5 ms·

It's a survivor behavior. Recognize weak and strong elements in the group. Recognize safe places and easy to hunt animals. Recognizing things is the essence of

by mackwic 13y ago

It's a survivor behavior. Recognize weak and strong elements in the group. Recognize safe places and easy to hunt animals. Recognizing things is the essence of good decision making. And decision making is the essence of life. So, yes, the odd for recognizing anything from a gigantic bunch of proteins, water, and subtle mix of heterogeneous chemicals, are very little. But, considering billions of year of billions of dices running, probability was high, don't you think ?

unclebucknasty 13y ago
No, I don't think. Such order is not probable, given infinite time. That all of this occured randomly, beginning with an explosion (involvng matter which should not have existed, by the way), is absurd. People who argue against intelligent design may quibble with the details of a particular religion, but our attempts to scientifically describe creation are so woefully inadequate as to be no more actual science than is religion. Randomness is one such "scientific" explanation. In fact, it is the religion of science, serving as the de facto answer for unknowns regarding creation and existence.
- mackwic 13y ago
  It's right, full randomness it's a over-simplification of the system, I was turning my post in a Game theory view, so I didn't look too much into physics problematics. However, I don't see all your point. Are you telling me that modern physics like Superstring theory is some kind of religion ? I fear I can't follow you in this path without further explanation.
  - nijk 13y ago
    Superstring is a past fad that was more about circular reasoning that ever got to modelling the universe in a predictive way. So that is a bad example.
- Fargren 13y ago
  Have you ever seen genetic algorithms at work? Any doubts I had about evolution being a reasonable explanation for the complexity of life vanished when I saw how quickly systems could converge to viable solutions to problems by mixing characteristics from the most pat members of a population.
  - andrewflnr 13y ago
    Genetic algorithms only work in an environment designed for supporting the process, including coddling less-fit members of the population. They're barely comparable to real natural selection.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      Your objection is barely coherent. A genetic algorithm is an abstraction of the natural process of evolution, and they are very much comparable. In fact, they are rather analogous. To claim that studying genetic algorithms tells us little to nothing about natural selection in nature is preposterous.
      - unclebucknasty 13y ago
        I think he's simply saying that genetic algorithms may be based on nature, but come nowhere close in complexity, as to serve as some sort of rigorous "proof" that our theories are true, as the parent suggested. Put another way, genetic algorithms are derived from our theories about nature, not the other way around. That they can effectively model solution sets to (much simpler) problems that we identify or create, neither proves nor disproves our theories about nature.
        hackinthebochs 13y ago
        What genetic algorithms do is validate the process of evolution and deriving complexity through unguided processes. While this doesn't "prove" biological evolution, it shows that there is nothing inherently impossible about greater complexity being derived from lesser complexity. I'd say this is a very important result.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  >That all of this occured randomly This is wrong. This isn't just an oversimplification of the process, its a complete misunderstanding. Randomness is a component of evolution, but it is only one factor, and not even the most important one.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    You underestimate the supposed role of randomness in evolution and science in general. The universe itself is supposedly the product of a random explosion. Hence, my phrasing, "that all of this occured randomly". From there, life sprang up and evolved into these insanely intricate and complex life forms and systems. Give me a break. If people choose to reject religious explanations, then OK. But, it's a bit rich to pretend that science has much better answers to the really hard questions at this point.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      Your objection to the answers that science offers is completely incoherent. So because science doesn't have an explanation for the origin of the big bang, you consider it on the same level as intelligent design? This is absurdly muddled thinking on your part. Science does have a very thorough and logical explanation for these "insanely intricate and complex life forms" btw. None of this is particularly mysterious now. There are some details that are still being filled in, but to act like we are in complete ignorance of how these life forms could come about is just flat out wrong.
