousness.
This scenario is of course much more likely if the first life on earth came on a meteoroid from another solar system. Most scientists believe however that life originated spontaneously here on earth. But even if life originated spontaneously here on earth, there might have come life from other solar systems, and mixed with the life on earth. There might also be intent and purpose in the very laws of nature.
Might, might, might. Where's the evidence?
Quote:
Silversoul said:
To me, there is an apparent directionality in evolution toward greater complexity and greater novelty, and this hints at some higher purpose.
I'd be more than happy to observe this directionality towards greater complexity if you have any evidence to offer. How are you accounting for the Extinction Level Events that have so greatly shaped our evolution? Are these simply manifestations of a higher purpose too?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536146 - 06/19/09 10:07 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Might, might, might. Where's the evidence?
We don't necessarily have any evidence for a purpose of our evolution, although it might be to evolve higher and higher levels of consciousness/complexity.
Still, to say that there isn't any purpose of our evolution, would be just as speculative, as we don't know everything about how biology works.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10536169 - 06/19/09 10:13 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Obviously all we have is speculation, but applying Occam's Razor would make it more likely that evolution is in fact unguided. The simplest explanation suffices until evidence to the contrary arises.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536195 - 06/19/09 10:20 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I'd be more than happy to observe this directionality towards greater complexity if you have any evidence to offer.
Ehhh... there is a lot of evidence for that life on earth has evolved towards higher and higher complexity. A better and more complex system usually has a higher survival rate, and therefore evolution goes towards higher and higher complexity. Eukaryotes are more complex than prokaryotes. The respiratory system of a vertebrate is more complex than the respiratory system of an insect. The circulatory system of a mammal is more complex than the circulatory system of an amphibian.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536206 - 06/19/09 10:24 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Obviously all we have is speculation, but applying Occam's Razor would make it more likely that evolution is in fact unguided. The simplest explanation suffices until evidence to the contrary arises.
Occam's Razor is just silly. Why make up an opinion at all, if you don't know enough about it. It was long thought that the aurora borealis had nothing to do with charged particles from the sun, because scientists at that time thought it sounded much too complicated to be true. They applied Occam's Razor to explain the aurora borealis, and made up another theory that didn't involve charged particles from the sun, but of course this theory was wrong. The least complicated explanation isn't necessarily the right one. General relativity is more complicated than Newton's theory of universal gravitation.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10536209 - 06/19/09 10:24 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Tell me, how do you measure the complexity of a system to make such a claim? Then you must have compared the complexity values with survival rates and degrees of proliferation to get some correlation?
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10536211 - 06/19/09 10:25 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said: Ehhh... there is a lot of evidence for that life on earth has evolved towards higher and higher complexity. A better and more complex system usually has a higher survival rate, and therefore evolution goes towards higher and higher complexity. Eukaryotes are more complex than prokaryotes. The respiratory system of a vertebrate is more complex than the respiratory system of an insect. The circulatory system of a mammal is more complex than the circulatory system of an amphibian.
Selective perception. How many bacteria are there on Earth compared to other organisms? If anything, evolution seeks easy solutions to the fitness problem.
Quote:
Zanthius said: The most easy explanation isn't necessarily the right one.
Right, but given the lack of evidence for a more complicated theory, the simplest theory is the easiest to refute and therefore should be tested the most.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536230 - 06/19/09 10:28 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If anything, evolution seeks easy solutions to the fitness problem.
Exactly, and the solutions are different for every species meaning there is no one direction. There is a competition of many directions, some towards more complexity some towards more simplicity some staying the same.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10536236 - 06/19/09 10:30 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Just a parenthetical: by saying that evolution seeks easy solutions I did not mean to lend any notion of design or purpose to evolution... instead I meant that the trend towards easy solutions is very noticeable in the evolutionary process.
Damn language.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536250 - 06/19/09 10:33 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Selective perception. How many bacteria are there on Earth compared to other organisms? If anything, evolution seeks easy solutions to the fitness problem.
Well, 3 billion years ago there were just prokaryotes. Eukaryotes, which are much more complex cells, came much later. Multicellular organisms, which are more complex than single celled eukaryotes came still later.
There has been an increase in complexity the last 3 billion years. Every evolutionary biologist will agree to that.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10536258 - 06/19/09 10:34 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The majority of the world's biomass today are prokaryotes, plain and simple. A minority of living organisms exhibit greater complexity, sure, but this does not mean that evolution as a whole necessarily moves towards more complex structures.
Why seek complexity when a simpler solution to the fitness problem works?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536273 - 06/19/09 10:38 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
The majority of the world's biomass today are prokaryotes, plain and simple. A minority of living organisms exhibit greater complexity, sure, but this does not mean that evolution as a whole moves towards more complex structures.
So what? Evolution towards a higher complexity, doesn't necessarily imply elimination of the less complex.
I never intended to say that evolution as a whole evolves towards a higher and higher complexity, but I wouldn't be surprised if the bacterias living today are somewhat more complex than the prokaryotes that lived 3 billion years ago.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10536282 - 06/19/09 10:41 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Just so long as you agree that evolution does not necessarily tend towards the more complex. It's quite possible that the perfect fit to the environment will be found with a very simple organism (given of course that the environment does not change).
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536303 - 06/19/09 10:45 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Just so long as you agree that evolution does not necessarily tend towards the more complex.
It is possible, but even a very simple bacteria might be eliminated by a more complex bacteria that is more efficient.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,115
Loc: Between
Last seen: 9 hours, 37 minutes
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536306 - 06/19/09 10:45 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"If anything, evolution seeks easy solutions to the fitness problem."
That depends on the environmental (selective) 'pressure'.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: BlueCoyote]
#10536331 - 06/19/09 10:52 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BlueCoyote said:
"If anything, evolution seeks easy solutions to the fitness problem."
That depends on the environmental (selective) 'pressure'.
How so? Typically evolutionary solutions tend to be incredibly efficient and easy as compared to any man-made or designed solution.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536390 - 06/19/09 11:01 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
How so? Typically evolutionary solutions tend to be incredibly efficient and easy as compared to any man-made or designed solution.
Not necessarily. Genetically engineered crops are more efficient than natural crops, and solar panels are more efficient at absorbing sunlight than plants are.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10536419 - 06/19/09 11:04 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Genetically engineered crops are a combination of a designed and evolved solution, though... this arguably is the best strategy. And as far as solar panels go, you're comparing apples and oranges. Plants are incredibly efficient at being plants; their sole purpose is not just to absorb sunlight. Do you suppose an entirely man-made plant would be as efficient as the evolved specimen in terms of survival and replication?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536451 - 06/19/09 11:09 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Do you suppose an entirely man-made plant would be as efficient as the evolved specimen in terms of survival and replication?
Well, as our technology is getting better, our creations also become better and better compared to nature. At one point in the future, a man-made plant might very well be more efficient than evolved specimen in terms of survival and replication.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,115
Loc: Between
Last seen: 9 hours, 37 minutes
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536487 - 06/19/09 11:14 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
BlueCoyote said:
"If anything, evolution seeks easy solutions to the fitness problem."
That depends on the environmental (selective) 'pressure'.
How so? Typically evolutionary solutions tend to be incredibly efficient and easy as compared to any man-made or designed solution.
Hmmm.. often the easy concepts don't work for long, like eating everything immediate around you, for example. Especially if the resources are finite and/or if there are more of our species around at the same place and time.
So the evolutionary (selective) pressure rises and there will survive those with the 'more complex' or 'indirect' abilities to extend their existence.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: BlueCoyote]
#10536506 - 06/19/09 11:17 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why do prokaryotes take up the majority of Earth's biomass then? That relatively 'easy' concept has certainly survived for millions of years...
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,115
Loc: Between
Last seen: 9 hours, 37 minutes
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536553 - 06/19/09 11:24 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, as long there's not enough selective pressure, there will not be much change in the species (evolution), as all that matters is to 'sustain'...
So, the environmental 'change' is really that what enforces evolution to take place by its second factor, 'selection' enabled by its first, 'mutation'/variation.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10536944 - 06/19/09 12:29 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
can I ask how any evidence -could- be shown to indicate any kind of design or purposeful nature, -IF- it was so?
Observe a colony of bacteria for millions of generations. If the bacteria evolve towards a state of greater complexity and novelty, then it is likely that evolution inherently carries with it a purposeful nature. If the bacteria evolve towards an optimal fit with their environment (as is normally predicted) then we would discard the purposeful nature hypothesis as unlikely.
Greater complexity? novelty? what the hell does that have to do with there being a designer?
As far as I can see, bacteria is 'designed' to live. If it has a higher purpose than that i could never know, unless i knew what the designer was. But at least I can see what it does, it lives. And the best way to live is to be flexible to changes in environment - thus a bacteria that can evolve to live in different environments is actually quite sophistocated
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10537542 - 06/19/09 02:01 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I'd be more than happy to observe this directionality towards greater complexity if you have any evidence to offer.
Once all life on earth looked like this:
Then stuff like this emerged:
Fast forward a few billion years:
Until finally:
Life has become far more complex and novel than the single-celled life that once existed. You don't see species that were once multi-celled becoming single-celled, or land animals evolving gills.
Furthermore, on top of biological evolution, there has been cultural evolution. Consider the fact that in ancient Greek city-states, people considered their own group to be good and virtuous, and all others to be inhuman. Then at some point they decided that all Greeks are human, but not those damn Persians. Now, most of us understand that all people everywhere are human, and deserving of some moral consideration.
Quote:
How are you accounting for the Extinction Level Events that have so greatly shaped our evolution? Are these simply manifestations of a higher purpose too?
You said it yourself: they greatly shaped evolution. They are temporary setbacks for life, but ultimately lead to even greater novelty and diversity.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10537629 - 06/19/09 02:17 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I look a lot like #28 in the third picture.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
C.M. Mann
subconscious explorer
Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10538402 - 06/19/09 04:21 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
So that's how you get around into those angles.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10538669 - 06/19/09 05:05 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Greater complexity? novelty? what the hell does that have to do with there being a designer?
As far as I can see, bacteria is 'designed' to live. If it has a higher purpose than that i could never know, unless i knew what the designer was. But at least I can see what it does, it lives. And the best way to live is to be flexible to changes in environment - thus a bacteria that can evolve to live in different environments is actually quite sophistocated
Are you claiming that bacteria are designed, or that evolution has a design to it? If the latter (as I thought you were originally implying), then it would seem likely that evolution has an end goal to it: in this case novelty and complexity would seem a likely choice. 
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Life has become far more complex and novel than the single-celled life that once existed. You don't see species that were once multi-celled becoming single-celled, or land animals evolving gills.
Some life has become far more complex and novel to survive environmental pressures; others have stayed almost exactly the same for millions of years. It's a fallacy to say that evolution as a whole tends towards greater complexity when only a minority of evolving organisms does so. As far as multicellular species becoming single-celled or land animals evolving gills, this is perfectly likely provided that environmental pressures incite it. I see no inherent move of evolution disregarding a changing environment that necessarily prefers the complex over the simple.
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Furthermore, on top of biological evolution, there has been cultural evolution. Consider the fact that in ancient Greek city-states, people considered their own group to be good and virtuous, and all others to be inhuman. Then at some point they decided that all Greeks are human, but not those damn Persians. Now, most of us understand that all people everywhere are human, and deserving of some moral consideration.
Cultural evolution is something entirely different. I would perhaps agree with you that this inevitably will progress towards some sort of Omega Point a la Teilhard/Technological Singularity.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10538872 - 06/19/09 05:47 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Some life has become far more complex and novel to survive environmental pressures; others have stayed almost exactly the same for millions of years. It's a fallacy to say that evolution as a whole tends towards greater complexity when only a minority of evolving organisms does so. As far as multicellular species becoming single-celled or land animals evolving gills, this is perfectly likely provided that environmental pressures incite it. I see no inherent move of evolution disregarding a changing environment that necessarily prefers the complex over the simple.
Your fallacy lies in assuming that an upward directionality to evolution requires that all life become more complex. It equates size and scale with significance, when in fact that which is most significant is necessarily of lesser span than the more fundamental phenomena on which it relies. Bacteria have not all evolved into complex life precisely because complex life relies upon simpler life to support it. The greater the span, the less depth, and vice-versa.
Quote:
Cultural evolution is something entirely different.
It is different only insofar as it does not directly involve DNA.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10538883 - 06/19/09 05:49 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Again, given a change in environment it is quite conceivable that multicellular organisms will regress back to single-celled organisms. A tendency towards complexity is not necessarily inherent in evolution provided that the simple organism provides an easy solution to the fitness problem.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10538887 - 06/19/09 05:49 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Again, given a change in environment it is quite conceivable that multicellular organisms will regress back to single-celled organisms.
Evidence?
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10538889 - 06/19/09 05:50 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
No evidence needed. If single-celled organisms survive better than multicellular organisms given an environmental change then the multicellular organisms will die out. I can envision a hypothetical scenario where resources are scarce and multicellular organisms require too much food to be self-sustainable.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10538891 - 06/19/09 05:51 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Again, given a change in environment it is quite conceivable that multicellular organisms will regress back to single-celled organisms. A tendency towards complexity is not necessarily inherent in evolution provided that the simple organism provides an easy solution to the fitness problem.
Rather it would be those single-celled organisms that already live, that continues to live, while the multi-cellular organisms are exterminated.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10538892 - 06/19/09 05:52 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
No evidence needed. If single-celled organisms survive better than multi-cellular organisms given an environmental change then the multi-cellular organisms will die out. Pretty simple.
The extinction of multi-celled organisms is not the same as multi-celled organisms evolving into single-celled ones. I thought you were smarter than that.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10538895 - 06/19/09 05:52 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Evolution implies extinction of the older model and mutation into the newer model. What part of this is hard to understand?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10538909 - 06/19/09 05:55 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Evolution implies extinction of the older model and mutation into the newer model. What part of this is hard to understand?
I understand perfectly. You're the one who apparently has comprehension problems. Would you say that we evolved from the dinosaurs, since their extinction allowed us to evolve?
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10538910 - 06/19/09 05:55 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Also, to support your position you must prove that multicellular organisms can never evolve back into single-celled organisms. I'm really curious how you'll do this.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10538914 - 06/19/09 05:55 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Also, to support your position you must prove that multicellular organisms can never evolve back into single-celled organisms. I'm really curious how you'll do this.
One word: Entropy.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10538920 - 06/19/09 05:57 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Would you say that we evolved from the dinosaurs, since their extinction allowed us to evolve?
Not at all, but I can certainly hypothesize multicellular organisms evolving into single-celled organisms with progressive genetic mutations. This necessarily implies that multicellular organisms would have a lesser fit to their environment and therefore a greater chance of dying out.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10538923 - 06/19/09 05:57 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Also, to support your position you must prove that multicellular organisms can never evolve back into single-celled organisms. I'm really curious how you'll do this.
One word: Entropy.
Rehashing commonly misused terms does not constitute proof, I'm afraid. Morever, entropy is more likely to produce single-celled organisms than multicellular. 
