↪Thanatos Sand Suggestion (and please take this as a compliment), if you ever need evidence that humans are computer bots, use yourself as an example. Almost irrefutable.

That was weak, Rich. And it didn't come close to clearing you as the super-dense one.

So, what is it, Richie? Are there waves or not? Your wee brain is clearly confused on the matter...:)

@apokrisis

OK, so what if a semi-aware consciousness pervades all living things, and receives input from each entity's experiences, which it then uses to decide on perodic evolutionary changes to genetic programs? Genetic code is its programming language, but unlike computer code, it has a natural degree of chaotic behaviour, especially when subjected to various environmental factors (explaining things like cancer). The consciousness has a general sense of what is possible, and puts forth program changes that enable it's entities to adapt to the ever-changing environment. Add to this a desire to expand its population of entities — CasKev

So if you replace 'semi-aware consciousness' with 'universe', does this fit with what you were saying about accelerating heat death?

No. The universe is a dumb as a rock. Which is what requires life to evolve and entropifiy what the universe itself cannot.

So it is not a positive relation in that the physical realm has the intellligence to decide to make life. Instead the physical realm is limited by its dumbness in a fashion that makes a drive towards intelligence inevitable, if such intelligence is possible.

So a case of creative dumbness?

The universe is a dumb as a rock. — apokrisis

Is that a literal statement, because it seems to me a completely unprovable assertion. Or do you mean, 'the kinds of objects which astronomy and cosmology study are not intelligent', in which case, no contest.

Its a joke. A rock just wouldn't get it would it?

@apokrisis I still don't understand how positive adaptation could occur without some kind of conscious intervention. Take my example of the centipede:

Little atoms joined together into little cells that are operating according to some biological program spontaneously changed what they were normally doing, and said 'Hey, legs would be useful, and we can construct them just so.'?

Wanting your genes to survive seems ridiculous to me.

Your children will die and your grandchildren and so on. You are unlikely to meet your great grandchildren and so on. So what is surviving is a bit of soulless matter.

Before genes were discovered people could not give this kind of justification for having children. But to now advocate just carrying on a piece of unconscious genetic material seems ridiculous. In the past people were believed to have souls and some people still believe that so creating a child was creating something transcendent.

I still don't understand how positive adaptation could occur without some kind of conscious intervention. Take my example of the centipede: — CasKev

If one analyze what science did, you will notice that consciousness was simply transferred from humans to Natural Selection. All creative action is now imbued into Natural Selection. The same trick is performed when transferring consciousness to Natural Laws. Whenever you notice the word natural in any scientific explanation (it is used all the time), it should raise a red flag - human consciousness is being transferred somewhere else.

Whenever you notice the word natural in any scientific explanation (it is used all the time), it should raise a red flag - human consciousness is being transferred somewhere else.

Yes, when you hear the world "natural" used in discussing farming, human reproduction, rainstorms, humidity, evolution or any other natural phenomenon or dynamic, it should raise a red flag. Anti-scientism really is making a comeback.

Yes, when you hear the world "natural" used in discussing farming, human reproduction, rainstorms, humidity, evolution or any other natural phenomenon or dynamic, it should raise a red flag. Anti-scientism really is making a comeback. — Thanatos Sand

Natural in such contexts is tantamount to God. It is a substitution word. Atheists can't use the word God so they rename it Natural. The scientific explanation becomes equivalent to the religious explanation, that is no explanation at all other than calling upon some new supernatural force. It's a cute trick.Take note how often this transfer of power to Natural is used, e.g. Natural Selection. Is Natural equivalent to Pantheism? Panentheism?

Yes, when you hear the world "natural" used in discussing farming, human reproduction, rainstorms, humidity, evolution or any other natural phenomenon or dynamic, it should raise a red flag. Anti-scientism really is making a comeback.
— Thanatos Sand

Natural in such contexts is tantamount to God. It is a substitution word. Atheists can't use the word God so they rename it Natural. The scientific explanation becomes equivalent to the religious equivalent, that is no explanation at all other than some new supernatural force. It's a cute trick.Take note how often this transfer of power to Natural is used.

No, natural in such contexts is tantamount to "natural." Your use of the word "consciousness" is tantamount to God, if not quite as omnipotent. And the fact you call "natural" the supernatural force shows not only a failure to grasp those words' meanings, it shows a failure to grasp how words work.

Take note of how Rich makes the supernatural "consciousness" the "natural," and actually tries to make the "natural" the supernatural.

Face it. Deep inside your subconscious you are a Pantheist. It's a fine spiritual philosophy. Be proud of it and who you are.

Face it, deep inside your consciousness, you're that guy who thinks he's Napoleon. He was a fine military leader. Be proud of that thought and who you are...:)

Are you serious? What's the problem with a genetic memory that can capture useful random changes? There is no logical or metaphysical hole in this as a basic story.

Are you serious? What's the problem with a genetic memory that can capture useful random changes? There is no logical or metaphysical hole in this as a basic story. — apokrisis

The problem is that your are imbuing all kinds of human attributes into the gene. All you are doing is transferring creative consciousness into the gene. Just look at how you described the little gene. It has memory. It can capture. It can make useful. All that is done is anthropomorphize the gene. No doubt the rationale is that it is natural.

That's backwards. Memory as a technical term can mean all sorts of things just applied to humans. There is long term memory, short term memory, iconic memory, autobiographical recollection, recognition or perceptual memory, etc.

And then likewise, there is memory in the most general technical sense as a systems theorist or semiotician most especially would use it. And there memory describes any form of information capture that serves to constrain future system dynamics.