      - unclebucknasty 13y ago
        "Incoherent", yet you were able to offer a rebuttal? You don't see the contadiction there? I think it would have been more accurate to state that you simply disagree. And, "none of this is particularly mysterious now"? Are you kidding me? The origin of life and the known universe, and the spark that sparked the spark are all just mundane, settled science now, eh? I think it's time you held a press conference. In any event, you are making my point with your blind adherence to scientific dogma. First, science doesn't offer "no answer", it offers that it knows the answer and that the answer is randomness. Huge difference and if you look at the OP, that is what is being claimed as if it's scientific fact. And, that is why I take exception. If science doesn't know yet, then fine. But, don't offer up a weak non-answer, base the entirety of its theory on it, then take a giant dump on the heads of those who point out that the emperor has no clothes. So, my point is that there is nothing qualitatively superior about your randomness belief versus one of intelligent design (your knee jerk response notwithstanding). And, I challenge you to prove otherwise. In fact, I (and many respected scientists) believe that the randomness argument is actually far inferior in the face of empirical evidence. It is much more plausible that there is some force behind creation beyond what we understand than it is to believe that fundamental laws of thermodynamics were broken in some random event to create our Universe. So, you know, it's cool to believe what you believe, but let's not act all superior when the whole of your fundamental argument rests on "randomness", which is simply a thinly veiled "I don't know".
- gruseom 13y ago
  Randomness is one such "scientific" explanation. In fact, it is the religion of science, serving as the de facto answer for unknowns regarding creation and existence. Your comment reminds me of the line attributed to Chesterton, "Give us one free miracle and we'll explain everything else." Edit: a little Googling makes me think this more likely came from Terence McKenna: http://www.personaproductions.com/2011/02/terence-mckennas-novelty-theory.html http://www.personaproductions.com/2011/02/terence-mckennas-n....
- Shorel 13y ago
  Well, at least the default de facto answer for unknowns in science is "we don't know yet, but here is a good guess". This is also the meaning of Socrates 'I only know that I know nothing'. Any other default answer is dogmatic and foolish in comparison, and from a Socratic point of view, a sophism.
cristianpascu 13y ago
> It's a survivor behavior. That's not an explanation. This is not how evolution theory explains stuff. CORRECT: Features are selected because they are useful. INCORRECT: Features occur because they are useful. But most of the evolutionary explanations are expressed in the second way. Recognition is tightly correlated to awareness and consciousness, which in no way have been, yet, explained by evolution. Yet. Although there are voices that say that it is impossible in principle for consciousness to occur by means of mere matter. It might be that consciousness is like 7+6 in a dice trow. No matter how many times you throw a pair of 6 faces dice, you will never get that combination. Right now it is assumed that in the future neuroscience will show how the brain works and gives us the mind. Until then, it's an hypothesis. A belief. Not a religious belief, but part of a metaphysical view on the world, that is, there is only atoms. Not a religion, but close.
- Shorel 13y ago
  Oversimplification due to a lack of actual data. Also, I think each generation has very interesting histories to tell. But we have lost almost all of them, except for an infinitesimal very last bit. So we don't know what has happened in hundreds of thousands of generations, from the first cordates to therapsides to primates, that could perfectly explain it all.

