Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9360338 -

Of course not, 'Newtonian physics' is known to just be an approximation.  Why only 'Newtonian physics' and not any physical law?  Other physical laws or theories have excellent predictive ability, some to the point they have never been shown to be violated.  But they are not 'Newtonian physics'...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9360584 -

Well, the nature of my example was of Newtonian physics which showed that "randomness" could equally be construed as error propagation. Secondly, my education is in mechanical engineering so Newtonian physics is all I'm really qualified to speak on. But, out of curiosity, could you name a physical law (preferably simple) that has exact predictive value? (I don't even know what else there is besides quantum physics)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9360694 -

Well, seeing that this is not a science forum, Ill probably have to concede since I may not quite know what 'exact predictive' means exactly (and is that the same as "behaves exactly according to physical laws"?). :strokebeard:

My thinking was of theories that have always been shown to hold - and never otherwise.  Like the quantum you mention, from what they say one branch of quantum (QED) has accurately described every interaction observed to more accuracy than any other theory.  Thats what 'they' claim at least.  More down to earth, things like thermodynamics are also never deviated from.

Now I dont know if that qualifies for exact predictive or not.  To me they certainly dont seem like approximations at this point... but they do each have their own regimes where they apply.  Namely small system of one or two particles or large systems with nearly an infinite amount of particles.  For most other systems that exist in between, there is no predictive theory at all.  Only ad hoc descriptive theories.

So I guess I think you're right in that no theory has exact predictive ability, but I disagree that things dont behave exactly according to physical laws.  I realize however that in the realm of philosophical debate, this isnt much more than conjecture.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9361118 -

why do you need the term exact in those sentences?


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9361486 -

Well, I was using his phrase to remove ambiguity.  But it makes sense to have it in there I think... there is a big difference between an approximate prediction and an exact prediction of course.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9363788 -

are things together exactly enough when things are apart by just a few centimeteres, or must the difference be less than a nanometer.

can things be connected if they happen within 3 seconds of eachother or are things unrelated until they occur within the same nanosecond?

is nano the required accuracy or does exact go beyond immeasureable and unnattainable difference?

is red even red if it has the tiniest twinge of blue in it?

in that way, I think the idea "exact" is a trap.

there are limits to detection in accuracy and to enforcement of that accuracy on a huge plurality of issues.

so I think it is best, and a free-er way of thinking to use our mental probes a bit more generally, but to work hard at using words with clear definitions.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9364540 -

I could answer those questions, but since they are rhetorical to Ill abstain.

There is a simple difference, an exact predictive theory would be limited only by the apparatus and a regular predictive theory would be limited by both the apparatus and the theory.  Thats it.  If you deny the use of the word exact, then you limit your ability to differentiate between the two. 

More words free human thought, not less.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9366162 -

Veritas said:
Random does not mean acausal, it means "having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."  The mutation of DNA is caused by errors in replication OR damage from environmental elements.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html

The fact that we have identified the cause in no way indicates that this mutation is predictable.  This is what is meant by "random mutation."  The errors in replication occur unpredictably, as does damage from environmental elements.

Think of it as a car accident: we know that accidents will occur, and we know how they will occur, but we don't know WHEN they will occur.  This makes them random, yet not acausal. 



I love you

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9366196 -

redgreenvines said:
johnm214 said:
redgreenvines said:
the selection due to melanonin via skin cancers would not set in early enough to affect reproduction




why not?

I think the average age of onset is around middle age right now.  Given the presumably higher-exposures during most of the evolutionary period of relevance I would think it could be relevant.  And though you didn't say it, it seems that you are implying if a trait doesn't stop the individual from reproducing that it can't be relevant, which is obviously wrong.  It is the species that matters not the individual.


true the individuals will reproduce, get sick and die
their children will reproduce get sick and die
same as now, just no internet and health care or environmental crises

in my opinion, the enclaves of look-alikes in regions of the world are largely due to RACIAL CLEANSING which is a flaw in mentation and social behavior that we still suffer. (gang related violence and bullying is also related to this low brow social issue)


Yeah, the individual will die, but I'm saying that for socialy dependant creatures that illness and premature death can be a disadvantage even if the individual is sterile.  If human ancestors lived socially, than a sick or dead member does less work and therefore is a disadvantage, and it that way a trait that has no effect on individual reproduction could still be relevant.

Like if worker bees all got sick and died in a particular group.  These are sterile animals and never reproduce, however; the impact would be massiave on the remaining bees irregardless.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: johnm214]
    #9366251 -

johnm214 said:
Veritas said:
Random does not mean acausal, it means "having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."  The mutation of DNA is caused by errors in replication OR damage from environmental elements.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html

The fact that we have identified the cause in no way indicates that this mutation is predictable.  This is what is meant by "random mutation."  The errors in replication occur unpredictably, as does damage from environmental elements.