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10538928 - 06/19/09 05:58 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Not at all, but I can certainly hypothesize multicellular organisms evolving into single-celled organisms with progressive genetic mutations. This necessarily implies that multicellular organisms would have a lesser fit to their environment and therefore a greater chance of dying out.
An extremely unlikely scenario, as there already are a lot of single celled organisms filling those niches. It is much more likely that the multi-cellular organisms just will be exterminated with extreme environmental changes.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10538935 - 06/19/09 06:00 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
An extremely unlikely scenario, as there already are a lot of single celled organisms filling those niches.
Sure; my sole point is that it's possible and that evolution does not by definition carry with it a natural tendency towards greater complexity unless you stipulate a constantly changing environment, and even then you'd be more likely to see a constant resurgence of new, simple lifeforms unable to adapt to quickly switching pressures.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10538962 - 06/19/09 06:06 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Also, to support your position you must prove that multicellular organisms can never evolve back into single-celled organisms. I'm really curious how you'll do this.
One word: Entropy.
A single celled creature would be generally much more disordered than a multicelled creature.
Just the fact that you have two of something together implies order, and the fact that multicellular life tends towards specilaized cells and tissues further cuts against you.
What is this "more complexity" anyways. I have no idea what you guys are discussing.
More complex than nothing? More complex than the first life form? More complex than the ancestor?
I don't see how the later could be the case inherently, and that's the only form that makes any sense in the context of this debate.
As decypher has pointed out, much of the life on this planet is comparitivly simple. That life is more complex than previous forms has nothing to do with the question- quite obviously the simple things will come first, and in fact did. Its like looking at the first pi/2 radian of a sine wave and claiming the function is obviously trending upwards when this is clearly wrong and its just oscillating.
I can see no reason for life to prefer complexity, and several obvious reasons to disfavor it. The success of bacteria in myriad environments speaks to this- small things take less energy, have less of an energetic investment in each creature, and generally have an easier time finding hospitable microenvironments. This is to say nothing of the energetic consequences of complexity or the consequences of some change in environment or genetics.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10539017 - 06/19/09 06:20 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
I can see no reason for life to prefer complexity, and several obvious reasons to disfavor it.
Well, I can see reasons both to favor complexity, and to disfavor complexity. A reason to favor complexity might be that more complex lifeforms can perform functions that less complex lifeforms are incapable of performing. A reason to disfavor complexity might be to save energy.
Also, if there wasn't any evolutionary advantage in complexity, there wouldn't be any multicellular eukaryotes on this planet today.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539041 - 06/19/09 06:28 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Also, to support your position you must prove that multicellular organisms can never evolve back into single-celled organisms. I'm really curious how you'll do this.
One word: Entropy.
Rehashing commonly misused terms does not constitute proof, I'm afraid. Morever, entropy is more likely to produce single-celled organisms than multicellular.
Wrong. You have to take solar energy into the equation. The earth is not a closed system, nor is life. There is a great deal of low-entropy solar energy coming the planet, and life helps convert that energy into spent, high-entropy waste. Complex organisms do this more efficiently than single-celled organisms. Thus, counter to what you and creationists alike believe, it would actually go against entropy for this process to reverse. Entropy is paradoxical in that by seeking equilibrium it actually creates greater levels of complexity. Think of a hurricane. A low-pressure and high-pressure front come together to equalize, and in the process create a very complex weather pattern. So, my friend, it you who misunderstands the term, or at least its implications.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10539064 - 06/19/09 06:33 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
How exactly is solar energy low entropy?
And I'm still not seeing a proof that multicellular organisms cannot evolve back to single-celled organisms.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539067 - 06/19/09 06:34 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Low entropy means the energy is less disbursed. In other words, entropy has not unfolded as much as things with higher entropy. An unlit piece of charcoal has lower entropy than one that has been used in a barbecue.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10539076 - 06/19/09 06:36 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I still don't see how it's coherent to say that light possesses low entropy. Light is used by plants to make pockets of low entropy, sure, but this does not imply that light itself has a low level of entropy.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539083 - 06/19/09 06:38 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Then your definition utterly fails. Light moves so de facto it is kinetic energy, not potential.
I updated my definition to be more precise, but even the one I gave is not entirely wrong. You seem to be under the delusion that something with kinetic energy cannot have potential energy.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10539087 - 06/19/09 06:39 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Please show how light has potential energy.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539093 - 06/19/09 06:39 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I still don't see how it's coherent to say that light possesses low entropy. Light is used by plants to make pockets of low entropy, sure, but this does not imply that light itself has a low level of entropy.
Low or high entropy are relative terms. Everything in the universe has high entropy compared to the singularity of the Big Bang. Sunlight has low entropy compared to the things it produces.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539099 - 06/19/09 06:41 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: There is a great deal of low-entropy solar energy coming the planet, and life helps convert that energy into spent, high-entropy waste
Sure, organisms by their very nature take in low entropy matter and convert it to high entropy waste. The organisms themselves still have a very low level of entropy compared to their surroundings, and by definition this will inevitably degrade to a higher level as time passes (multicellular --> single-celled --> non-life).
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539138 - 06/19/09 06:47 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Please show how light has potential energy.
In order to bounce off of objects and hit your eye, it would have to have potential energy. Otherwise it would either stop when it hits object or continue on indefinitely.
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539176 - 06/19/09 06:53 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: There is a great deal of low-entropy solar energy coming the planet, and life helps convert that energy into spent, high-entropy waste
Sure, organisms by their very nature take in low entropy matter and convert it to high entropy waste. The organisms themselves still have a very low level of entropy compared to their surroundings, and by definition this will inevitably degrade to a higher level as time passes (multicellular --> single-celled --> non-life).
Nope. If what you said was true, then multicellular life would not have evolved in the first place. Cells came together in first place because it allowed them to cycle energy more efficiently, much like a tornado efficiently brings equilibrium to atmospheric pressures. It might also interest you to know that bacteria have no programmed cell death, and thus are basically immortal save for environmental pressures such as too much heat or cold. Thus the last part of your equation (single-cellded --> non-life) is demonstrably false.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10539177 - 06/19/09 06:53 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Please show how light has potential energy.
In order to bounce off of objects and hit your eye, it would have to have potential energy. Otherwise it would either stop when it hits object or continue on indefinitely.
I guess I'm not seeing how this implies it having potential energy. A consensus of links that I'm reading online state that light has no mass and therefore possesses neither kinetic nor potential energy.
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Nope. If what you said was true, then multicellular life would not have evolved in the first place. Cells came together in first place because it allowed them to cycle energy more efficiently, much like a tornado efficiently brings equilibrium to atmospheric pressures. It might also interest you to know that bacteria have no programmed cell death, and thus are basically immortal save for environmental pressures such as too much heat or cold. Thus the last part of your equation (single-cellded --> non-life) is demonstrably false.
There's nothing to prevent temporary pockets of low entropy, but by definition once all the low entropy energy sources are used up then entropy inevitably has to increase; presumably by cannibalization of other lifeforms until everything is dead. Heat death is the ultimate state, and I'd argue it's more likely that single-celled organisms that require less energy will survive during this ultimate transition time than multi-ceullar organisms.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10539200 - 06/19/09 06:57 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Low or high entropy are relative terms. Everything in the universe has high entropy compared to the singularity of the Big Bang. Sunlight has low entropy compared to the things it produces.
Well, what the fuck is sunlight? A single photon from the sun certainly doesn't have a lot of energy. If you measure it in area, than one cubic meter of "sunlight" contains less energy than one cubic meter of carbohydrates. If you measure it in weight, then of course one kilo of sunlight has more energy than one kilo of carbohydrates, but one kilo of sunlight is A LOT of sunlight, according to the formula E=MC2.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10539245 - 06/19/09 07:03 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Low or high entropy are relative terms. Everything in the universe has high entropy compared to the singularity of the Big Bang. Sunlight has low entropy compared to the things it produces.
Well, what the fuck is sunlight? A single photon from the sun certainly doesn't have a lot of energy. If you measure it in area, than one cubic meter of "sunlight" contains less energy than one cubic meter of carbohydrates. If you measure it in weight, then of course one kilo of sunlight has more energy than one kilo of carbohydrates, but one kilo of sunlight is A LOT of sunlight, according to the formula E=MC2.
We know sunlight has low entropy because plants are able to convert it into higher-entropy food, which is further converted to higher levels of entropy by animals. We also know sunlight has low entropy because we are able to use it for electricity. You're going about it wrong by trying to think of it in terms of weight. Weight has no bearing on the entropy of something.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539246 - 06/19/09 07:03 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I guess I'm not seeing how this implies it having potential energy. A consensus of links that I'm reading online state that light has no mass and therefore possesses neither kinetic nor potential energy.
What the fuck are you talking about? Each photon has a quanta of energy, and you should even be able to find the amount of energy for photons of different wavelengths at wikipedia.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10539254 - 06/19/09 07:04 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
We know sunlight has low entropy because plants are able to convert it into higher-entropy food, which is further converted to higher levels of entropy by animals. We also know sunlight has low entropy because we are able to use it for electricity.
We can also use electricity to create light. Every form of energy is convertible to any other form of energy. A plant also consumes a lot of solar energy in order to synthesize carbohydrates. Seems to me like the carbohydrates are more densely packed with energy. At least in volume.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10539258 - 06/19/09 07:05 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Hell if I know, I'm not a physicist.
At any rate it makes more intuitive sense to say that light does not have potential energy.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539273 - 06/19/09 07:07 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I guess I'm not seeing how this implies it having potential energy. A consensus of links that I'm reading online state that light has no mass and therefore possesses neither kinetic nor potential energy.
Then what are solar panels collecting?
Quote:
Zanthius said:
We can also use electricity to create light. Every form of energy is convertible to any other form of energy.
Not quite. Heat can't be converted to other forms of energy. Heat is the dead end, which is why the end of the universe is called 'heat death'.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
Edited by zouden (06/19/09 07:11 PM)
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539274 - 06/19/09 07:07 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There's nothing to prevent temporary pockets of low entropy, but by definition once all the low entropy energy sources are used up then entropy inevitably has to increase; presumably by cannibalization of other lifeforms until everything is dead.
Yes, when the sun dies out, so does all life on earth. But in the meantime, you have to take the sun into account when talking about entropy.
Quote:
Heat death is the ultimate state, and I'd argue it's more likely that single-celled organisms that require less energy will survive during this ultimate transition time than multi-ceullar organisms.
Yes, but the multi-celled organisms will not become single-celled organisms. They will die out.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539282 - 06/19/09 07:07 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
At any rate it makes more intuitive sense to say that light does not have potential energy.
That would be silly. Light IS energy.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10539299 - 06/19/09 07:10 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
I guess I'm not seeing how this implies it having potential energy. A consensus of links that I'm reading online state that light has no mass and therefore possesses neither kinetic nor potential energy.
Since you claimed light had kinetic energy, let's just say we're both wrong on this point.
I originally claimed and then edited my post after I realized I wasn't sure. We need Qubit over here to resolve this.
Quote:
Quote:
There's nothing to prevent temporary pockets of low entropy, but by definition once all the low entropy energy sources are used up then entropy inevitably has to increase; presumably by cannibalization of other lifeforms until everything is dead.
Yes, when the sun dies out, so does all life on earth. But in the meantime, you have to take the sun into account when talking about entropy.
In the meantime nothing. My sole point is that inevitably things progress from low entropy to high entropy, and life does not obtain a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Quote:
Quote:
Heat death is the ultimate state, and I'd argue it's more likely that single-celled organisms that require less energy will survive during this ultimate transition time than multi-ceullar organisms.
Yes, but the multi-celled organisms will not become single-celled organisms. They will die out.
Never said that a multi-cellular organism will become a single-celled organism; just that it's possible for the species as a whole to evolve back to a collection of single-celled organisms. You still have provided no proof for an inherent trend towards complexity in evolution, which is what the original argument was about in the first place.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539322 - 06/19/09 07:14 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sure, organisms by their very nature take in low entropy matter and convert it to high entropy waste.
I am taking that as a personalism and have notified a moderator. 
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10539328 - 06/19/09 07:15 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Not quite. Heat can't be converted to other forms of energy. Heat is the dead end, which is why the end of the universe is called 'heat death'.
Bullshit. You can easily convert heat energy to kinetic energy and kinetic energy to electricity. That is what the nuclear reactors are doing. They are HEATING water, and thereby giving the water kinetic energy, which again is converted into electricity by a generator.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10539378 - 06/19/09 07:22 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
In the meantime nothing. My sole point is that inevitably things progress from low entropy to high entropy, and life does not obtain a get-out-of-jail-free card.
If you prefer to get fussy rather than take facts into account, that's your prerogative. Clearly your sole point could not have been that things inevitably progress from low entropy to high entropy, because that has been my point, and if our points were the same, why would we be arguing about this?
Quote:
Never said that a multi-cellular organism will become a single-celled organism; just that it's possible for the species as a whole to evolve back to a collection of single-celled organisms. You still have provided no proof for an inherent trend towards complexity in evolution, which is what the original argument was about in the first place.
I have the fossil record backing me up here. You have nothing but speculation. The fact of the matter is that evolution has a physical record of the very tendency I have described. That it has not deviated from this tendency supports the hypothesis that this tendency is innate.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10539701 - 06/19/09 08:23 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I have no idea what entropy has to do with this discussion at all. You guys should establish the relevance, and your using the term in some pretty novel ways. If you want to say complexity just say complexity, don't conflate entropy with complexity.
Quote:
deCypher said:
In the meantime nothing. My sole point is that inevitably things progress from low entropy to high entropy, and life does not obtain a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Not true. A closed system increases in entropy over time. A living being is not a closed system.
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Since you claimed light had kinetic energy, let's just say we're both wrong on this point.
Why is he wrong that light has kinetic energy? The usual newtonian equations would obviously yield 0 KE because of 0 rest mass, but then light isn't usual, isn't at rest, and it probably doesn't make much sense to discuss it in newtonian terms. Just like light has relativistic momentum, mass, and such it also has relativistic kinetic energy.
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
I can see no reason for life to prefer complexity, and several obvious reasons to disfavor it.
Well, I can see reasons both to favor complexity, and to disfavor complexity. A reason to favor complexity might be that more complex lifeforms can perform functions that less complex lifeforms are incapable of performing. A reason to disfavor complexity might be to save energy.
Also, if there wasn't any evolutionary advantage in complexity, there wouldn't be any multicellular eukaryotes on this planet today.
How would increasing complexity provide for greater possiblities? Sure, a certian amount for certain things, but beyond that it is worthless and woudl seem to be a detriment.
While decypher and silver haven't blessed thus with an explanation of wtf they are arguing about, as I've suggested earlier the only thing they could mean is to say an increase in complexity relative to a given organism immediatly preceding the examined organism (as its meaningless to compare things to the simple life that first existed since everything will be more complex). Given that I don't understand your suggestion- how could you suggest constantly increasing the complexity would give constnatly increasing fitness?
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
We can also use electricity to create light. Every form of energy is convertible to any other form of energy.
