A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution (Evolution)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Monday, December 07, 2015, 13:40 (3272 days ago)
I'm knee-deep in this book, and it has already radically influenced how I think about evolution. -For those who haven't seen me post here in some time--if ever, I'm probably the closest thing to a materialist the site has, as I buy 100% into methodological materialism, (as does anyone who believes science is reliable) and I'm 99.99% of the way there for naturalistic materialism. -The book divides evolution into four main categories, Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic. -Genetic evolution everyone here should be well-versed in. If not, google "Central dogma of molecular genetics." Or Dawkins. -Epigentic inheritance is trickier, but this book cleared up many of my central questions. For example, cell structures are inherited outside of DNA. Specifically, there are fibers that give all cells structure, and its during the process of cell replication that these structures are copied from a pre-existing template--the parent cell. Proteins aren't involved here, it's essentially crystalline information copying. Also, the mitochondria we inherit, while they are essentially microbes, are not coded for by the host organism's DNA, they inherit complete structures. The main problem for epigenetic inheritance however is in organisms like us, that use sexual reproduction. If epigenetic information can't make it into gametes, this information will be lost by the next generation. -Behavioral inheritance is when a creature can observe other creatures and copy their behavior. This is also where you first start seeing culture in nature. Several animal species are on record demonstrating primitive cultures. Behavioral inheritance allows a new level of selection as a new behavior for eating a different kind of food can (and has) resulted in speciation events. -Symbolic inheritance is this. We have the ability to communicate and store information in an entirely fashion. -I just started the symbolic chapter, but a simple argument is that if we record say, the date that an asteroid will hit the earth, and that information is passed along until future beings are able to prepare for it/remove it, this is an example of a selection event. -The book doesn't exactly deal with social evolution except as a case of behavioral evolution. E.O. Wilson might have something to say about that...-Describing evolution from this new synthesis, we have answers for certain criticisms. Firstly, that human evolution happened "too rapidly." If we are subject to four different kinds of evolutionary pressure, that sounds to me like exponential growth. Note that a diamond is created under extraordinary pressure...-There is more... but I will have to flesh all this out later.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 08, 2015, 01:44 (3272 days ago) @ xeno6696
Matt: I'm knee-deep in this book, and it has already radically influenced how I think about evolution. > The book divides evolution into four main categories, Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic. > > Genetic evolution everyone here should be well-versed in. If not, google "Central dogma of molecular genetics." Or Dawkins.-Never Dawkins. But delighted to have you reappear. > Matt:If epigenetic information can't make it into gametes, this information will be lost by the next generation. -I am aware of her epigenetic theories. > > Matt: Behavioral inheritance is when a creature can observe other creatures and copy their behavior. This is also where you first start seeing culture in nature.-> > Symbolic inheritance is this. We have the ability to communicate and store information in an entirely fashion. > > Describing evolution from this new synthesis, we have answers for certain criticisms. Firstly, that human evolution happened "too rapidly." If we are subject to four different kinds of evolutionary pressure, that sounds to me like exponential growth. -I've never described it as too rapid. Just very directed. The whole Cambrian just took 10 million years. You've got me excited about reading her book. She is a forerunner of Shapiro, and I'm very impressed with his approach.-She was part of the Altenburg 16 conference. Some of her other references:-She is an author with others of: “The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions” August 2015, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019 -Also a co-author of this Nature article: http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080?WT.ec_id=NAT... -Also an editor of: Transformations of Lamarckism- https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/transformations-lamarckism-She is expected to contribute to this website: http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
A hearty welcome back to xeno (Matt). We have missed you! I am transferring this part of your post from Animal Minds to the new thread, as I think it's more relevant here
hw: Common descent goes back to the first forms of life, and if they had not had the “drive to improvement”, there would have been no evolution. MATT: Agreed, although to me, the only "drive" in evolution is the instinctive desire to stay alive, one of the few instincts that we *know* all life forms have. (Even the non-sentient ones.) Evolution can move "forwards" or "backwards." To be a hero, you don't need to step forward, if everyone else steps back!-We have discussed this at length, and the counter to what you have said is that there was no need whatsoever for single-celled life to evolve into the complexities of life as we know it today. Bacteria have survived very nicely through adaptation, and so there must be something else that led to cells combining in ever more complex forms. (See below)-MATT: For those who haven't seen me post here in some time--if ever, I'm probably the closest thing to a materialist the site has, as I buy 100% into methodological materialism, (as does anyone who believes science is reliable) and I'm 99.99% of the way there for naturalistic materialism.