Think of it as a car accident: we know that accidents will occur, and we know how they will occur, but we don't know WHEN they will occur.  This makes them random, yet not acausal. 



I love you


Isn't she something!


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: johnm214]
    #9366478 -

johnm214 said:
...Yeah, the individual will die, but I'm saying that for socialy dependant creatures that illness and premature death can be a disadvantage even if the individual is sterile.  If human ancestors lived socially, than a sick or dead member does less work and therefore is a disadvantage, and it that way a trait that has no effect on individual reproduction could still be relevant.

Like if worker bees all got sick and died in a particular group.  These are sterile animals and never reproduce, however; the impact would be massiave on the remaining bees irregardless.


they would cull
even in modern day
the esquimaux would allow the sick and elderly to go take a walk on the iceflow,
a bit of weeping, but
for the greater good...

or a harpoon is something they might have an accident with.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Epigallo]
    #9370549 -

I think that asking whether or not evolution is blind and whether or not complex structures can evolve without intelligence guidance are different questions.  If we take intelligent guidance in evolution to mean the response to anticipation of some adverse condition, then I think evolution can be explained without it.

Evolution is really trial and error.  The organisms that just didn't happen to acquire advantages letting them outcompete other organisms (or merely to survive and propagate) became extint.  This can happen blindly merely because with enough guesses, some organism will just happen to acquire some benefit by accident, such as by mutation.  In the cases of what some refer to as "irreducibly complex" systems, I think all that has happened is that evolution has advanced far enough that redundant pieces of systems get dropped and dropping those redundancies ends up being advantageous.  Thus, we see evolved systems which we can explain as having arisen in one step.  That's no surprise after 3.5 billion years of evolution.

In another thread in this forum, someone spoke of a "pinnacle" of evolution and I stated that they were "seriously underestimating bacteria."  I am often amazed that scientifically illiterate people can believe in intelligent design, but when I look through my textbooks, it strikes me that the living world is very orderly and structured, so any scientifically illiterate mind would likely be more convinced at the "obvious truth" of intelligent design.  The promise of nanotechnology is a result of the amazing capabilities of nature on a nanometer scale.

Being trained as a physical chemist, I often look at evolution as being a measure of how matter can locally decrease entropy (I know that's really nerdy, but I am a chemist).  Get down to the nanometer scale and after billions of years of evolution, self-replicating matter has been able to arrange itself into localized systems for generating order and reducing entropy.  I see consciousness as one advance in this process.  Information can be measured in the same units as entropy.  Consciousness is a process that is the result of and has been shaped by evolution and partly serves the function of anticipating danger (adverse environmental conditions).  We can look at a lot of human psychology from an evolutionary perspective for this reason.  Indeed, even scientific hypotheses can be seen as conscious parallels to the evolutionary "best guesses" that would otherwise determine the extinction or survival of a species.


--------------------
Absent.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Plasmid]
    #9371374 -

You said :  self-replicating matter has been able to arrange itself into localized systems for generating order and reducing entropy.
  If entropy is responsible for the one ensuing thought of all sensory inputs; order would mean what? Life altering experience… programming… childhood experiences... Habit… the process of logic? …Thought altering thought is almost/maybe~IS free will… IMO : the manipulation of our environment has a reality of experimentation and the pursue of happiness. Creating thing out of nothing. The successful individuation substrate/psyche energy/will perhaps the living substrate.


--------------------
Wave.
'And for this reason repentance (metanoia) is an elevating means. For he who feels impatience with the circunstances in which he finds himself, devises means of escape.
  Now the chief thing in purification is the will. For then both deeds and words lend a helping hand. But, when the will is absent, the whole purificatory discipline of initiation is...'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* change and the rapid evolution of humaninty...
( 1 2 3 all )		 Smack31 5,915 57 09/25/02 04:27 PM
by shii-tan
* Radical Evolution
( 1 2 all )		 exclusive58 3,201 22 04/30/06 07:01 PM
by HippyInASuit
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,315 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* evolution
( 1 2 all )		 Droz 4,835 29 10/02/01 12:29 PM
by dimethoxy
* evolution or creationism?
( 1 2 3 all )		 top 5,476 52 11/17/05 09:19 PM
by Moonshoe
* Personal Predictability
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 1,750 24 03/27/04 05:53 PM
by SpecialEd
* Miracle-blindness
( 1 2 3 all )		 gribochek 4,934 41 02/06/02 04:58 PM
by ArCh_TemPlaR
* Evolution and natural selection (philosophy) SeussA 811 4 03/08/05 09:33 AM
by redgreenvines

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
11,993 topic views. 0 members, 80 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.