Not quite. Heat can't be converted to other forms of energy. Heat is the dead end, which is why the end of the universe is called 'heat death'.
Heat is the flow of energy so how does it make sense to say that it can't be converted to other forms of energy? The energy that is flowing surely can be used. A balloon that aborbs heat will expand, you've got mechanical energy transferable to anything else as a result. Is this not correct?
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10539718 - 06/19/09 08:26 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Never said that a multi-cellular organism will become a single-celled organism; just that it's possible for the species as a whole to evolve back to a collection of single-celled organisms. You still have provided no proof for an inherent trend towards complexity in evolution, which is what the original argument was about in the first place.
I have the fossil record backing me up here. You have nothing but speculation. The fact of the matter is that evolution has a physical record of the very tendency I have described. That it has not deviated from this tendency supports the hypothesis that this tendency is innate.
And what exactly is this tendancy? Correct me if I'm wrong but you guys have still not defined what the operative words are and what you are talking about.
In any case, what does the fossil record have to do with anything? What are you basing your statements on?
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis
Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,012
Loc: Boston
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10539730 - 06/19/09 08:28 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Leave them to it, they like playing with their floating abstractions while some of us put in the effort to think correctly.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10539734 - 06/19/09 08:29 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Not quite. Heat can't be converted to other forms of energy. Heat is the dead end, which is why the end of the universe is called 'heat death'.
Bullshit. You can easily convert heat energy to kinetic energy and kinetic energy to electricity. That is what the nuclear reactors are doing. They are HEATING water, and thereby giving the water kinetic energy, which again is converted into electricity by a generator.
I used to think so too. But it's not the case. The nuclear reaction creates heat in one location, which represents a decrease in entropy. By allowing the heat to travel into the cold water, we are allowing entropy to increase, and we can create work using this process. A nuclear reactor won't generate electricity if we can't cool the water down again - if it's already steam, we can't get any more energy out of it. So the energy comes from the heat differential, not the heat itself.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: RationalEgo]
#10539762 - 06/19/09 08:32 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Never said that a multi-cellular organism will become a single-celled organism; just that it's possible for the species as a whole to evolve back to a collection of single-celled organisms. You still have provided no proof for an inherent trend towards complexity in evolution, which is what the original argument was about in the first place.
I have the fossil record backing me up here. You have nothing but speculation. The fact of the matter is that evolution has a physical record of the very tendency I have described. That it has not deviated from this tendency supports the hypothesis that this tendency is innate.
And what exactly is this tendancy? Correct me if I'm wrong but you guys have still not defined what the operative words are and what you are talking about.
The complexity I refer to may be defined in terms of entropy. Complex life is that which dissipates energy more efficiently.
Quote:
RationalEgo said:
Leave them to it, they like playing with their floating abstractions while some of us put in the effort to think correctly.
Says the Randroid.
--------------------
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis
Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,012
Loc: Boston
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10539782 - 06/19/09 08:36 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You know, I've never heard that smear of an ad homenin before! 
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10540765 - 06/19/09 11:53 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Never said that a multi-cellular organism will become a single-celled organism; just that it's possible for the species as a whole to evolve back to a collection of single-celled organisms. You still have provided no proof for an inherent trend towards complexity in evolution, which is what the original argument was about in the first place.
I have the fossil record backing me up here. You have nothing but speculation. The fact of the matter is that evolution has a physical record of the very tendency I have described. That it has not deviated from this tendency supports the hypothesis that this tendency is innate.
And what exactly is this tendancy? Correct me if I'm wrong but you guys have still not defined what the operative words are and what you are talking about.
The complexity I refer to may be defined in terms of entropy. Complex life is that which dissipates energy more efficiently.
Like I said, I think perhaps entropy is a bad term for the concept you are talking about, which I'm still unsure of what exactly it is.
I mean a chunk of salt isn't very complex, you drop it in water and its much more complexly ordered, and yet the entropy increases. Complex doesn't mean high entropy.
And I don't understand what this energy definition has to do with complexity at all. What is your definition of dissipating energy and what does this have to do with whether something is complex or not? Sounds like you think having a higher metabolism defines complexity, and this seems intuitivly ridiculous.
What exactly do you mean and what relevance does this have to entropy or complexity?
|
LvMkngFlwrChld
Stranger
Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 101
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10540932 - 06/20/09 12:35 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I object to calling IG a science, even if you put it in quotes. It's not even a psuedo science. If this world was conciously formed, i question the inteligence, and the benevolence, of this creator in making cute, sentient species taste delicious. Also, FSM makes more sense anyways.
EDIT replaced made up word with misspelled word.
Edited by LvMkngFlwrChld (06/20/09 12:43 AM)
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: LvMkngFlwrChld]
#10540945 - 06/20/09 12:40 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Objection overruled
|
LvMkngFlwrChld
Stranger
Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 101
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10540952 - 06/20/09 12:42 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
dammit!
wait, who put you in charge anyways? i'll sustain my damn self!
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: LvMkngFlwrChld]
#10541156 - 06/20/09 02:06 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why does complexity eg. single celled organism vs multi celled organism, have to do with intelligent design VS evolutionary theory?
It follows from both theories that life would get more complex, but it also follows from both that life would not necessarily become more complex; and thus: that some trends of evolving species will appear to become more simpler in form.
As for the 'entropic' view of life, this is just another way of assessing the harmony something has with its universe, and thus, the chance that it will stay alive, and thus its 'fitness'.
I thought I was raising some important points but it seems that people prefer to talk about how one view is correct and the other is incorrect. I am trying to show that evolutionary theory and intelligent design is NOT a dichotomy and almost everyone who debates one verses the other is including so many implicit arguments in their claims that the two sides are fighting different battles
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10541192 - 06/20/09 02:26 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Noteworthy, what exactly is your definition of intelligent design?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10541201 - 06/20/09 02:30 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That some unknown agent was involved in the development of earth's biology
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10541240 - 06/20/09 02:51 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
How so? Through guidance of evolution, or do you think that some things evolved while other things were created as-is?
Either way, there's no evidence for those theories; the diversity of life on earth can be explained through evolution without any need for a guiding force. I agree with you, ID as you define it is not necessarily mutually exclusive of evolution, but I disagree with you on it being a false dichotomy. It's a very real dichotomy because the theory of evolution mitigates any need for a designer.
If you have evolution, you don't need ID, and that's why ID proponents are so determined to destroy evolution.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,115
Loc: Between
Last seen: 9 hours, 37 minutes
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10541343 - 06/20/09 04:30 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think it's too hard to identify intelligence in evolution itself.
Maybe our own intelligence is the mirrored picture of it in our heads.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10541386 - 06/20/09 05:06 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
That some unknown agent was involved in the development of earth's biology
Well, of course there is more involved in the development of earth's biology than what we know today. We know more about biology today than we did 10 years ago, and we will know more about biology 10 years into the future.
The central dogma of molecular biology was named the central dogma because at that time it was believed that transcription only went from the genome to proteins. Later however, it was found that retroviruses can implement RNA into the genome, with the enzyme called reverse transcriptase. How much of our evolution is due to swapping of genes between organisms due to such retroviruses?
Edited by Zanthius (06/20/09 05:26 AM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10541603 - 06/20/09 07:30 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How much of our evolution is due to swapping of genes between organisms due to such retroviruses?
Wouldn't that require retroviruses to copy genes out of another organism?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10541850 - 06/20/09 08:58 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Wouldn't that require retroviruses to copy genes out of another organism?
Well, retroviruses can also pick up genetic material from organisms.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10542097 - 06/20/09 10:01 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I used to think so too. But it's not the case. The nuclear reaction creates heat in one location, which represents a decrease in entropy. By allowing the heat to travel into the cold water, we are allowing entropy to increase, and we can create work using this process. A nuclear reactor won't generate electricity if we can't cool the water down again - if it's already steam, we can't get any more energy out of it. So the energy comes from the heat differential, not the heat itself.
Well, heat is just the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules, and with nanotechnology it should be possible to convert that energy directly to electricity.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10542163 - 06/20/09 10:19 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:I have no idea what entropy has to do with this discussion at all. You guys should establish the relevance, and your using the term in some pretty novel ways. If you want to say complexity just say complexity, don't conflate entropy with complexity.
Thats exactly what I was thinking.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10542179 - 06/20/09 10:23 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, I need to make a small correction: The entropic quality that life has is called negentropy, or negative entropy. It's the capacity to externalize entropy around it, so as to prevent entropy from causing its own dissolution. It is this that more complex lifeforms are able to do more efficiently.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10542261 - 06/20/09 10:43 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It is this that more complex lifeforms are able to do more efficiently.
How do you figure? (And how are you defining complexity here?)
Also, plenty of physical systems that dont involve life at all are capable of isolating a localized region of low entropy. So Im not sure what this proves.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10542724 - 06/20/09 12:27 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
I have the fossil record backing me up here. You have nothing but speculation. The fact of the matter is that evolution has a physical record of the very tendency I have described. That it has not deviated from this tendency supports the hypothesis that this tendency is innate.
Again, a few organisms have become more complex. The vast majority has stayed at a relatively low level of complexity because more complexity is not needed to fit the environment. No innate tendency here.
Quote:
johnm214 said:
I have no idea what entropy has to do with this discussion at all. You guys should establish the relevance, and your using the term in some pretty novel ways. If you want to say complexity just say complexity, don't conflate entropy with complexity.
Quote:
deCypher said:
In the meantime nothing. My sole point is that inevitably things progress from low entropy to high entropy, and life does not obtain a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Not true. A closed system increases in entropy over time. A living being is not a closed system.
I'm considering the entire Universe here as a closed system. Life might temporarily exist as an example of negentropy but this cannot be sustained indefinitely.
Quote:
Noteworthy said: it also follows from both that life would not necessarily become more complex; and thus: that some trends of evolving species will appear to become more simpler in form.
Yep.
Qubit, I realize I've probably grossly misused the concept of entropy in this debate; any books you'd recommend to fully master this concept?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10542830 - 06/20/09 12:45 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
It is this that more complex lifeforms are able to do more efficiently.
How do you figure? (And how are you defining complexity here?)
Let's look at something like the heart. The simplest organisms don't have one. Some just have a single-chambered heart, some a two-chambered heart, some, three, and some, like us, have four. Our heart is more complex than that of a fish, and we are able to process air and nutrients more efficiently. We can also look at the brain. We can almost look back in evolutionary time by going back through the layers of the brain, from the prefrontal cortex to the mammalian brain to the reptilian brain to the medulla oblongata. Our complex brains not only dissipate energy, but allow us to utilize our environment in such a way as to nourish our negentropic processes. Furthermore, it's allowed us to create technology which utilize entropy in a way that our own biological processes cannot, producing electricity, creating mass transit, etc. We've actually gotten so adept at accelerating entropy that we're going to have to slow down to prevent rapid climate change.
Quote:
Also, plenty of physical systems that dont involve life at all are capable of isolating a localized region of low entropy. So Im not sure what this proves.
It just proves that life is a more sophisticated version of this phenomenon. Life is not so much a object as it is a process.
Quote:
deCypher said:
Again, a few organisms have become more complex. The vast majority has stayed at a relatively low level of complexity because more complexity is not needed to fit the environment. No innate tendency here.
Again, you mistake span for significance. The fact that the majority of life is single-celled does not detract at from my point. The greater the depth(complexity), the less the span. The greater the span(as is the case for bacteria), the less the depth. The majority of life has not become complex precisely because complex life relies on a greater span of simple life to support it. Multi-celled organisms are a higher holon of single-celled life.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10542833 - 06/20/09 12:45 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Ha, not really. Popbooks tend to be about sci-fi concepts. If you really want to fully master the concept, then you need textbooks (Kittel's Thermal Physics is a standard introduction text).
Wikipedia can be overly dense and technical. I like HyperPhysics for a digestible, intuitive description of basic physics.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entropcon.html#c1
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10542840 - 06/20/09 12:47 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Also the question of defining complexity is a very interesting one... I'm not sure I have a precise answer for it yet but we can certainly say at least on an intuitive level that a single-celled organism is less complex than a multicellular organism.
Quote:
Silversoul said:
The majority of life has not become complex precisely because complex life relies on a greater span of simple life to support it. Multi-celled organisms are a higher holon of single-celled life.
I completely agree. Earth has more complicated lifeforms and simpler lifeforms, sure. This in no way proves that evolution necessarily tends towards greater complexity. If a simple organism fits its environment perfectly then there is no incentive to evolve towards greater complexity.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10542849 - 06/20/09 12:49 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I completely agree. Earth has more complicated lifeforms and simpler lifeforms, sure. This in no way proves that evolution necessarily tends towards greater complexity. If a simple organism fits its environment perfectly then there is no incentive to evolve towards greater complexity.
What incentive would single-celled life have to create greater complexity? Clearly single-celled life still exists, so it was not a necessary step for survival.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10542850 - 06/20/09 12:49 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Earth has more complicated lifeforms (OC) and simpler lifeforms (DC), sure.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10542857 - 06/20/09 12:51 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
What incentive would single-celled life have to create greater complexity? Clearly single-celled life still exists, so it was not a necessary step for survival.
Well, we know it occurred so we can certainly surmise that environmental changes (of which quite a few have occurred) prompted a move towards certain more complex lifeforms surviving and reproducing better than other, less complex lifeforms. This is attributable to selection pressure and not to any inherent, designer-like tendency of evolution to automatically evolve complexity.
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Earth has more complicated lifeforms (OC) and simpler lifeforms (DC), sure.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10542870 - 06/20/09 12:53 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
What incentive would single-celled life have to create greater complexity? Clearly single-celled life still exists, so it was not a necessary step for survival.
Well, we know it occurred so we can certainly surmise that environmental changes (of which quite a few have occurred) prompted a move towards more complex lifeforms surviving and reproducing better than less complex lifeforms. This is attributable to selection pressure and not to any inherent, designer-like tendency of evolution to automatically evolve complexity.
Ah, the old tautology explanation: It happened, therefore it was necessary.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10542883 - 06/20/09 12:55 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I see the natural explanation as a much simpler theory than any one that postulates an inherent drive towards complexity. What need do we have to postulate additional factors if a simpler set explains the facts just fine?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10542890 - 06/20/09 12:56 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
*Not to SS*
Is anyone going to correct the title of this thread? 
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
Edited by OrgoneConclusion (06/20/09 01:02 PM)
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10542934 - 06/20/09 01:02 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Ha, not really. Popbooks tend to be about sci-fi concepts. If you really want to fully master the concept, then you need textbooks (Kittel's Thermal Physics is a standard introduction text).
I just recently picked up a few physics textbooks from the local used bookstore; I had realized how little I know about the actual mathematics behind quantum mechanics.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10542946 - 06/20/09 01:04 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I see the natural explanation as a much simpler theory than any one that postulates an inherent drive towards complexity. What need do we have to postulate additional factors if a simpler set explains the facts just fine?
I'm not offering an alternative to natural selection. Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution creates complexity, and it cannot be fully understood without taking into account the laws of thermodynamics.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10542948 - 06/20/09 01:04 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Most of us were already aware of this fact. 
