gubberningbody

Joined

• started 272 topics
• posted 1,513 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by gubberningbody

• 
  165

  evolution question

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

  being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

  i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  gubberningbody

  bohm,

  Then you suggest that random point mutations are the sole tools for generating additional complexity.

  Note: natural selection is a sieve - it vetoes legislation, it doesn't draft it.

  I suggest you haven't done the math.

  
• 
  165

  evolution question

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

  being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

  i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  gubberningbody

  Bohm,

  You claim that a random walk can change an arrangement of something like 5,000 nucleotides to 3,000,000,000 in 200,000,000 years.

  Show me.
• 
  165

  evolution question

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

  being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

  i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  gubberningbody

  Bohm -

  I'm pretty clear about what constitutes "information".

  Information is not simply a pattern.

  Information requires a code for an exchange.

  Information is what a mind uses in making decisions.

  You contend then, that no mind exists in evolutionary processes, whereas I do.

  You contend, that information increases in these systems.

  I agree.

  However, in your language usage seems logically inconsistent.

  Evolution is not simply the laws of physics operating over the time-space continuum.

  In your view, though you haven't stated it specifically, there is no information increase in any process, there are only signals and increases in percieved complexity.

  Complexity in and of itself is our view of what we perceive, it isn't necessarily "out there", it is our peculiar arrangement of what we see.

  I contend, that what we see is mind at work, and that - and now I'm repeating myself, that the suggested mechanism of random mutation as a novelty generating device is not sufficient to the task.

  Something else is needed to account for the increases in complexity.

  Evolution properly understood has to do with increases in differential reproductive rates over time. It's suggested that random mutations can produce the needed sequences to move a virus from 5,000 nucleotides to a human with 3,000,000,000 and this all within a 200,000,000 year period.

  That simply doesn't work out by any random walk.

  The math doesn't work.

  Yes, evolution has taken place, but not by way of random mutations.

  I don't know what's driven the changes, but I've spent decades reading material on this and every time I see a new book out on the subject I take the time to see if anything new has taken place in the thinking, but I have yet to find anyone suggest anything having any remote possibility of getting the job done.

  I read Rupert Sheldrake's work on morphogenetic fields years ago, and though it is "out there" as far as the mainstream is concerned, it's more interesting than hearing the same mathematically unconvincing explanation over and over again.

  For the record, I'm not religious at all. I'm suspicious about the possibility of mind as a substance existing outside the material realm, but that's about it at the moment. As far as any deity is concerned, I can't even begin to imagine a situation which could justify the creation of a world like this one as it is predicated on continuous consumption, but then again most apologists I've encountered have suggested that the defect is my own.

  In any case, I remain unconvinced that mutations can fuel evolution or that they've done so.

  I'm also not certain what anyone hopes to gain by "triumphing" over my "ignorance" or my perceived "perversity".

  Whatever.
• 
  165

  evolution question

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

  being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

  i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  gubberningbody

  bohm,

  No. I'm arguing that evolution is an engineered non-random process. I believe, though I don't have it all laid out before me that the mechanisms suggested for so long a time, namely random mutations sieved out through natural selection is not sufficient to the task. It seems to me that a bit of a lamarkian process is at work here and some of the recent studies dealing with epigenetics seems to suggest something more is happening here. More work needs to be done beyond waggoning in the circle and engaging in old-time-religion propaganda techniques.

  Not this isn't the thread addressing the subject of mins as it relates to various phenomena, but it seems at least tangentially related to not that we object to mind being present in a process, but without any more evidence than mere correlation and personal preference we opt easily to arguing that we have free will and minds of our own.

  The truth is that we can't know that anyone has a mind, but that all these are just behaviors interpreted to suggest the evidence of mind.

  One might say a la Crick..."One must always remind himself that humans, as clever as they may seem, simply do not have minds. These are simply complex chemical reactions occuring over time and space. All these are products of brains."
• 
  165

  evolution question

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

  being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

  i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  gubberningbody

  donny, that's actually true. It is at least so of Europeans.
• 
  165

  evolution question

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

  being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

  i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  gubberningbody

  Jonathan / Cofty

  What we both understand is that a living system is alive and chemical reactions take place in living systems in support of the same.

  What your reasoning points to, however, is that "life" is nothing other than an epiphenomenon of chemical and physical processes and to say that something is "alive" is to engage in, for want of better terminology - anthropomorphization.

  There is no "art" in this thinking, no intention, only chemicals on surfaces.

  Of course it certainly "appears" to me that there is "mind" in all these sorts of things and that you both "appear" to agree as I observe your epiphenomenas at work.

  But it does seem that there are some internally inconsistent practices which you both engage in. These exemplified well in two quotes of Francis Crick:

  1. Almost all aspects of life are engineered at the molecular level, and without understanding molecules we can only have a very sketchy understanding of life itself.

  — Francis Crick 2. Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.

  — Francis Crick
• 
  165

  evolution question

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

  being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

  i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  gubberningbody

  I'm not sure you even got started Jonathon. It wasn't possible of course, because you have neither a mind nor free will.

  Your brain is what controls your behavior. It is, like all matter, composed entirely of chemicals. It is extraordinarily complicated, with many many working parts, all interconnected in a clever pattern. No matter how complicated this thing is, however, it remains true that at any given instant in time, it is in a particular state. The chemicals are joined in particular combinations, and energy and matter are moving around in particular directions.
  
  Some stimulus comes into your brain from outside. It is sensed by the various physico-chemical processes and the signals sent to your brain. These signals interact with your brain, changes the physical and chemical state of it, and the result is some observed behavior. Your body follows what your brain instructs it to do. Where's the mind? Where's the free will? There wasn’t/isn't any.
• 
  165

  evolution question

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

  being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

  i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  gubberningbody

  Jonathan - I don't know how you've managed to redact from your mind what is written in so many texts.

  In any case what you call convenience I call reality. You know I already know and agree that chemicals react without thought, however you also know more is happening here and that it's disingenuous to act otherwise.

  Prove to me you have a mind.

  You can't do it.

  Prove to me you have free will.

  You can't do it.

  Perhaps you have neither.
• 
  165

  evolution question

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

  being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

  i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  gubberningbody

  Jonathan,

  Do you understand that DNA is inert until it is read?

  Do you understand that it is a code?

  Do you understand that there is nothing in the chemical makeup of DNA that demands certain chemical reactions?

  Do you understand that there is a "mind" that "reads" and "interprets" this code to perform certain actions?

  Do you understand I'm using the terms "mind" and "reads" and "interprets" by way to ease your understanding?
• 
  165

  evolution question

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

  being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

  i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  gubberningbody

  Caedes , DNA has no "activity" to control, so you're asking the wrong question. Jonathan - you're small chunking unnecessarily. The "mind" is an analogy, and the "reading" is as well. This is commonly used language in describing the process of transcription.

  The point is that the aperiodicity of DNA does not in of itself demand any chemical reactions to be arranged, but the "mind" "reading" the DNA does.