by outsmartthesystem 165 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
GB: "So, bohm - what's your basis for believing that the math works in favor of random mutations?"
mutations is a physical observation...
"I think you're confusing absence of evidence for evidence."
funny you should say that, given you provide zero positive evidence in favor of your mind-idea, when i have presented an actual observation of evolution giving and organism a novel trait.
also there is a lot of huffing and puffing about me being unable to "do the math" (whatever that means). Please enlighten us with a display of the math which (apparently) work in favor of your idea, right now i am unconvinced you could tell the replicator equation from the kullback-leibner divergence.
this thread delivers. as usual, observation and evidence is tossed in favor of "my gut tells me so".
Incidentally, like any good theory or hypothesis, evolution and natural selection have been shown to have predicitve powers.
Of course science is ostensibly based on experience, so one would imagine that the experiences be repeatable and verifiable by others. To date, not even one thought experiment has demonstrated how this random walk purportedly at the base of the novelty we see can defeat the inexorable laws of chemistry and physics as these operate in accordance with the mathematical probabilities observed.
Interestingly enough, though "mind" is denied to exist as a principle on the grounds that all that's needed to understand a thing is to know that all that is is merely the interactions of the laws of physics, and nothing more.
This so, then the mind of the proponent of the same must be denied on the same grounds.
Incidentally, like any good theory or hypothesis, evolution and natural selection have been shown to have predicitve powers.
Indeed.
GB: Of course science is ostensibly based on experience, so one would imagine that the experiences be repeatable and verifiable by others.
Indeed. So given we have absolutely no experience with a mind which drive evolution, we should require evidence before we accept the idea, just as we should require evidence before we accept a mind is required to make rivers, glaciers or vulcanos form.
GB: To date, not even one thought experiment has demonstrated how this random walk purportedly at the base of the novelty we see can defeat the inexorable laws of chemistry and physics as these operate in accordance with the mathematical probabilities observed.
Science does not primarily rely on thought-experiments but on testing models. And as many studies show, evolution *can* produce novel changes. it is a fact.
If you have a thought-experiment which tell you otherwise, sorry, you are just wrong. if you cannot explain it using thought-experiments (or as i prefer, theories), sorry, you have to little imagination or have not thought about the problem hard enough.
As a matter of fact your statement is based on several wrong ideas. There is no "laws to defeat" because there is no conflict between the ideas behind evolution and any physical laws we know of (if you think it is not so, which law is it?. If you say second law of thermodynamics, ensure you understand what the theorems/laws you cite really say and if you still think there is a problem --and i believe that is a remote possibility-- i will be happy to show where you are in error).
Finally you should know that random walks underlie some of the strongest, widely-applied inference and learning techniques. Particular the bread-and-butter of bayesian inference is markov-chain monte-carlo (see wikipedia if you do not believe me) which relies on random walks. Why this is a good idea rely on various theorems (and 30+ years of numerical experience) which i will be happy to cite.
If this does not convince you, you can study the deeper connections between evolution, information and learning. I would recommend you to read up on Eors Szathmary in general. If you want something shorter, i would recommend you to study Marc Harpers recent paper (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.1763v3.pdf) on the connection between population dynamics and various quantities from information theory/geometry.
But first and foremost, let the facts of nature, ie. the actual observations of evolution giving rise to novel traits, mold your intuition and not the other way around.
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-God-Within%281929820%29.htm
Paranormal phenomena offer a glimpse of a mysterious "reality" that evades the straitjacket imposed by conventional science. If a realm beyond science exists then all of the promises made by religion about an afterlife, heaven, souls and God become possible. Without paranormal phenomena, it would be practically impossible to sustain any idea of existence beyond this mortal coil of ours.