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10542955 - 06/20/09 01:06 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution creates complexity, and it cannot be fully understood without taking into account the laws of thermodynamics.
Natural selection has produced complex organisms, yes. Natural selection does not seem to automatically produce complexity unless environmental pressures warrant it. If you're not counting the environment as the reason for this increased complexity, what then do you attribute it to?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10542959 - 06/20/09 01:07 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution creates complexity, and it cannot be fully understood without taking into account the laws of thermodynamics.
Natural selection has produced complex organisms, yes. Natural selection does not seem to automatically produce complexity unless environmental pressures warrant it. Do you disagree?
I'd say it doesn't produce complexity until environmental conditions allow it.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10542969 - 06/20/09 01:10 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I presume this is also tied with a belief in God or some higher intelligence working through evolution?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10542986 - 06/20/09 01:12 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I presume this is also tied with a belief in God or some higher intelligence working through evolution?
For me it ultimately is, but one needn't make such assumptions to see the merits of the point I'm making. One may simply draw these conclusions from the Gaia hypothesis.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10542999 - 06/20/09 01:14 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I'm starting out with no belief in God so I think the naturalistic explanation is the most likely.
How does the hypothesis that the Earth is a living organism imply that evolution is being intelligently directed? We're living organisms yet we do not intelligently direct protein synthesis in our cells, for instance.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10543018 - 06/20/09 01:18 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Im not sure I understand what is being debated here. Looks like the argument is whether life has been intended by an intelligence to evolve into more 'complex' forms; where complex is taken as an intuitive, undefinable quality.
When I think of complexity, I think of life. I also think of water molecule's motion in a stirred cup, or the electric field of the sun, or even a simple moon, earth, sun three body system. Complexity inst unique to life, but life (always?) exhibits complexity of varying degrees at various levels. There is no evidence that it is always increasing in complexity.
Obviously life was limited and confined to the oceans in beginning, and then the cambrian explosion could be said to be a marked and large increase in complexity (diversity), but since then there have been many cycles where the diversity/complexity of life has waxed and waned. It appears we are on a waning cycle right now. This is what Johnm said earlier, all evidence points that diversity/complexity is cyclic and set about an equilibrium dictated by large time scale environmental conditions.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10543025 - 06/20/09 01:20 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
We're living organisms yet we do not intelligently direct protein synthesis in our cells, for instance.
You don't? 
*hold on a minute - cell# 148113296512 requires my attention*
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10543034 - 06/20/09 01:22 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
How does the hypothesis that the Earth is a living organism imply that evolution is being intelligently directed? We're living organisms yet we do not intelligently direct protein synthesis in our cells, for instance.
What the Gaia hypothesis predicts is that life creates the conditions for more life. The early Earth's atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide, as is the atmosphere of Venus and Mars. The earliest microorganisms used this CO2 to create other chemicals in the atmosphere, which allowed other microorganisms to develop, including photosynthetic cyanobacteria, who created the oxygen in the atmosphere, which allowed for the development of aerobic life, allowing for the eventual evolution of animals. So evolutionary advances actually create the environmental conditions for further evolutionary advances.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10543053 - 06/20/09 01:24 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What the Gaia hypothesis predicts is...
Sorry, that is a 'retrodiction'.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10543067 - 06/20/09 01:29 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What would be the ultimate step in this evolution then?
I just don't buy any hypothesis that assumes a grand purpose or significance to life...
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10543097 - 06/20/09 01:36 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What would be the ultimate step in this evolution then?
SS will tell you after-the-fact just like the Gaia 'prediction'. BTW, I predict the Pirates will upset the Yankees in the 1960 World Series.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10543104 - 06/20/09 01:37 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Couldn't you argue the entire Universe is also trying to evolve life if you believe the Gaia hypothesis? Or is this just restricted to our planet?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10543113 - 06/20/09 01:40 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
What the Gaia hypothesis predicts is that life creates the conditions for more life. The early Earth's atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide, as is the atmosphere of Venus and Mars. The earliest microorganisms used this CO2 to create other chemicals in the atmosphere, which allowed other microorganisms to develop, including photosynthetic cyanobacteria, who created the oxygen in the atmosphere, which allowed for the development of aerobic life, allowing for the eventual evolution of animals. So evolutionary advances actually create the environmental conditions for further evolutionary advances.
Which is basically saying that life grows and changes, and new life takes advantage of the changes.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10543126 - 06/20/09 01:43 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You should write a thesis.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10543202 - 06/20/09 01:54 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Im not sure I understand what is being debated here.
Bingo
I've asked what they are discussing and I'm still unsure. The words they are haggling over have not been defined or described certainly enough to have meaning.
Quote:
When I think of complexity, I think of life. I also think of water molecule's motion in a stirred cup, or the electric field of the sun, or even a simple moon, earth, sun three body system. Complexity inst unique to life, but life (always?) exhibits complexity of varying degrees at various levels. There is no evidence that it is always increasing in complexity.
Exactly, I think its like looking at the first part of the sine plot, it will look like its increasing, but that's only because you've only looked at a small portion of it. Obviously shit will be simple when it starts. Therefore the later stuff is more complex. This doesn't mean that complexity is favored, only that there is an advantage to a bit more complexity than the first life (likely very simple). I see no way that ever increasing complexity is advantageous, and many ways that it is not. Why spend more energy and invest more matter in things than is neccesary?
Quote:
This is what Johnm said earlier, all evidence points that diversity/complexity is cyclic and set about an equilibrium dictated by large time scale environmental conditions.
yep
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10543238 - 06/20/09 01:59 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What is the difference between 'Intelligent Design' and 'Intellegent Design'? 
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10543919 - 06/20/09 05:05 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
What would be the ultimate step in this evolution then?
I just don't buy any hypothesis that assumes a grand purpose or significance to life...
What makes you think there would be an "ultimate step"? It's about the process, not an end-point.
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10543943 - 06/20/09 05:14 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Couldn't you argue the entire Universe is also trying to evolve life if you believe the Gaia hypothesis? Or is this just restricted to our planet?
The Gaia hypothesis specifically deals with life, and how it alters the environment to be more sustainable for life. For example, the earth's temperature, until recently, has remained relatively stable, despite increasing levels of solar radiation. The predictive power of the Gaia hypothesis, which OC mindlessly ridicules, can be applied to other planets, where we can test for life simply by observing a planet's atmospheric conditions. That is where James Lovelock first came up with it.
Anyway, your point about the universe trying to evolve life has nothing to do with the Gaia hypothesis per se. It gets more into philosophical territory. The gist of the Gaia hypothesis is that life creates the conditions for its own survival.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10544172 - 06/20/09 06:28 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The predictive power of the Gaia hypothesis, which OC mindlessly ridicules
Only one of us has incorrectly used the word 'predictive' and then to cover their error makes up a hypothetical and an ad hominem once again showing his true nature.
Let's clear this up: The Gaia Hypothesis has not made a single prediction that has been verified. Twist that however you want.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10544204 - 06/20/09 06:43 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Let's clear this up: The Gaia Hypothesis has not made a single prediction that has been verified. Twist that however you want.
Has the "humans are conscious" hypothesis ever made a single prediction that has been verified? I don't think so. Obviously humans are not conscious.
Vote against the "only science can explain reality" hypothesis, if you are in fact conscious.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10544208 - 06/20/09 06:43 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Let's clear this up: The Gaia Hypothesis has not made a single prediction that has been verified. Twist that however you want.
James Lovelock predicted, based on his understanding of life's affect on its environment, that we would not find life on Mars. His prediction seems to be holding up pretty well so far. As we discover new planets, we can apply the Gaia hypothesis in analyzing their atmosphere to predict whether or not they might contain life.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10544225 - 06/20/09 06:50 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It honestly takes the Gaia hypothesis to explain non-life on a planet whose atmosphere, oceans and most of it's magnetosphere was lost millions of years ago? Not hardly.
Once again you are over-reaching.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10544301 - 06/20/09 07:09 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
It honestly takes the Gaia hypothesis to explain non-life on a planet whose atmosphere, oceans and most of it's magnetosphere was lost millions of years ago? Not hardly.
At the time he predicted it, it was not such an open and shut case. There were many who believed that microbial life might exist in certain parts of Mars. NASA was ready to send a probe there to search for live. Lovelock said that Mars' atmosphere composed mostly of CO2 does not have the varied and dynamic properties that life would produce. We can bicker all we want about how predictable this was, but the point is that Lovelock used a methodology for his prediction that can be used for finding life on other planets.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10544489 - 06/20/09 07:56 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Let's clear this up: The Gaia Hypothesis has not made a single prediction that has been verified. Twist that however you want.
Has the "humans are conscious" hypothesis ever made a single prediction that has been verified? I don't think so. Obviously humans are not conscious.
Vote against the "only science can explain reality" hypothesis, if you are in fact conscious.
Uh, yes it has. Humans are concious meaning they are aware of themselves and the world around them. I just asked my brother his name, his history, to describe the room, and he did all flawlessly.
The humans are concious hypothesis prediction that humans are concious has just been supported. You loose.
And I wish folks would stop confusing the absence of support for something for an assertion that it doesn't exist. Nobody said Gaia is wrong or whatever, only that it didn't predict shit and therefore can't be verified. Its just blind bitching about science to suggest it claims to know everything when percisely the opposite is the case- it limits itself to what can be observed. I have no idea where this idea that science claims to know everything comes from, but it always seems to be silly and unsupportable. (absent MM's quotes from random people in Time magazine)
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Let's clear this up: The Gaia Hypothesis has not made a single prediction that has been verified. Twist that however you want.
James Lovelock predicted, based on his understanding of life's affect on its environment, that we would not find life on Mars. His prediction seems to be holding up pretty well so far. As we discover new planets, we can apply the Gaia hypothesis in analyzing their atmosphere to predict whether or not they might contain life.
Like orgone said, we allready knew that to the same degree we know it know. What observation supports this claim?
Moreover, how is the prediction itself a neccesary consequence of GAIA? So often people just seem to make up predictions that can be allegedly tested, but fail to show how its an actual neccesary consequence of the hypothesis they advance. Usually, like with ID, this is because they just made up the predictions by finding something they thought they were right about and then making a naked claim that its a consequence of their hypothesis, without showing how and thus opening themselves up to counterexamples as a result of actually defining their hypothesis enough that it can be tested.
Is GAIA this way? If not, what exactly is it and show how the prediction you claim is a neccesary consequence of its tenants.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10544634 - 06/20/09 08:28 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Moreover, how is the prediction itself a neccesary consequence of GAIA? So often people just seem to make up predictions that can be allegedly tested, but fail to show how its an actual neccesary consequence of the hypothesis they advance. Usually, like with ID, this is because they just made up the predictions by finding something they thought they were right about and then making a naked claim that its a consequence of their hypothesis, without showing how and thus opening themselves up to counterexamples as a result of actually defining their hypothesis enough that it can be tested.
Is GAIA this way? If not, what exactly is it and show how the prediction you claim is a neccesary consequence of its tenants.
Gaia predicts that a planet with life will have certain atmospheric properties as a result of the negentropy caused by life. I don't have the expertise to lay out exactly what those properties are, but Lovelock had it pretty well worked out. The upshot of it is that to determine if a planet has life, we should look for entropy reduction. Gaia theory predicts that a biosphere will regulate atmospheric conditions into a homeorhetic balance that will in turn foster conditions for life to prosper. I don't what kind of explanation you're looking for, but it sounds pretty straightforward to me.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10544652 - 06/20/09 08:34 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10544759 - 06/20/09 09:04 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Moreover, how is the prediction itself a neccesary consequence of GAIA? So often people just seem to make up predictions that can be allegedly tested, but fail to show how its an actual neccesary consequence of the hypothesis they advance. Usually, like with ID, this is because they just made up the predictions by finding something they thought they were right about and then making a naked claim that its a consequence of their hypothesis, without showing how and thus opening themselves up to counterexamples as a result of actually defining their hypothesis enough that it can be tested.
Is GAIA this way? If not, what exactly is it and show how the prediction you claim is a neccesary consequence of its tenants.
Gaia predicts that a planet with life will have certain atmospheric properties as a result of the negentropy caused by life. I don't have the expertise to lay out exactly what those properties are, but Lovelock had it pretty well worked out. The upshot of it is that to determine if a planet has life, we should look for entropy reduction. Gaia theory predicts that a biosphere will regulate atmospheric conditions into a homeorhetic balance that will in turn foster conditions for life to prosper. I don't what kind of explanation you're looking for, but it sounds pretty straightforward to me.
What I was asking for was proof that the prediction actually was a prediction as opposed to just something made up for convieniance or demonstrability. For example, ID people make all sorts of claims regarding precictions of ID, but it is never shown how the claim actually is a consequence of ID- they apparently just make the shit up cuz they know the theory doesn't mean anything definite enough to predict something- then they get uncomfortable if you ask how that prediction results from their hypothesis, cuz it doesn't.
Anyways, it sounds like you don't know for sure, anyways?
Anyways, I thought you ssaid that a planet with life should have effects from negentropy. Why then would we look for entropy reduction? That seems like exactly the opposite of what you previously said was predicted.
Life increases entropy and 'exports' it and so therefore we should look for less entropy? Wouldn't it be more?
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10544818 - 06/20/09 09:20 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Anyways, I thought you ssaid that a planet with life should have effects from negentropy. Why then would we look for entropy reduction? That seems like exactly the opposite of what you previously said was predicted.
Life increases entropy and 'exports' it and so therefore we should look for less entropy? Wouldn't it be more?
I was mistaken earlier. I knew that life had some effect on entropy, but had that effect backwards. Here's what wikipedia says about it:
Quote:
In 1964, James Lovelock was among a group of scientists who were requested by NASA to make a theoretical life detection system to look for life on Mars during the upcoming space mission. When thinking about this problem, Lovelock wondered “how can we be sure that Martian life, if any, will reveal itself to tests based on Earth’s lifestyle?” [6] To Lovelock, the basic question was “What is life, and how should it be recognized?” When speaking about this puzzling issue with some of his colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he was asked, well what would you do to look for life on Mars? To this Lovelock replied:
"I’d look for an entropy reduction, since this must be a general characteristic of life."
Thus, according to Lovelock, to find signs of life, one must look for a “reduction or a reversal of entropy.”
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10544833 - 06/20/09 09:24 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Did Lovelock come up with a way to detect that?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10544847 - 06/20/09 09:26 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Did Lovelock come up with a way to detect that?
As I understand it, we're able to detect the elements in an atmosphere by examining the light spectrum of the planet. Something like that. Anyway, yes. There is a way of testing for this without actually visiting a planet.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Silversoul]
#10544895 - 06/20/09 09:37 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Awesome.
But I thought the real question here was whether evolution drives complexity which equals a greater reduction in entropy. I'm not sure that that is the case. What Lovelock proposed is an excellent way of detecting life, but not necessarily complex life. I'd argue that plants are far more efficient entropy-reducers than humans are.
Perhaps humans are capable of reducing entropy to a greater degree, but that's just because we take advantage of other forms of life. We eat cows which eat plants. But most of the entropy reduction is done by the plants.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10545209 - 06/20/09 10:47 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Awesome.