Metal for instance can be fabricated to have a,memory - a form it wants to snap back into.

So you are making a loose use of language - one not really scientific or philosophical. I am talking about memory in a generic yet fully technical sense.

I don't think science can cross the is-ought barrier. So I don't think you can select any human behaviour as an exemplar of how we ought to behave and our essence. This should give us a sense of freedom. But people seem to always cling to some form of labels.

I identify as gay but I avoid telling people I am gay over and over so it doesn't become my defining characteristic. Identifying as gay is important to challenge prejudice but it can also become a burden of expectations and stereotypes and defensive positions. On the one hand you can say "I am X Loud and proud but then that visibility leads to more exposure to trouble. I would advocate non self centered individuality where we see everyone as a unique individual not as a member of a group.

Well said.

There is nothing backwards anywhere. All you are doing is transferring everything that is human into a gene and then saying, "see you don't need a conscious mind". It is replication of Dawkin's Selfish Gene. And where do all of these characteristics come from?: No magic at all is involved, it's natural, created by Natural Laws and Natural Selection so of course it naturally happens. It seems like the only thing in materialism that is not natural is everyday human mind.

We all believe what we believe and these beliefs change over time. Some beliefs are more harmful to certain groups or populations of life than other beliefs. — Rich

A: "We're nothing more than animals" -> B: "false, assuming "our" refers to the experience of all of humanity" C: (you): "everyone believes stuff, and sometimes it's harmful and sometimes not".

What's you're argument?

Then share with us one piece of evidence that we're other than animals. — Michael Ossipoff

Gladly:

share with us one piece of evidence that we're other than animals. — Michael Ossipoff

And another:


Examples could be multiplied.....which is something that you know how to do, right?

There's nothing in your experience that isn't consistent with your being an animal and nothing more. — Michael Ossipoff

Then share with us one piece of evidence that we're animals.

On most days, yeah...but my personal scope is very limited.

On a more serious note, I was skimming a chapter in a book the other day, about various progressive Christians who were around when Origin of Species was published, and who thought that Darwin's theory was a magnificent illustration of 'the Divine plan'. We never heard much about that contingent. There's a related fact, which is that there were 'liberals' amongst the Catholic intelligentsia at the time of the Trial of Galileo, who were aghast at the whole spectacle, and (correctly) predicted that the trial would turn out to be a massive embarrassment for the Church. 'The Bible', they protested, 'is about how to go to Heaven - not how the Heaven's go.' Fell, largely, on deaf ears.

And, we ought not to forget that the co-discovered of the 'principle of natural selection', Alfred Russel Wallace, never agreed with the materialist implications of Darwin's theory, even though he was completely in agreement with the soundness of the basic theory. For which, see his 'Darwinism Applied to Man'.

Damn, that's a lot to digest. What's the book, and where were you reading that? You paint it as a picture of a landscape that doesn't really change much; just the four seasons in rotation.

The point I'm making is: beware the science vs religion narrative in contemporary culture. There is a conflict between religious literalism and scientific materialism, which are in some ways like two sides of a coin. But there is no necessary conflict between a religious philosophy and scientific method.

At the same time, so called 'evolutionary thinking' gives rise to a lot of crap philosophy (Steve Pinker and Daniel Dennett being prime examples). Trying to explain or understand philosophical problems through the mechanism of adaptive necessity is invariably reductionist, in ways its protagonists never seem able to grasp.

But the upshot is, one can be fully committed to scientific method in respect of evolution and every other scientific question without thereby committing yourself to materialism. Mariner is a prime example of that.

The point I'm making is: beware the science vs religion narrative in contemporary culture. There is a conflict between religious literalism and scientific materialism, which are in some ways like two sides of a coin. But there is no necessary conflict between a religious philosophy and scientific method. — Wayfarer

Oh, absolutely. I fully agree; my response above was literally just an honest question, not an argument of some sort. Thanks for the elaboration.

At the same time, so called 'evolutionary thinking' gives rise to a lot of crap philosophy (Steve Pinker and Daniel Dennett being prime examples). Trying to explain or understand philosophical problems through the mechanism of adaptive necessity is invariably reductionist, in ways its protagonists can't even grasp. — Wayfarer

I would need to read these people in full to comment appropriately. But the gist I've gotten is in line with your crits, and crits I've seen of yours and others elsewhere. It's the sort of thing that I'll investigate personally if I have the time and resources.

But the upshot is, one can be fully committed to scientific method in respect of evolution and every other scientific question without thereby committing yourself to materialism. — Wayfarer

Yes absolutely...but just in theory. In reality, how realistic is this? That's my only real qualitative question to all of the other things I agree with you on here.

In reality, how realistic is this? — Noble Dust

All you need do, is realise the Universe is not physical - it's more than, or other than, physical. This falls naturally out of not accepting materialism. If you're not materialist (and I have never been) then it becomes urgent to work out an alternative to materialism.

A: "We're nothing more than animals" -> B: "false, assuming "our" refers to the experience of all of humanity" C: (you): "everyone believes stuff, and sometimes it's harmful and sometimes not".

What's you're argument? — Noble Dust

That Natural Selection is a belief system, promoted by biology/medical industry to further its own agenda. There is not a scintilla of evidence that there is supernatural force called Natural Selection that is the working motivation of life - all life.

What we have is, by simple inspection, lots of different forms of life, at all levels,, that is evolving by experimenting, learning and changing. All life is equal and none is superior or more likely to survive than others. Stephen Hawkins has lived longer than the physicians who claimed that he would die young.