The trouble with non-scientific phenomena is that they are notoriously unreliable. If they could be demonstrated on a systematic basis in laboratory conditions then no one would doubt the paranormal. Instead, we are presented with endless anecdotes about bizarre things happening, but they are usually "one-offs" and have little or no independent or reliable corroboration. Demonstrations of the paranormal cannot be done to order. Also, many charlatans prey on the vulnerable and add a layer of downright fraud and deception to the subject. Many people are highly suggestible when it comes to the world of the paranormal, but, oddly enough, this suggestibility could itself be construed as an aspect of the paranormal. Why would so many people be so susceptible to suggestion if this served no useful function? Equally, why would so many people have such a strong religious sensibility if there were nothing real corresponding to their spiritual sense? Why would evolution create in us this inclination towards illusion and self-deception? It would be an extraordinary situation for a scientific, godless universe devoid of paranormal phenomena to create a delusion in human minds that there is a God and that there are paranormal phenomena. How could such a delusion ever actually arise? What would its basis be? It would be on a par with saying that lifeless atoms can gather together in order to create the delusion that life exists…but that very "delusion" would itself be proof of life because only a living entity could be subject to mental delusions. Why would "godless" atoms create the impression that there's a God? Why would "scientific" atoms create the impression that there are phenomena beyond scientific comprehension? At the every least, we would have to conclude that godless, scientific, lifeless atoms have the most remarkable qualities that would, of their own account, have to be considered quasi-religious, hinting at the greatest of mysteries.Consider these remarks by theoretical physicist David Bohm: "[The growth of a living plant] starts from a seed, but the seed contributes little or nothing to the actual material substance of the plant or to the energy needed to make it grow. This latter comes almost entirely from the soil, the water, the air and the sunlight. According to modern theories the seed contains information, in the form of DNA, and this information somehow 'directs' the environment to form a corresponding plant." Think of the even more remarkable way in which an egg and a sperm cell from a human mother and father combine to make a blueprint for creating a potential Leonardo da Vinci from the food and drink consumed by a mother during her pregnancy. If that is not a supreme miracle that far transcends scientific knowledge then what is? If that does not point to a realm of divine wonders then what does?
Of course science is ostensibly based on experience, so one would imagine that the experiences be repeatable and verifiable by others. To date, not even one thought experiment has demonstrated how this random walk purportedly at the base of the novelty we see can defeat the inexorable laws of chemistry and physics as these operate in accordance with the mathematical probabilities observed.
I'm not sure what you're even saying here. Plenty of experiments and observations have shown examples of speciation and also of the mechanisms of evolutionary change. Examples of species which have diverged from a common ancestor are numerous, just look them up. The E-Coli experiment shows the process of evolution in work before ones very eyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment). Of course, is this macro-evolution? No, we've only been observing things for a 100 years or so. Macro-evolution doesn't happen on that time scale. If you don't accept genetic, chemical and physical evidence that this DID happen, in spite of evidence of every sort of predicted micro-evolutionary mechanism, then you're a lot like someone who doesn't accept continental drift. "Sure" you may say, "continents tend to move 6 inches here or there, but has anyone shown any actual evidence of continents moving across the entire globe? I didn't think so!".
Simon, what I'm referring to is the business of novelty as a function of randomness.
That's never been observed.
The "novelty" which has been observed is reductionist.
It operates on novelty already present.
Bohm, as regards the value of thought experiments - it was Albert Einstein himself who relied on the same prior to fleshing out his theory of special relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
But once more one might ask why, if mind doesn't exist in the business of evolution as a needed element on the grounds that chemistry and physics are ostensibly sufficient to cover the ground, then why is there an implicit assumption that mind exists in the brains of humans, as these too are explicable through these same processes?
You simply cannot have it both ways.
Simon, what I'm referring to is the business of novelty as a function of randomness.
That's never been observed.
... neither has it been observed that cows make political statements, which is also entirely beyond the topic. More to the point: nature aint entirely random if you havent noticed it, for instance it contains laws of nature.
The "novelty" which has been observed is reductionist.
It operates on novelty already present.
there are words but they make little sence. Sure, novelty is a result on previous novelty, mutation and selection. Thats your basic evolutionary theory. So is there any other kind of "novelty" which is not ordinary novelty? what is it? what is your evidence this class of "novelty" implies the existence of a mind?
Bohm, as regards the value of thought experiments - it was Albert Einstein himself who relied on the same prior to fleshing out his theory of special relativity.
Albert Einstein proposed a nice framework to describe the relationship between energy, gravity and accelerated frames of motion. It build on previous theoretical and experimental work and was confirmed experimentally later. your ideas build on zero theoretical work as far as i can tell and has never been confirmed experimentally since they make no meaningfull predictions.
But once more one might ask why, if mind doesn't exist in the business of evolution as a needed element on the grounds that chemistry and physics are ostensibly sufficient to cover the ground, then why is there an implicit assumption that mind exists in the brains of humans, as these too are explicable through these same processes?
It is an experimental fact humans have minds. to the extend we has been able to test it it is an experimental fact the mind relies solely on the workings of the brain. So the reason there is an "implicit assumption that mind exists in the brains of humans" is for the same reason there is an implicit assumption humans have hands, it is what we see. think about it and confirm it yourself.
I do look forward to your more theoretical demonstration of why evolution cannot work without a mind, it seem it has been hinted many times and i will be more than willing to try to bring my mathematical skills to a level where i can "do the math", as you has recommended me previously.