But I thought the real question here was whether evolution drives complexity which equals a greater reduction in entropy.
why would complexity equate to a greater reduction in entropy? Again, a rock of salt is very uniform and you can easily calculate the position of every atom in it by knowing the position of just a few. Not very complex, and yet of lower entropy than that rock dissolved. And when its dissolved the location and arrangement and even motion is very complex. Moving everywhere and unpredictable. And yet the entropy is greater.
These results are opposite of the presumptions in this thread and I think the word entropy is basically being misused. I don't know what the attraction is, but untill someone can demonstrate the relationship is present I think folks should stop conflating the two.
And when your talking about this stuff we should really be defining the system, as it vastly changes things. I think this was one of silversoul's mistakes- just cuz life may be understood to have lower entropy doesn't mean that life reduces entropy, it increases it. Life would increase the entropy of the system (planet, whatever).
Quote:
I'm not sure that that is the case. What Lovelock proposed is an excellent way of detecting life, but not necessarily complex life. I'd argue that plants are far more efficient entropy-reducers than humans are.
Perhaps humans are capable of reducing entropy to a greater degree, but that's just because we take advantage of other forms of life. We eat cows which eat plants. But most of the entropy reduction is done by the plants.
What does this mean? Plants reduce entropy in what? Themselves? The system in which they exist?
There are a lot of statements such as these and I don't know what is being said. Plants definitly do not reduce entropy, and that sounds like what you are saying, and yet its unclear.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10545379 - 06/20/09 11:27 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with Johnm, this argument is whack. Nobody is looking for life by measuring negentropy.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10545553 - 06/21/09 12:01 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Plants reduce entropy in what? Themselves? The system in which they exist?
Locally. Of course they can't reduce the universe's entropy (that's impossible), but they can take energy from sunlight and construct more complex chemicals from simple ones - like turning CO2 gas into tree trunks. That's clearly a reduction in entropy, and only life is capable of doing that. I don't see any sand turning itself back into rocks, do you?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10545569 - 06/21/09 12:05 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Not, not only life is capable of that. Of course sand can be and is turned back into rock, with the aid of external energy (like life). Water can be frozen into ice, gravity can collapse a gas, there are plenty ways that localized regions of low entropy manifest in nature.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10545614 - 06/21/09 12:15 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This article has more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life
Quote:
Nobel-laureate physicist Erwin Schrödinger theorizes that life, contrary to the general tendency dictated by the Second law of thermodynamics, decreases or maintains its entropy by feeding on negative entropy.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10545639 - 06/21/09 12:21 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Thats pretty basic stuff isnt it? I dont see the relevance.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10545752 - 06/21/09 12:53 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Isn't that just what we were talking about? That life decreases entropy?
Anyway, the question is whether "more complex" life is able to decrease entropy more efficiently. I don't think that's the case.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10546137 - 06/21/09 03:55 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Uh, yes it has. Humans are concious meaning they are aware of themselves and the world around them. I just asked my brother his name, his history, to describe the room, and he did all flawlessly.
The humans are concious hypothesis prediction that humans are concious has just been supported. You loose.
Bullshit. In theory I could write a computer program to simulate that behavior perfectly without the program necessarily being conscious of itself. There is no proof of consciousness in other people. You just assume that other people are conscious because you are somewhat conscious yourself.
Edited by Zanthius (06/21/09 04:04 AM)
|
LvMkngFlwrChld
Stranger
Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 101
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10546148 - 06/21/09 04:09 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
in CPR classes the teach you to shake someone and say "are you ok" and if they say something they are conscious. thats as good a test of conscious as I need. i would try it on my wife right now but she would be mad at me for waking her up.
also, you could try the mirror test on your brother. put a dot on his face and if he recognises it in the mirror as a dot on himself he is self aware.
some parrots are self aware.
evolution favors neither simplicity nor complexity, it favors what works. if it lives long enough to reproduce it's cool as far as Chuck D is conserned
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: LvMkngFlwrChld]
#10546167 - 06/21/09 04:19 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LvMkngFlwrChld said:
in CPR classes the teach you to shake someone and say "are you ok" and if they say something they are conscious. thats as good a test of conscious as I need. i would try it on my wife right now but she would be mad at me for waking her up.
That isn't necessarily a test of consciousness. It is rather a test to see if the machine/simulation is operative. If I give inputs to a program I have made, and it responds, it just means that the program is operative.
Quote:
LvMkngFlwrChld said:evolution favors neither simplicity nor complexity, it favors what works.
Right, so in certain aspects complexity is preferred, while in other aspects simplicity is preferred. If you start with a very simple photoautotroph organism, let us say cyanobacterias, then there is going to be a niche for more complex organisms to feed upon those cyanobacterias. Still more complex organisms can feed upon those organisms, and so on.
I am not an expert in plant physiology, but I think the ground was covered with a thin layer of cyanobacterias before the first plants came. Obviously the plants conquered the land, so they must have been doing something better than the cyanobacterias that used to inhabit that niche. Plants are also MUCH MORE complex organisms than cyanobacterias.
Edited by Zanthius (06/21/09 05:10 AM)
|
LvMkngFlwrChld
Stranger
Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 101
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10546260 - 06/21/09 05:25 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
When an island is formed, the first life on the island is lichen. even now, simple life arrives first. plants can't grow there until the lichen breaks down the rock some. also, plants cant come until a bird shits out a seed on the island.... I dunno if that explains anything.
the cpr class thing was kind of a joke.
the bacteria is still on the ground, plants cannot live without nitrogen fixing bacteria in the ground.
actually, i think poo gives them nitrogen too, but that nitrogen was origionally from plants, which got the nitrogen from the bacteria.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: LvMkngFlwrChld]
#10546276 - 06/21/09 05:40 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LvMkngFlwrChld said:
the bacteria is still on the ground, plants cannot live without nitrogen fixing bacteria in the ground.
Of course there are nitrogen fixing bacterias in the ground, but I don't think there is a thin layer of cyanobacterias upon the ground like there used to be before the land plants came. My point is that plants have mostly conquered the niche previously inhabited by cyanobacterias on the land. Both cyanobacterias and plants are photosynthetic.
|
LvMkngFlwrChld
Stranger
Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 101
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10546296 - 06/21/09 05:51 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I'm pretty sure cyanobacteria still do the most converion of CO2 to O2. So I dont think their niche has completely been taken
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: LvMkngFlwrChld]
#10546304 - 06/21/09 05:55 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
In the ocean, yes.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
LvMkngFlwrChld
Stranger
Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 101
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10546309 - 06/21/09 05:59 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
They are all up in and on the soil too.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: LvMkngFlwrChld]
#10546321 - 06/21/09 06:07 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Really? Well, in any case I remember that something like 60% of the world's oxygen comes from cyanobacteria in the oceans.
I think this thread has drifted somewhat...
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: LvMkngFlwrChld]
#10546322 - 06/21/09 06:07 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LvMkngFlwrChld said:
They are all up in and on the soil too.
Well, obviously the more area of the ground that is covered by plants, the less area there is for cyanobacterias to do photosynthesis.
Cyanobacterias can't do photosynthesis if they don't have light, and plants absorb light so that less light becomes available for the cyanobacterias.
|
LvMkngFlwrChld
Stranger
Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 101
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10546325 - 06/21/09 06:13 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
some plants dont photosynthesise and have cyano bacteria that does it for them, so the plant is the surface area for the cyano bacteria. I would be suprised if other plants did not have cyanobacteria on them as well. theres lots of light to go around, the sun is huge and hot and bright. but yeah, there may be less cyano bacteria with the plants around taking over.
I will accept that as evidence of simple life getting owned up on by more complex life. I also would have accepted us burning the rainforest, because we are more complicated than trees.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: LvMkngFlwrChld]
#10546340 - 06/21/09 06:22 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LvMkngFlwrChld said:
I will accept that as evidence of simple life getting owned up on by more complex life. I also would have accepted us burning the rainforest, because we are more complicated than trees.
Well, unless you get into a symbiotic relationship with cyanobacterias yourself, you need plants to get nutrition and energy.
|
LvMkngFlwrChld
Stranger
Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 101
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10546358 - 06/21/09 06:30 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
true that. however, we sure do fuck up the plants we don't eat, so we can grow corn to give to cows even though it gives them gas.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: LvMkngFlwrChld]
#10546367 - 06/21/09 06:36 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LvMkngFlwrChld said:
true that. however, we sure do fuck up the plants we don't eat, so we can grow corn to give to cows even though it gives them gas.
The rainforest soil is very badly suited for growing corn, so I don't think it is a much good idea to chop down the rainforest that is suited for growing in such soil, and replace it with corn that is not suited for growing in such soil.
|
LvMkngFlwrChld
Stranger
Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 101
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10546381 - 06/21/09 06:40 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
well, it's fertile for a hot minute while its got the ash from the burnt trees. after a few grows though, not so much.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10546792 - 06/21/09 08:59 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Uh, yes it has. Humans are concious meaning they are aware of themselves and the world around them. I just asked my brother his name, his history, to describe the room, and he did all flawlessly.
The humans are concious hypothesis prediction that humans are concious has just been supported. You loose.
Bullshit. In theory I could write a computer program to simulate that behavior perfectly without the program necessarily being conscious of itself. There is no proof of consciousness in other people. You just assume that other people are conscious because you are somewhat conscious yourself.
Ok, well then your going to need to define conciousness. Either its a novel interpretation or your insisting on some metaphysical certainty which has no place in science. Humans don't run computer programs, so I'm not really worried about the situation you suggest confounding things.
Do you also reject heliocentrism because someone could make a computer program, and has, that replicates those observations? That we don't really know if we aren't being fooled with a projector? Any number of conspiracies?
Science looks at observations and it neccesarily makes presumptions. Their appears no counfounding factor you can point to that seems relevant, so I say your wrong- the "humans are concious" hypothesis was tested and supported by asking my brother a few questions. That it is conceivable that something could confound this conclusion or its presumptions is irrelevant in the face of a show of liklihood. We need not be absolutly certain- that can never happen.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10547256 - 06/21/09 11:19 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Science looks at observations and it neccesarily makes presumptions. Their appears no counfounding factor you can point to that seems relevant, so I say your wrong- the "humans are concious" hypothesis was tested and supported by asking my brother a few questions. That it is conceivable that something could confound this conclusion or its presumptions is irrelevant in the face of a show of liklihood. We need not be absolutly certain- that can never happen.
Well. most scientist probably wouldn't accept the questions you asked your brother as any proof of consciousness. Since I cannot make a computer program capable of feeling pain, let us define consciousness as the ability to feel pain in this instance, although consciousness really applies to a much broader realm of subjective experiences.
It would be very easy for me to make a computer program that says "I feel hurt" whenever it is in a situation where it is programmed to say that thing. However, when the program says "I feel hurt", it doesn't feel anything at all. It is just a programmed response. Much in the same way, I cannot know for certain that other people actually feel pain. It might also just be a programmed response to certain situations, that has nothing to do with the feeling I identify as pain. I can assume that other people feel pain when they are saying "I feel hurt", because I know the feeling of pain from myself, and I know that other people have a brain and a nervous system that is similar to mine.
If the ability to feel pain more generally applies to all interactive systems in different degrees depending upon how complex the system is, then I can also assume that the interactive system of this planet ( Gaia ) is capable of feeling pain.
Edited by Zanthius (06/21/09 11:25 AM)
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10550373 - 06/21/09 08:50 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
define prove, is this some metaphysical certainty? Its impossible. I've allready explained how it seems impossible for anything at all to be known without presumptions, so I don't know why you used that word.
In any case, asking someone such questions demonstrates his conciousness and you've not showed any confounding factors affecting this. I still don't understand what a computer has to do with anything.
Anyways, no, I don't care to take up the issue of pain you've selected for me as I don't understand it myself and it seems a largely unknown issue within science as to just what pain is and how it works.
All i was trying to show was that your claim that science can't support the conciousness hypothesis is wrong- as mentioned previously EMT's do it all the time with quite satisfactory results.
Science has nothing to do with certainty, it has to do with observation and reasoning. Forget about absolute certainty, proof, or the ability to answer any question.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10550536 - 06/21/09 09:16 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
asking someone questions doesnt prove consciousness at all because they could just be a robot without a consciousness.
and then you go on to say that if the robot acted like a person, we would have no coice but to assume it is conscious?
Well this is when you realise that you are treating science as something that we need to conform to.. as opposed to science being something that we use to conform our surroundings.
If science cannot deal with something, eg consciousness, then we need new ways of dealing with that aspect of reality.
There is no scientific proof of consciousness. EMT's use 'conscious/unconscious' dichotomy to refer to 'responsiveness', to see if a person -can consciously engage with the world-. it is not a test of whether there is consciousness or not
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10550545 - 06/21/09 09:18 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
and then you go on to say that if the robot acted like a person, we would have no coice but to assume it is conscious?
Essentially, yes. We assume other people are conscious solely based on their behavior; why shouldn't we do the same to a robot?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10550603 - 06/21/09 09:27 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Actually we dont assume other people are conscious solely based on their behavior.
First, we notice that WE are conscious, because we have access to this consciousness.
Then, we notice that we are human beings, born of other human beings.
Once we start to notice other human beings acting just like us, we make the 'likely' inference that they are probably conscious.
We assume other people are conscious because there is nothing discernably different about the basis for their actions than ours.
It is not simply because they act in a certain way. We have to know that the thing has a brain like ours in order to assume they are conscious.
Eg. when people discovered that there was no discernable difference between human and animal brains, they started to take more seriously the claims that animals had an experience of the world, as opposed to just being machines.
We assume a person is conscious because they are a person, and we know that we ourselves are people, and we know that whenever our person moves in certain ways, a conscious experience occurs as well.
As of yet there are no trully convincing robots (though its gettin scarily close in japan) and when there were, we would have to change our assumptions about consciousness. As it is now, the only things that appear conscious are indeed conscious things.
But if we developed computers that behaved like humans, we would have to start asking ourselves 'is this a human or a robot?' because if it was a robot, we would no longer have reason to assume the behavior indicated consciousness. Only something that can relate another being to our own experience of consciousness can indicate consciousness to us. So far, anything that convincingly behaves conscious is indeed conscious, so we can keep using that mantra to guide our assumptions.
But this mantra of assumption is not the scientific way, nor is it, the logical way. It is the pragmatic way.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10550631 - 06/21/09 09:33 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You're correct that we do make the inference from the fact that we are conscious that anything else with a similar brain is also probably conscious. But what's to prevent us from constructing a functionally equivalent robot brain? If it has identical behavior to us then it is quite likely that its internal program will resemble the activity of a biological brain.
Moreover you have no logical grounds to deny consciousness to something that acts as if it is conscious.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10550663 - 06/21/09 09:38 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You do if you already know there are non-conscious beings walking around that act and seem conscious.
And then you could say that the robots are conscious because they look conscious
As nice as the idea is, that consciousness will just 'appear' as long as we coded a machine to convince us it was conscious...