by mackwic 13y ago

unclebucknasty 13y ago

No, I don't think. Such order is not probable, given infinite time. That all of this occured randomly, beginning with an explosion (involvng matter which should not have existed, by the way), is absurd. People who argue against intelligent design may quibble with the details of a particular religion, but our attempts to scientifically describe creation are so woefully inadequate as to be no more actual science than is religion. Randomness is one such "scientific" explanation. In fact, it is the religion of science, serving as the de facto answer for unknowns regarding creation and existence.

mackwic 13y ago
It's right, full randomness it's a over-simplification of the system, I was turning my post in a Game theory view, so I didn't look too much into physics problematics. However, I don't see all your point. Are you telling me that modern physics like Superstring theory is some kind of religion ? I fear I can't follow you in this path without further explanation.
- nijk 13y ago
  Superstring is a past fad that was more about circular reasoning that ever got to modelling the universe in a predictive way. So that is a bad example.
Fargren 13y ago
Have you ever seen genetic algorithms at work? Any doubts I had about evolution being a reasonable explanation for the complexity of life vanished when I saw how quickly systems could converge to viable solutions to problems by mixing characteristics from the most pat members of a population.
- andrewflnr 13y ago
  Genetic algorithms only work in an environment designed for supporting the process, including coddling less-fit members of the population. They're barely comparable to real natural selection.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    Your objection is barely coherent. A genetic algorithm is an abstraction of the natural process of evolution, and they are very much comparable. In fact, they are rather analogous. To claim that studying genetic algorithms tells us little to nothing about natural selection in nature is preposterous.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      I think he's simply saying that genetic algorithms may be based on nature, but come nowhere close in complexity, as to serve as some sort of rigorous "proof" that our theories are true, as the parent suggested. Put another way, genetic algorithms are derived from our theories about nature, not the other way around. That they can effectively model solution sets to (much simpler) problems that we identify or create, neither proves nor disproves our theories about nature.
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        What genetic algorithms do is validate the process of evolution and deriving complexity through unguided processes. While this doesn't "prove" biological evolution, it shows that there is nothing inherently impossible about greater complexity being derived from lesser complexity. I'd say this is a very important result.
hackinthebochs 13y ago
>That all of this occured randomly This is wrong. This isn't just an oversimplification of the process, its a complete misunderstanding. Randomness is a component of evolution, but it is only one factor, and not even the most important one.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  You underestimate the supposed role of randomness in evolution and science in general. The universe itself is supposedly the product of a random explosion. Hence, my phrasing, "that all of this occured randomly". From there, life sprang up and evolved into these insanely intricate and complex life forms and systems. Give me a break. If people choose to reject religious explanations, then OK. But, it's a bit rich to pretend that science has much better answers to the really hard questions at this point.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    Your objection to the answers that science offers is completely incoherent. So because science doesn't have an explanation for the origin of the big bang, you consider it on the same level as intelligent design? This is absurdly muddled thinking on your part. Science does have a very thorough and logical explanation for these "insanely intricate and complex life forms" btw. None of this is particularly mysterious now. There are some details that are still being filled in, but to act like we are in complete ignorance of how these life forms could come about is just flat out wrong.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      "Incoherent", yet you were able to offer a rebuttal? You don't see the contadiction there? I think it would have been more accurate to state that you simply disagree. And, "none of this is particularly mysterious now"? Are you kidding me? The origin of life and the known universe, and the spark that sparked the spark are all just mundane, settled science now, eh? I think it's time you held a press conference. In any event, you are making my point with your blind adherence to scientific dogma. First, science doesn't offer "no answer", it offers that it knows the answer and that the answer is randomness. Huge difference and if you look at the OP, that is what is being claimed as if it's scientific fact. And, that is why I take exception. If science doesn't know yet, then fine. But, don't offer up a weak non-answer, base the entirety of its theory on it, then take a giant dump on the heads of those who point out that the emperor has no clothes. So, my point is that there is nothing qualitatively superior about your randomness belief versus one of intelligent design (your knee jerk response notwithstanding). And, I challenge you to prove otherwise. In fact, I (and many respected scientists) believe that the randomness argument is actually far inferior in the face of empirical evidence. It is much more plausible that there is some force behind creation beyond what we understand than it is to believe that fundamental laws of thermodynamics were broken in some random event to create our Universe. So, you know, it's cool to believe what you believe, but let's not act all superior when the whole of your fundamental argument rests on "randomness", which is simply a thinly veiled "I don't know".
gruseom 13y ago
Randomness is one such "scientific" explanation. In fact, it is the religion of science, serving as the de facto answer for unknowns regarding creation and existence. Your comment reminds me of the line attributed to Chesterton, "Give us one free miracle and we'll explain everything else." Edit: a little Googling makes me think this more likely came from Terence McKenna: http://www.personaproductions.com/2011/02/terence-mckennas-novelty-theory.html http://www.personaproductions.com/2011/02/terence-mckennas-n....
Shorel 13y ago
Well, at least the default de facto answer for unknowns in science is "we don't know yet, but here is a good guess". This is also the meaning of Socrates 'I only know that I know nothing'. Any other default answer is dogmatic and foolish in comparison, and from a Socratic point of view, a sophism.

cristianpascu 13y ago

> It's a survivor behavior. That's not an explanation. This is not how evolution theory explains stuff. CORRECT: Features are selected because they are useful. INCORRECT: Features occur because they are useful. But most of the evolutionary explanations are expressed in the second way. Recognition is tightly correlated to awareness and consciousness, which in no way have been, yet, explained by evolution. Yet. Although there are voices that say that it is impossible in principle for consciousness to occur by means of mere matter. It might be that consciousness is like 7+6 in a dice trow. No matter how many times you throw a pair of 6 faces dice, you will never get that combination. Right now it is assumed that in the future neuroscience will show how the brain works and gives us the mind. Until then, it's an hypothesis. A belief. Not a religious belief, but part of a metaphysical view on the world, that is, there is only atoms. Not a religion, but close.

Shorel 13y ago
Oversimplification due to a lack of actual data. Also, I think each generation has very interesting histories to tell. But we have lost almost all of them, except for an infinitesimal very last bit. So we don't know what has happened in hundreds of thousands of generations, from the first cordates to therapsides to primates, that could perfectly explain it all.