I hope you see how that cannot be taken lightly.
It is like saying that consciousness is the quality of convincing other people you are conscious
so essentially, it is saying that consciousness doesnt exist, we dont have to bother with it, we can just say that consciousness comes about because of our externally percieved actions
which seems rather absurd
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10550670 - 06/21/09 09:39 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Moreover you have no logical grounds to deny consciousness to something that acts as if it is conscious.
Things aren't always as they appear.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan   fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10550683 - 06/21/09 09:41 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
You do if you already know there are non-conscious beings walking around that act and seem conscious.
Begging the question. How do you know these beings are non-conscious?
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
It is like saying that consciousness is the quality of convincing other people you are conscious
The only way we can ever guess if another thing is conscious is by its behavior and functional similarity to ourselves; in this sense if something is capable of convincing me that it is conscious then I would probably believe it. Not to mention if we ever attempt to create a morality that encompasses all sentient beings then it is best to be safe rather than sorry; I'd rather hesitantly grant robots rights than deny them recognition as conscious beings even if they aren't.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10550776 - 06/21/09 09:53 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well look I think similarly in my heart and that is why I personally see no reason to accept that everything in the universe is conscious. But scientists are the first to give a funny look at that proposition.
But you have taken this reasoning yourself. If you need reason to think something is -not- conscious, then you are assuming initially that everything is conscious.
You can either assume everything is conscious or nothing is conscious,
and then look for reasons to think otherwise.
So you could look at yourself in the mirror and say that humans are conscious, because they look just like I do when I am a conscious human. And so then you make everything conscious that resembles your outward appearance.
Or you could say that the brain is made of matter and as long as we have no idea how the brain works, there is no reason to think that all other 'matter' is also conscious, just simply not feeding its consciousness into a mechanical system of behavior.
But then we might say 'NO! the brain has a very special form and structure that is different tot the rest of the universe!'
At which point we can no longer say that something is conscious just because of its behavior, but instead have to consider the underlying mechanism of this behavior.
Thus if it acts conscious, and also runs on a brain, then we can say it is probably conscious.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10551615 - 06/22/09 12:16 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But doesn't your argument come down to "only humans are conscious" or perhaps "robots can never be conscious"? I don't see how you can assert either of those statements.
If a robot managed to convince me that it was conscious, who are we to argue?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10551667 - 06/22/09 12:29 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What if a human convinced you that it wasn't conscious?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10551669 - 06/22/09 12:30 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
At which point we can no longer say that something is conscious just because of its behavior, but instead have to consider the underlying mechanism of this behavior.
I honestly don't think mechanism matters.
Tell me, would you consider a perfect functional computer simulation of a human brain to be conscious?
Quote:
Poid said:
What if a human convinced you that it wasn't conscious?
If the convincing rested on the fact that the human was unresponsive and/or comatose, sure I'd believe it.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10551699 - 06/22/09 12:37 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
At which point we can no longer say that something is conscious just because of its behavior, but instead have to consider the underlying mechanism of this behavior.
Unfortunately neither you nor anyone knows of the underlying mechanism and noting behavior is all we have.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10551717 - 06/22/09 12:42 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Poid said:
What if a human convinced you that it wasn't conscious?
If the convincing rested on the fact that the human was unresponsive and/or comatose, sure I'd believe it.
So Terry Schaivo wasn't a conscious being during the days before they pulled the plug on her?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10551724 - 06/22/09 12:43 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
What if a human convinced you that it wasn't conscious?
Dozens of people convince me of that daily on this forum.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10551725 - 06/22/09 12:43 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
At which point we can no longer say that something is conscious just because of its behavior, but instead have to consider the underlying mechanism of this behavior.
Unfortunately neither you nor anyone knows of the underlying mechanism and noting behavior is all we have.
So if nobody knows what consciousness is, then how could anyone make any claim about whether something is or isn't conscious?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10551733 - 06/22/09 12:45 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Poid said:
What if a human convinced you that it wasn't conscious?
Dozens of people convince me of that daily on this forum.
Only dozens?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10551765 - 06/22/09 12:50 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
So if nobody knows what consciousness is, then how could anyone make any claim about whether something is or isn't conscious?
I didnt say nobody knows what it is, I said we dont know what underlying mechanisms are. It an observed phenomenon, not a derived one.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10551803 - 06/22/09 12:56 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Right, we don't completely understand it, so no matter how much knowledge we have about any given phenomenon, we can never know without a shadow of a doubt whether or not it is conscious.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10551813 - 06/22/09 12:57 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
We can never know for certain, but the point here is to make an educated guess.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10551826 - 06/22/09 12:59 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Only dozens?
I don't count the people that have already convinced me.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10551829 - 06/22/09 01:00 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I have made the educated guess that only sentient biological organisms possess consciousness.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10551836 - 06/22/09 01:01 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Only dozens?
I don't count the people that have already convinced me.
I literally did!
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10551908 - 06/22/09 01:30 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Right, we don't completely understand it, so no matter how much knowledge we have about any given phenomenon, we can never know without a shadow of a doubt whether or not it is conscious.
If someone is unconscious, they are not conscious. By definition. This is obvious. I don't understand the confusion here.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10551926 - 06/22/09 01:36 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
There's no confusion, I'm saying that if we don't even fully understand what consciousness is, how can we know for certain whether something is conscious or not.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10551947 - 06/22/09 01:46 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
At which point we can no longer say that something is conscious just because of its behavior, but instead have to consider the underlying mechanism of this behavior.
I honestly don't think mechanism matters.
Tell me, would you consider a perfect functional computer simulation of a human brain to be conscious?
'a perfect functional computer simulation of a human brain'
I think the fact that we like to imagine this is possible is one of the issues of this human quest.
So far we dont really have reason to believe that the human brain can be functionally replicated. Scientists dont know enough about the brain. We can just model outward behavior.
So we can only postulate the emulation of human behavior, nothing about the brain function being simulated..
And just because behavior is all we have does not mean that we should make out like it is everything. Behavior is all we can properly measure.. so behavior is all that exists?
well I am willing to accept that you guys think that the only thing that exists is that which can be measured, but I think it would commit you to an array of other positions in other discussions
although solipsism is very rational position to take, I dont think it is right to pull it out without identifying it as such
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10551951 - 06/22/09 01:47 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It's pretty easy to tell if someone or something is conscious or not. Poke it. Did it respond? Then it's conscious. Is it dead? Unconscious.
Consciousness is not some sort of weird concept that we haven't fully grasped. It's a word we made up.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10551955 - 06/22/09 01:50 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Once again, consciousness does not mean 'responsive', it is a word that was made up and has meant different things as time goes on. However in modern discussion, consciousness has come to refer to the elusive condition that befalls us all, the window that can recognise 'I am' and thus the premise of descartes great 'I think therefor I am'
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10551986 - 06/22/09 01:57 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
It's pretty easy to tell if someone or something is conscious or not. Poke it. Did it respond? Then it's conscious. Is it dead? Unconscious.
Consciousness is not some sort of weird concept that we haven't fully grasped. It's a word we made up.
So it has to be alive to be conscious? How can a machine be alive?
"Consciousness is not some sort of weird concept that we haven't fully grasped."
Many would disagree with you here.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10551998 - 06/22/09 02:01 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Isn't that self-awareness? In any case, we have pretty simple tests for that too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8029887.stm
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060202
Quote:
So it has to be alive to be conscious? How can a machine be alive?
I didn't say that.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10552018 - 06/22/09 02:06 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I didn't say that.
Quote:
zouden said:
Is it dead? Unconscious.
^
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10552034 - 06/22/09 02:12 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If someone is unconscious, they are not conscious. By definition. This is obvious. I don't understand the confusion here.
Zouzou, you have the patience of Job, but each passing post will wear on you like rain on a mountain until you finally have a nervous breakdown. 
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10552040 - 06/22/09 02:13 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I said dead, not alive. If something is dead it is by definition unconscious. That doesn't mean that only living things are conscious, because robots could be conscious.
This rule goes out the window when the zombies start attacking but I guess I'll have bigger concerns then 
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10552055 - 06/22/09 02:19 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Ok well maybe it is true, maybe I am the only conscious being that exists and you guys are just part of my imagination. Of course, if you think you are conscious, I doubt it is true.
Because otherwise you would recognise that consciousness has nothing to do with what is outside your body but what is your experience of inside/outside self/other etc in the first place. In order for you to say 'well actually, I think I am conscious' you would undoubtedly be using some window of observation.
What do you call that?
Self awareness is merely the state of consciousness that includes information about the self. But one might be conscious and not self aware yet still be experiencing the world in total vividness.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10552089 - 06/22/09 02:33 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I said dead, not alive. If something is dead it is by definition unconscious. That doesn't mean that only living things are conscious, because robots could be conscious.
I thought that consciousness = sentience = life.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10552094 - 06/22/09 02:35 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
zouden said:
I said dead, not alive. If something is dead it is by definition unconscious. That doesn't mean that only living things are conscious, because robots could be conscious.
I thought that consciousness = sentience = life.
That may be the case now, but not always.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10552108 - 06/22/09 02:39 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I just don't see how a robot could possibly possess consciousness, largely because every conscious being I know is made of decomposable flesh composed of living cells.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10552149 - 06/22/09 02:55 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Thats not very compelling evidence...
Surly you can conceive of that which you dont observe?
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10552155 - 06/22/09 02:57 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I can conceive of a flying spaghetti monster, but doesn't make it real.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10552167 - 06/22/09 03:06 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
No shit. 
Why dont you give us a good reason why a robot cant be conscious then. Something other than that you havent seen one yet.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10552178 - 06/22/09 03:15 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
If a robot managed to convince me that it was conscious, who are we to argue?
So, are you more convinced that other people are conscious because they have almost the same brain and nervous system as you do, or are you convinced because of their behavior?
Personally I am more convinced because they have a brain and nervous system that is very similar to my own, not necessarily because of their behavior. If the interactive system of this planet ( Gaia ) is conscious, it might be very difficult for me to determine that because of its behavior. I am probably too small to understand Gaia's behavior.
But I still believe that Gaia has a consciousness, because it has an interactive system that is at least as complex as my own brain and nervous system. After all - every human brain and nervous system is within the interactive system of Gaia. Why shouldn't the interactive system of Gaia be able to feel pain, when I am able to feel pain with my brain and nervous system?
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10552179 - 06/22/09 03:17 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why shouldn't the interactive system of Gaia be able to feel pain, when I am able to feel pain with my brain and nervous system?
Because it doesn't have a brain and nervous system.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10552180 - 06/22/09 03:17 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It's not because I haven't seen one so much as it is because robots are so fundamentally different than most other known conscious entities that I find it extremely unlikely for them to possess consciousness. Another thing: a robot is built, not born.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10552181 - 06/22/09 03:18 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Because it doesn't have a brain and nervous system.
But it has an interactive system that is at least as complex as my brain and nervous system. Every brain and nervous system on this planet, is within the interactive system of Gaia.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10552188 - 06/22/09 03:24 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, the earth does have a complex interactive system but it doesn't have the nervous system or brain that you cite as the mechanism for feeling pain.
Also, every particle in the universe is within the interactive system of the universe. Why stop at the earth? (or 'Gaia' as you so quaintly put it)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10552189 - 06/22/09 03:26 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Yes, the earth does have a complex interactive system but it doesn't have the nervous system or brain that you cite as the mechanism for feeling pain.
Well, it has multiple brains and nervous systems.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10552192 - 06/22/09 03:28 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I am certain this forum feels pain.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10552194 - 06/22/09 03:32 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Ok. Thats not a real articulate argument there buddy. Im gonna stick with earth doesnt feel pain.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10552313 - 06/22/09 04:46 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Ok. Thats not a real articulate argument there buddy. Im gonna stick with earth doesnt feel pain.
We are connected to each other, just like the neurons are connected to each other. If your nervous system is capable of feeling pain, then the larger system we are incorporated in also should be capable of feeling pain.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10552338 - 06/22/09 04:59 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That doesn't follow. I mean, your brain isn't capable of feeling pain, because it lacks pain neurons. The only reason the earth could feel pain would be if you redefined the word pain to mean something else.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10552379 - 06/22/09 05:25 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Pain is specific to an organism of control. Pain is an aversive sensation that spurs actions to avoid. The sensations that we have are the hardest problem for evolution... When an animal was born with an extra receptor type in the eye... what was its experience of life like?
Did an extra quality just enter the universe in order to allow this person extra sensation?
Qualities, like red, blue, green.
These fall in the same realm as the 'consciousness' that I am talking about in this thread.
Something that science has no access to
and can never hope to adress any question regarding the nature or 'qualia' of
Perhaps all animals are constantly experiencing the universe with different qualities..
as in, everyone has mutations, so plenty of people would have mutations that affect their source of sensation..
similarly with instincts
so maybe individual consciousnesses experience slightly different qualities of consciousness? perhaps there is an animal that also was born with extra capacity for colour, but it was not successful at breeding. so that animal experienced a sensation that no other conscious being will ever experience?
this is the unsolvable enigma.. because we will only ever be able to look at OUR experiences. We can never simultaneously experience two different consciousnesses because this would require a serious contradiction
we must just accept this and learn how to live with it
but if anyone, anywhere, wants to offer a suggestion of how to objectively measure or study a totally subjective experience, please share with the world.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10552519 - 06/22/09 06:54 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
this is the unsolvable enigma.. because we will only ever be able to look at OUR experiences. We can never simultaneously experience two different consciousnesses because this would require a serious contradiction.
Well, I don't think my consciousness is limited to my brain and nervous system. In fact, I can feel the much larger interactive system of this planet, which my brain and nervous system only is a part of.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10553069 - 06/22/09 10:15 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The only reason the earth could feel pain would be if you redefined the word pain to mean something else.
How long have you been here now? That is the modus operandi for nearly all threads - especially after you make a cogent argument.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10553388 - 06/22/09 11:29 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
At which point we can no longer say that something is conscious just because of its behavior, but instead have to consider the underlying mechanism of this behavior.
I honestly don't think mechanism matters.
Tell me, would you consider a perfect functional computer simulation of a human brain to be conscious?
'a perfect functional computer simulation of a human brain'
I think the fact that we like to imagine this is possible is one of the issues of this human quest.
So far we dont really have reason to believe that the human brain can be functionally replicated. Scientists dont know enough about the brain. We can just model outward behavior.
The staggering success of artificial neural networks when it comes to pattern recognition and problem solving at least shows that our functional representation of the brain can be very intelligent. Their ability to hold models or representations of the external world as encoded in threshold weights and synaptic connections also parallels a living brain's constantly updated model of its external world. It is thus very likely that the human brain can be wholly functionally replicated; the only drawback currently is the state of massively parallel processing with which to run the simulation.
If the functional simulation is complex enough I see no reason to deny it consciousness. You act as if I'm saying that behavior is all that exists... not at all, just that behavior is all we can measure and that if we observe complex enough behavior then it is likely that consciousness also exists inherently in the manifestation of the behavior. If you believe that something else produces consciousness besides from behavior, please elaborate.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deCypher]
#10553583 - 06/22/09 12:18 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quite true. My backgammon program (an expert system) was the best ever seen (circa 1992). It was the first program to ever win a tournament against human players, however the advent of self-trained artificial neural nets put my program out to pasture. The best backgammon player in the world currently is Snowie, an artificial neural net based program.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10553598 - 06/22/09 12:21 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
The only reason the earth could feel pain would be if you redefined the word pain to mean something else.
How long have you been here now? That is the modus operandi for nearly all threads - especially after you make a cogent argument.
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with this. If your not using the standard definition of the word in the context in which it is used you need to say so on the outset instead of just claiming some special secret language as soon as someone calls you on it.
That and the same old shit re: science "knowing everything", "claiming to disprove that which it has no evidence for" (percisely the opposite of how it works)", et cet is repeated way too much in this forum by people who've been corrected before without rebuttal. It would be nice if people would stop talking in their own private language that morphs to make them correct and stop repeating their own unclear perception of what science is or how it works even after they've been corrected and had no reply.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10553908 - 06/22/09 01:19 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Just because it's programmed to be good at backgammon doesn't mean it's aware of itself.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10554282 - 06/22/09 02:19 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
My program would randomly laugh or chuckle after winning. Ooh - that used to really piss people off, but can you be sure it was not truly enjoying a victory?
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10554410 - 06/22/09 02:36 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I can't be sure of much, but I'm taking the educated guess that it isn't capable of experiencing joy since it was not specifically programmed to be able to do so.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10554437 - 06/22/09 02:42 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Human emotion and reasoning are both chemical cascades. If one could be replicated, why not the other?
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10557422 - 06/23/09 12:58 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It's not that simple, and I'm personally somewhat skeptical of neuroscience in general; I highly doubt that human emotion and reason are the result of biochemical processes, if anything, it's the other way around.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10557690 - 06/23/09 03:19 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion when it's so obvious that consuming chemicals can have a profound effect on your emotion and reason.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10557704 - 06/23/09 03:29 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If I decide that I want to move my hand, was this decision caused by a neurochemical reaction? And if I actually physically move my hand, was this action the result of a neurochemical reaction? There are so many things that the human being is doing at any given point in time, that I doubt there are many complex ever-changing biochemical reactions that are orchestrating it all.
When I consume chemicals, I experience bodily euphoria which effects my emotion and reason, I don't think that chemical reactions in my brain are fully responsible for this.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10557711 - 06/23/09 03:34 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
If I decide that I want to move my hand, was this decision caused by a neurochemical reaction? And if I actually physically move my hand, was this action the result of a neurochemical reaction? There are so many things that the human being is doing at any given point in time, that I doubt there are many complex ever-changing biochemical reactions that are orchestrating it all.
When I consume chemicals, I experience bodily euphoria which effects my emotion and reason, I don't think that chemical reactions in my brain are fully responsible for this.
Nope, it's fully biochemical.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10557716 - 06/23/09 03:34 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think that chemical reactions in my brain are fully responsible for this.
So the fact that it happens when you consume a chemical is... a coincidence?
If I inject curare into your arm, you cannot move it, no matter how hard you try. Curare interferes with the chemical signals that your brain uses. Do you think that is also a coincidence?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10557742 - 06/23/09 03:50 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So biochemical reactions orchestrate our behavior? It seems farfetched to me that there are different reactions simultaneously occuring for when I walk, when I talk, when I eat, when I move my hand, when I think about things, etc., which are orchestrating these very phenomenon; these reactions must be occuring extremely fast, and there must be a whole lot of them occuring at the same time! I'm really tired and I'm not sure if I am even getting my point across right, but yeah...
If you inject something in my arm that prevents me from using it, I would assume that you injected me with somethng that fucked with my muscles, not my brain.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10557753 - 06/23/09 03:56 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The muscles are fine but the signals from the brain to the muscles are blocked.
Quote:
these reactions must be occuring extremely fast, and there must be a whole lot of them occuring at the same time!
Yep! It's 
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10557755 - 06/23/09 03:59 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I am pretty sure I am wrong about this, but it's just a gut feeling, and I need to spend more time researching and thinking about this type of shit before I am able to discuss/debate it more in depth. I dunno, blaming everything on chemical reactions just seems too easy.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10557795 - 06/23/09 04:32 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You wouldn't say that if you knew how complicated those chemical reactions are
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein-coupled_receptor
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10557809 - 06/23/09 04:44 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I know that the reactions themselves are complex, but I just feel like there might be another explanation as to what it is that makes us think, feel, move, etc....
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10557837 - 06/23/09 04:59 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
But we can influence those reactions (with different reactions). It's not like they control us. The fact that our consciousness operates entirely on biochemistry doesn't make it any less remarkable.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10558020 - 06/23/09 06:53 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
The fact that our consciousness operates entirely on biochemistry doesn't make it any less remarkable.
Well well. Ultimately biochemistry operates entirely on quantum mechanics.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10558034 - 06/23/09 06:56 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
But so does any chemistry. Quantum mechanics isn't specific to life.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10559455 - 06/23/09 12:34 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
But so does any chemistry. Quantum mechanics isn't specific to life.
In order to understand biology fully you must understand chemistry, and in order to understand chemistry fully you must understand quantum mechanics.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10559477 - 06/23/09 12:37 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In order to understand biology fully you must understand chemistry, and in order to understand chemistry fully you must understand quantum mechanics.
Incorrect. You are completely ignoring emergent phenomenon and appealing, without base, to an extreme reductionism.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10559587 - 06/23/09 01:02 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Incorrect. You are completely ignoring emergent phenomenon and appealing, without base, to an extreme reductionism.
What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't say that you can understand biology fully just because you understand chemistry, or that you can understand chemistry fully just because you understand quantum mechanics.
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10559679 - 06/23/09 01:23 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry, I guess I dont understand what you are asserting. Zouden remarked that even though consciousness is a function of biochemistry, it is still a remarkable wonder. What is wrong with that?
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: DieCommie]
#10559699 - 06/23/09 01:27 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Sorry, I guess I dont understand what you are asserting. Zouden remarked that even though consciousness is a function of biochemistry, it is still a remarkable wonder. What is wrong with that?
There is nothing "wrong" with that. It it is just that you must understand quantum mechanics in order to understand biochemistry fully. When I used to ask my professor in organic chemistry about stuff, he often replied that it could only be explained with quantum mechanics.
|
deimya
tofu and monocle
Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10559705 - 06/23/09 01:28 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
We intuit that the causal ladder goes deep into quantum mechanics since we do not find contradictions between quantum mechanics and chemistry, and between chemistry to biology, but in terms of explanation power, of the depth of reasons we entertain to ourselves behind phenomena of chemistry, we must stop short at each scale and claim emergent laws, for no one did yet reasoned their way up the causal ladder from the smallest quantum events to chemistry, let alone life.
That is to say, at our current level of understanding, "quantum did it" is just as fruitless as "god did it". The reasons we give in biology and chemistry are for the biggest part empirical, locked at their respective scales, and the precise causes for these emergent laws are as yet unknown.
While you may reach awe in contemplation of quantum hype, the limit of your language still bind the limits of your world, and as long as you cannot coherently reason your way up the causal ladder, there's no substance, nay, no meaning to any such claim of quantum wizardry in matters of life.
Although I too believe in the as yet to be discovered strengths and prospects behind explaining away life in general and consciousness in particular through the careful tackling of the measurement problem and of the enigma of time, I must also come in terms with the limits of my understanding and cannot hope to be taken more seriously than a preacher when I speak of the mystery of it all as seen through quantum glasses.
Edited by deimya (06/23/09 01:30 PM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deimya]
#10559735 - 06/23/09 01:34 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deimya said:
That is to say, at our current level of understanding, "quantum did it" is just as fruitless as "god did it". The reasons we give in biology and chemistry are for the biggest part empirical, locked at their respective scales, and the precise causes for these emergent laws are as yet unknown.
I have had a lot of chemistry, and in order to understand the periodic table fully, or in order to understand electron configurations fully, you must understand something about quantum mechanics.
I am studying biotechnology by the way. Not quantum mechanics.
|
deimya
tofu and monocle
Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10559818 - 06/23/09 01:52 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I agree, but as much as you need quantum mechanics to understand electron configurations, what do you need in order to understand quantum mechanics ? That is what I mean by the limit of our language.
Looking the other way around, while quantum mechanics inform us about electron configurations, we, for example, are yet to understand high temperature superconductivity, which is a notoriously difficult many-body problem in quantum mechanics. So looking further at biochemistry and then life, system much more complex than high-Tc superconductivity, it seems we are able to cut the causal ladder and to start anew with a set of higher level, emergent laws, accept them as such, and figure out from there why such and such, although the precise reasons for such laws elude us. By this I mean that although the complete causal chain might not be known, the reason for life and consciousness might be understood strictly in terms of emergent laws, without the need to appeal to quantum mechanics.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10559932 - 06/23/09 02:17 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
deimya said:
That is to say, at our current level of understanding, "quantum did it" is just as fruitless as "god did it". The reasons we give in biology and chemistry are for the biggest part empirical, locked at their respective scales, and the precise causes for these emergent laws are as yet unknown.
I have had a lot of chemistry, and in order to understand the periodic table fully, or in order to understand electron configurations fully, you must understand something about quantum mechanics.
I am studying biotechnology by the way. Not quantum mechanics.
I agree, and I think it's good that chemistry and quantum mechanics are taught to first-year biology students. But it's not particularly useful when you're actually working in the field. You don't need to know the Schrodinger Equation or how to do a Diels-Alder reaction to calculate the EC50 value of a drug, for instance.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deimya]
#10561373 - 06/23/09 07:29 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deimya said:
Looking the other way around, while quantum mechanics inform us about electron configurations, we, for example, are yet to understand high temperature superconductivity, which is a notoriously difficult many-body problem in quantum mechanics.
Well, at least we know that superconductivity is due to the formation of cooper pairs, which are bosons and not fermions like solitary electrons.
Isn't this also how superconductivity is created at high temperatures?
Quote:
deimya said:
By this I mean that although the complete causal chain might not be known, the reason for life and consciousness might be understood strictly in terms of emergent laws, without the need to appeal to quantum mechanics.
I think you need to dissolve the principle of locality in your mind in order to understand consciousness, and only quantum entanglement have the potential to dissolve the principle of locality.
Edited by Zanthius (06/23/09 07:39 PM)
|
deimya
tofu and monocle
Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10562954 - 06/24/09 01:08 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The mechanism for high-temperature superconductivity is unknown. Cooper pairs form, yes, but the mechanism by which they form at such high-temperature is unknown. If they where to form following the same mechanism as in traditional BCS superconductor, i.e. where electron-phonon interaction create an effectively attractive interaction between distant electrons, then they theoretically shouldn't form above 30K. Again, "Cooper pairs did it" isn't explaining everything but is merely the description of a by-product.
Quote:
I think you need to dissolve the principle of locality in your mind in order to understand consciousness, and only quantum entanglement have the potential to dissolve the principle of locality.
I think this is interesting yet completely unsubstantiated. I also think that locality is well and sound but it's rather counterfactual definiteness that should be thrown out the window as a puerile abuse of language.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deimya]
#10563342 - 06/24/09 03:44 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deimya said:
I think this is interesting yet completely unsubstantiated. I also think that locality is well and sound but it's rather counterfactual definiteness that should be thrown out the window as a puerile abuse of language.
Well, Bell himself thought that it was locality that should be thrown out the window, and I think Einstein would have agreed with him about that.
Also. Although you can't necessarily send information faster than the speed of light with quantum entanglement, one ebit + 2 bits can send one qbit, and that means that most of the information must have been sent with the ebit. This clearly seems to violate the principle of locality to me.
It is like that if my girlfriend is speaking to me, while at the same time being entangled with me, she is sending most of the information to me through the entanglement, and not through her words.
Edited by Zanthius (06/24/09 06:29 AM)
|
deimya
tofu and monocle
Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10563568 - 06/24/09 06:10 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I think we should then at least also weight the opinion of others like Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Wigner, Born, Jordan, Dirac, Bohm, Lorentz, Debye, Everett, Weinberg, 't Hooft, Tegmark, Deutsch, Barbour, Zureck, Wheeler and all those I'm forgetting. Surely they would have something to say, regardless of whether they fall on one side or another or out of the picture completely.
And what about Berkeley, Locke, Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Russell, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Searle, Putnam and all our philosopher friends, whatever their ideas or position may be ?
Although it claims the title, the Copenhagen interpretation is but a botched logical positivism, not that I advocate the latter, nor that I think you do either for the former. Many-world is a joke Copenhagen in disguise, many-minds vaguely defined and thus meaningless, decoherence put the bar higher but doesn't answer everything it claims to. So what have we ? Maybe, at best, a relative state interpretation ? Or an environment induced superselection and invariance ? But where does it lead us ? what does it tell us ?
*chirp chirp*
Simply, physics has lost its philosophical edge and that's a shame. Sure, disregard it and get the ball rolling, shut up and calculate, but sooner or later you hit all the paradox you set yourself up after your long and careless use of a badly thought-out language and confused thoughts.
There's much to learn and much more to discover, and quantum mechanics is probably not the answer, however bad-ass wise one thinks he sounds when bringing it up in serious conversations.
But I'm not shitting on everyone and everything, and I give credit where credit is due. It did and still does push us further, for after all it makes us ask much more questions than it answers.
I'll simply finish my rant with Wittgenstein (yeah, Wittgenwhorism, beat me, I'll get over it)
Quote:
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: deimya]
#10564458 - 06/24/09 11:05 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
We all know that quantum mechanics is how the aliens power their saucers and how when you want that new Audi R8 badly enough it magically appears in your driveway a la 'The Secret'...
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10565499 - 06/24/09 02:30 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The cops didn't like it when I said I got the car using "the secret"
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10565583 - 06/24/09 02:42 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Seriously, check out your New Age section of your local bookstore or check Amazon.com. Only about 10% of all books published in the last five years have the word 'quantum' in the title. Not sure how it relates except that QM seems magical and therefore every other fuck wacky magical claim is therefore quantum and valid.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Poid]
#10568741 - 06/25/09 12:53 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
\
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
In order to understand biology fully you must understand chemistry, and in order to understand chemistry fully you must understand quantum mechanics.
Incorrect. You are completely ignoring emergent phenomenon and appealing, without base, to an extreme reductionism.
Yeah, I'd have to agree.
What exactly do you have to understand of quantum to understand chemistry fully? All I can imagine are things that are just labled quantum and are very much connected to chemistry. While you may say pauli exclusion is quantum, and it surely is, that doesn't mean its not chemistry either- obviously things like that are areas of interest for chemistry.
This seems a far jump from claiming, as qubit refutes, some reductionist principle where the major chemical properties are clearly reducible to quantum. I mean you can describe things, but who cares? An electron or proton is what it is, it doesn't matter why from the standpoint of chemistry- so far as i've seen.
Chemistry has all sorts of niches, but the major traditional clearly-chemistry areas seem to have little to do with quantum beyond areas that are clearly directly related to chemistry rather than some quantum principle that explains some chemistry by mechnisms that aren't within the purview of chemical research.
What exactly are you referring to?
Quote:
Poid said:
I know that the reactions themselves are complex, but I just feel like there might be another explanation as to what it is that makes us think, feel, move, etc....
Are you talking about what communicates the stimulus or impulse or what the original causes are? It seemed like you were talking about the former untill this post in which you seem to switch to the later.
Just cuz your brain has chemistry that propogates impulses important in emotions or movement or whatever doesn't mean the fundamental causes are these reactions- yet it seems like you may be taking this for granted without demonstrating why.
Just cuz something causes something else doesn't mean their's not a further-upstream cause.
In any case your posts seem to be incredulity without reason. Is there a reason you feel the way you do?
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,358
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10568790 - 06/25/09 01:05 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
"Just cuz something causes something else doesn't mean their's not a further-upstream cause."
So what's the further-upstream cause for neurochemical reactions?
"Is there a reason you feel the way you do?"
Not any one reason in particular.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10569287 - 06/25/09 04:32 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
What exactly are you referring to?
Well, electron configurations and the shapes of electron orbitals are derived from quantum mechanics, which again is related to orbital hybridization and molecular geometry. Why do you think aromatic compounds are much more stable than other conjugated systems, and why must there must be 4n + 2 π-electrons in aromatic compounds? Can you explain this to me without involving quantum mechanics?
Edited by Zanthius (06/25/09 04:47 AM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10569376 - 06/25/09 05:27 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I think John's point was that you don't need to be able to explain it to accept it. I don't know why aromatic compounds have to have that electron configuration, but know that other people do know. It's not critical for understanding organic chemistry, and it's even less relevant to biochemistry.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10569555 - 06/25/09 07:01 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I think John's point was that you don't need to be able to explain it to accept it. I don't know why aromatic compounds have to have that electron configuration, but know that other people do know. It's not critical for understanding organic chemistry, and it's even less relevant to biochemistry.
It is not critical for a superficial understanding of organic chemistry, but it is critical for a deeper understanding of organic chemistry.
Just like understanding the reactions in the citric acid cycle gives you a deeper understanding compared to just knowing how much ATP, NADH, and FADH2 that is produced.
Edited by Zanthius (06/25/09 09:48 AM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10571836 - 06/25/09 02:49 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah but you don't have to know quantum mechanics to understand the citric acid cycle. It wouldn't even help. In an ideal world we'd learn everything of course, but in the real world we have to specialise. I have a degree in biochemistry but I only briefly touched on quantum mechanics in first year. I don't feel that my knowledge is lacking.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10571998 - 06/25/09 03:16 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I don't feel that my knowledge is lacking.
Not that you are ignorant, but most of the ignorant people in the world don't feel that they lack any knowledge.
Usually we become more aware of all the understanding we are lacking, the more we learn.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10572040 - 06/25/09 03:23 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
In a general sense yes, but I'm talking about a specific case. In my day to day life as a scientist I have never come across a situation where I needed quantum mechanics. It's just not relevant. Making biochemistry students learn quantum mechanics would be a waste of everyone's time.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10572177 - 06/25/09 03:45 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Making biochemistry students learn quantum mechanics would be a waste of everyone's time.
What is the purpose of life? Is it just to satisfy society, or is there perhaps an inherent value in learning just to understand more?
|
laserpig
Weedmaster_P
Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 7,468
Last seen: 7 days, 14 hours
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10572296 - 06/25/09 04:06 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I wouldn't question the idea that there's inherent value in increasing one's understanding ... but that doesn't mean people who are paying to get a Chem degree should have to learn things completely outside their field and which will never earn them a cent. Might they be a "better" or more knowledgeable person if they did learn more than they had to? Probably, but education costs money and that's not why they're there.
|
C.M. Mann
subconscious explorer
Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10572631 - 06/25/09 05:17 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I am sorry but I can't agree with this statement! You don't think physics would help a Chemical Engineer? Science is myopic, everyone should broaden their understanding of their surroundings.
|
deimya
tofu and monocle
Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: C.M. Mann]
#10572895 - 06/25/09 06:05 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, but there's now so much to learn, such quantity of information, that although holding to the ideal of broad knowledge for everyone is laudable, the practical fact of the matter is that learning takes time, in the purest biological sense of the word as much as in social and economical terms and everything else in between, besides and below.
As for what we call "science", there is unfortunately yet to exist any humanly "digestible" method combined with a systematized body of knowledge of broad enough scope, coherence, quality and seamlessness that can be integrated on reasonable time scales; there is no science of human science. The education system, universities and internet (as a delivery mechanism) may look like candidates for prototypes of such attempts, for as many proofs, intentional of not, of many particular concepts, but as a whole, as a worldly activity, the "theoretical practice" of such knowledge as expressed in the effect it has on humans' activities "that knows", tells us of a different matter. Namely, that knowledge itself and information falling under the umbrella of this knowledge are produced at two disconnected paces, and as such leads to isolation in matters ranging from ecology, humanities, sciences, etc, that is isolation and incoherence in the use of our finite resources.
The paradox of specialization and science thus finds its roots in our simplest human limits, little finite and transient bits "that knows". Science is great but science is also human. Time is of the essence, although after all you shouldn't worry too much about it.
And that is but a human perspective.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10573125 - 06/25/09 06:49 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
What exactly are you referring to?
Well, electron configurations and the shapes of electron orbitals are derived from quantum mechanics, which again is related to orbital hybridization and molecular geometry. Why do you think aromatic compounds are much more stable than other conjugated systems, and why must there must be 4n + 2 π-electrons in aromatic compounds? Can you explain this to me without involving quantum mechanics?
Shapes of electron orbitals: Doesn't really matter. We know what they are, and that's good enough
Shapes of hybrid orbitals: Easily explained as a function of the momentum of the electron, and the fact that electron are attracted to the nucleus yet repelled by each other. A qualitative understanding is all that's required. Look at all the hybrids- they are all as close to the nucleus as possible while as far apart from the other orbitals as possible, both attracted to the nuclues and repelled byt he other areas of electron density. The sp3 is clearly in a tetrahedral shape as that's the arrangement that gets the four orbitals as far away from each other as possible. Simple.
stability of aromatics compared to other conjugated systems- less localization. Having charge in one spot is higher energy than having charge spread out in many spots- we allready know electrons repel each other. Additionally, there is less concentrated charge with which other species may interact, and so the reactivity is lower. Conjugated systems have much higher concentrations of charge than similar aromatic systems, they are more reactive because of this.
4n+2 electrons in aromatics: Obvious from understanding bonding. Its like asking why carbon is more stable with 8 electrons in the valence shell. While you may be able to explain it deeper with quantum, it doesn't matter so far as I can see. I'm sure there's some phenomena where the reason for this becomes relevant but I'm not aware of it- its always been good enough to know that that period is stable with 8 electrons in the valence shell.
All of these are just logical extensions of experimentally determined principles. None of these seem to clearly require quantum for sufficient understanding to do chemistry of the usual traditional sort.
Quote:
zouden said:
It's just not relevant. Making biochemistry students learn quantum mechanics would be a waste of everyone's time.
Exactly
How would it help? Like qubit said, when you get to huge molecules the principles of quantum seem very far away. Its easy enough to just realize that charges repel like charges to explain the shape of an enzyme
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10574006 - 06/25/09 09:17 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Conjugated systems have much higher concentrations of charge than similar aromatic systems, they are more reactive because of this.
Well, suppose you have a conjugated ring that doesn't have 4n+2 π-electrons. Does this ring have a higher concentration of charge compared to a conjugated ring with 4n+2 π-electrons?
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10574059 - 06/25/09 09:25 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Response for Zouden and John, and I guess Qubit too:
Quote:
(Zouden)Yeah but you don't have to know quantum mechanics to understand the citric acid cycle. It wouldn't even help. In an ideal world we'd learn everything of course, but in the real world we have to specialise. I have a degree in biochemistry but I only briefly touched on quantum mechanics in first year. I don't feel that my knowledge is lacking.
Quote:
How would it help? Like qubit said, when you get to huge molecules the principles of quantum seem very far away. Its easy enough to just realize that charges repel like charges to explain the shape of an enzyme
"God is good and good is God", is just one unfalsifiable truism that we are used to picking out. "(human) Utility is nature (i.e ostensible truth) and nature is utility", is on the other hand, one that we have not done so well to recognize.
I am wondering how this particular kind of understanding shapes your arguments as they fit the premise of this thread.
After all, that question is if anything broad, and is arguably not satisfied by such specialized understandings of whatever works, whatever satisfies human utility. I am not speaking of the regurgitated "intelligent design as a science" idea, but as the title suggests, the "negative space" to scientific utility.
Secondly, why the insistence on directing these questions at one of the most obsolete and ridiculous ideologies to ever exist? Is it to create the illusion of a firm ground for the understanding of evolution? We all know that this field is constantly in rigorous debate, even without the mumbo jumbo. Its clear to me that these existential concerns can be expressed in a more subtle and generalized manner.
Next to creationism, what is human creativity? Next to the good Christian, what is humanism?
What I see is your reach for a utilitarian philosophy of knowledge and ethics to answer these and similar questions, justified on the pretense of this ridiculous strawman. You are curving a misplaced authority, (to which I agree that it is misplaced), into the conformity of scientific utility, as if that authority can simply be forgotten.
Let me draw a parallel; are you all somewhat familiar with Richard Dawkins work?
I have recently been working through The Selfish Gene, and I find that this work is both agreeable, and certainly controversial in itself; enough to consider most of these ideas concerning ethics and human creativity without the perennial face of Christian dogma. Yet one of his latest books, the God Delusion, is not only scientific but overtly ideological.
Now the question is, can anyone draw the line between these two works?
Take this passage from the God Delusion, for instance:
Quote:
Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever
their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is
valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a
moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility.
The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind
viruses. For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, child
brains need to trust parents, and elders whom parents tell them to
trust. An automatic consequence is that the truster has no way of distinguishing
good advice from bad. The child cannot know that 'Don't
paddle in the crocodile-infested Limpopo' is good advice but 'You
must sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, otherwise the rains
will fail' is at best a waste of time and goats. Both admonitions sound
equally trustworthy. Both come from a respected source and are
delivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect and
demands obedience. The same goes for propositions about the world,
about the cosmos, about morality and about human nature. And,
very likely, when the child grows up and has children of her own, she
will naturally pass the whole lot on to her own children - nonsense
as well as sense - using the same infectious gravitas of manner.
Its much like the question he posed in his first book, where does the selfish gene meet the individual; only he seemed more tentative to make that leap then. A virus of the mind? So where does naturalism meet its contrast in artifice; where does his science meet metaphor?
Quote:
And here are trees and I know their gnarled surface, water and
I feel its taste. These scents of grass and stars at night, certain
evenings when the heart relaxes—how shall I negate this world
whose power and strength I feel? Yet all the knowledge on earth
will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine. You
describe it to me and you teach me to classify it. You enumerate its
laws and in my thirst for knowledge I admit that they are true. You
take apart its mechanism and my hope increases. At the final stage
you teach me that this wondrous and multicolored universe can be
reduced to the atom and that the atom itself can be reduced to the
electron. All this is good and I wait for you to continue. But you
tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons
gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an
image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry: I shall
never know. Have I the time to become indignant? You have
already changed theories. So that science that was to teach me
everything ends up in a hypothesis, that lucidity founders in
metaphor, that uncertainty is resolved in a work of art. What need
had I of so many efforts? The soft lines of these hills and the hand
of evening on this troubled heart teach me much more. I have
returned to my beginning. I realize that if through science I can
seize phenomena and enumerate them, I cannot, for all that,
apprehend the world. Were I to trace its entire relief with my
finger, I should not know any more. And you give me the choice
between a description that is sure but that teaches me nothing and
hypotheses that claim to teach me but that are not sure.
- Albert Camus
--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10574196 - 06/25/09 09:51 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Conjugated systems have much higher concentrations of charge than similar aromatic systems, they are more reactive because of this.
Well, suppose you have a conjugated ring that doesn't have 4n+2 π-electrons. Does this ring have a higher concentration of charge compared to a conjugated ring with 4n+2 π-electrons?
yes, that's what I just said, right? If your saying I'm wrong please provide an argument.
benzene has less localized charge than cycloheptatriene or cyclopentadiene and is therefore less reactive.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10575267 - 06/26/09 04:00 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
yes, that's what I just said, right? If your saying I'm wrong please provide an argument.
benzene has less localized charge than cycloheptatriene or cyclopentadiene and is therefore less reactive.
Okay, what about cyclooctatetraene 
Does this molecule have a higher concentration of charge compared to benzene?
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: C.M. Mann]
#10575380 - 06/26/09 05:15 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
C.M. Mann said:
I am sorry but I can't agree with this statement! You don't think physics would help a Chemical Engineer? Science is myopic, everyone should broaden their understanding of their surroundings.
Chemical engineers already learn a lot of physics. But there's only so much you can study in 4 years, so it makes sense to focus on certain things, don't you think?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10575596 - 06/26/09 07:14 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Chemical engineers already learn a lot of physics. But there's only so much you can study in 4 years, so it makes sense to focus on certain things, don't you think?
Well, personally I think it has a higher inherent value for individuals to learn broadly, than to specialize too much. Specialization might be good for satisfying the needs of your society, but not necessarily as good for your own understanding.
Also, maybe our society would be better if people tried to optimize themselves, instead of trying optimize our society.
Edited by Zanthius (06/26/09 07:36 AM)
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10576139 - 06/26/09 09:57 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
u guys are arguing about something that has lost its relevance to intelligent design theory i think
--------------------
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10576220 - 06/26/09 10:22 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
yes i think there has been a mixup here. What is pragmatically viable is a different subject to what an individual would benefit from in their own ideosyncratic, meaningful way
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10578113 - 06/26/09 05:00 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Chemical engineers already learn a lot of physics. But there's only so much you can study in 4 years, so it makes sense to focus on certain things, don't you think?
Well, personally I think it has a higher inherent value for individuals to learn broadly, than to specialize too much. Specialization might be good for satisfying the needs of your society, but not necessarily as good for your own understanding.
Also, maybe our society would be better if people tried to optimize themselves, instead of trying optimize our society.
Yes, I sorta agree with what you're saying, but I don't think things need to change. Students are already presented with a wide range of things they can study; I could have taken a quantum physics class at any point in my biochemistry degree. Full credit is still awarded. But I chose not to because I think physics is boring compared to biology.
That said, I still know more about quantum physics than my colleagues, because I am still interested in it. I'd much prefer to discuss Heisenberg than last night's football game.
Anyway, my point is that I don't think quantum physics should be a necessary part of a biochemistry degree, but students should be (and are) free to choose it.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
boygenius
strangler
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 54
Loc: Middle of no-nuthin'
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10583093 - 06/27/09 06:42 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
ID has just as much evidence to support it as this...
www.venganza.org/
'Nuff said?
--------------------
"It's too nice of a day to be stupid indoors" ~ Ren
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