-Like David, I'm eager to hear more, but as you have been away for so long, I don't know how abreast you are of the discussions we've been having. (It's quite possible they haven't advanced in all this time!) I doubt if David will go along with your naturalistic materialism, but I am happy to work with both sides, and my current hypothesis fits in with both. I'll summarize it, and then relate it briefly to your (Eva Jablonka's) four categories, as you describe them:-Adaptation does not explain evolution, which advances through innovations. The complexities of even the simplest of organs and organisms make me extremely sceptical of Darwinian (and Dawkinsian) random mutations, and gradualism is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Some modern scientists are convinced that cells are sentient, cognitive, cooperative, decision-making beings, and every organ and organism is a community of cells. I am therefore suggesting that as environmental conditions change, while some cell communities (organisms) perish or adapt, other cell communities cooperate not just for the sake of survival but also for the sake of improvement. In other words, they do not merely adjust themselves to the new environment, but they exploit it. Nobody has witnessed the innovations that have led to speciation (broad sense: not species within species), but adaptation - which we witness all the time - has to entail the cooperation of the cell communities interacting with the environment, so innovation takes us one step further. A giant step, but for me much more likely than randomness. Cellular intelligence itself can fit in with natural materialism and with theism, depending on what you believe may have been the source of that intelligence. In the simplest of terms: did life/intelligence originate by chance or by design? This question, however, is irrelevant to the actual process of evolution. MATT: The book divides evolution into four main categories, Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic.-Genetic clearly involves mutations, but instead of these being random, they would be engineered by the intelligent, cooperating cell communities themselves as they work out how to exploit new conditions, as above. These would be the most radical changes.-Epigenetic changes would not be as dramatic as major innovations, but again they result from interaction with environmental conditions, and whatever may be the seat of the intelligence will be able to issue the appropriate instructions to make and pass on the changes. Behavioural evolution would be a clear example of intelligence at work externally, and any form of behaviour that is beneficial will be passed on. But if, as you say, it is so fundamental as to lead to speciation, again it will require the internal cooperation of the cell communities to make the necessary adjustments. With your example of changed diet, I don't know how you (Jablonka) would distinguish it from epigenetic change. I should add that I would hate to have to draw borderlines between adaptation and innovation, and between genetic, epigenetic and even behavioural if it leads to speciation (broad sense). -It's not clear to me how symbolic fits in with evolution, but the passing on of information is clearly essential to all forms of life. We have had long discussions on the subject of information, and again to update you, we have concluded that it is absolutely necessary to distinguish between information itself and the intelligence that uses it. -I don't know if any of this is relevant to the book itself, but it might save us from going over well trodden ground. Once again, welcome back. You always bring us a fresh approach!
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 09, 2015, 01:09 (3271 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: In the simplest of terms: did life/intelligence originate by chance or by design? This question, however, is irrelevant to the actual process of evolution.-No, no, no! If life was designed then per force, design rules evolution. You want design to start the process and then stop?-> dhw: It's not clear to me how symbolic fits in with evolution, but the passing on of information is clearly essential to all forms of life. We have had long discussions on the subject of information, and again to update you, we have concluded that it is absolutely necessary to distinguish between information itself and the intelligence that uses it. -Remember DNA is a symbolic code. From an ID review of Jablonka's book:-"Jablonka also argues that semantic information can only exist with living or designed systems. “Only a living system can make a source into an informational input.” On page 588 Jablonka emphasizes the function of bioinformation. Thus the joint authors of this paper are not alone in our emphasis on the formal nature of life's many control mechanisms."
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
dhw: In the simplest of terms: did life/intelligence originate by chance or by design? This question, however, is irrelevant to the actual process of evolution.-DAVID: No, no, no! If life was designed then per force, design rules evolution. You want design to start the process and then stop?-As always, you assume that your reading of God's mind is correct, and that he designed the evolutionary mechanisms for the purpose of creating or providing for humans, and so he preprogrammed every stage (or intervened). With my theist hat on, I have suggested that he designed the mechanisms in such a way that organisms themselves rule evolution, and that would explain the higgledy-piggledy bush. In your hypothesis the mechanisms are automatic or “guided”, and in mine they are autonomous, but they are the same mechanisms and led to the same result. (If life was not designed, organisms have created their own history anyway.) An alternative to your God's preprogramming/dabbling and my autonomous inventive intelligence is Darwin's random mutations, but he also stated explicitly that the origin of life was not relevant to his theory. Another alternative of course is Creationism, but our subject here is evolution. -dhw: It's not clear to me how symbolic fits in with evolution, but the passing on of information is clearly essential to all forms of life. We have had long discussions on the subject of information, and again to update you, we have concluded that it is absolutely necessary to distinguish between information itself and the intelligence that uses it. -DAVID: Remember DNA is a symbolic code. From an ID review of Jablonka's book: "Jablonka also argues that semantic information can only exist with living or designed systems. “Only a living system can make a source into an informational input.” On page 588 Jablonka emphasizes the function of bioinformation. Thus the joint authors of this paper are not alone in our emphasis on the formal nature of life's many control mechanisms."-In other words, as we agreed, it requires intelligence to make information meaningful.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 09, 2015, 15:54 (3270 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: In the simplest of terms: did life/intelligence originate by chance or by design? This question, however, is irrelevant to the actual process of evolution. > > DAVID: No, no, no! If life was designed then per force, design rules evolution. You want design to start the process and then stop?-> dhw: ......An alternative to your God's preprogramming/dabbling and my autonomous inventive intelligence is Darwin's random mutations, but he also stated explicitly that the origin of life was not relevant to his theory. Another alternative of course is Creationism, but our subject here is evolution. -Darwin is not an authority. I don't care what he explicitly stated. I view evolution as starting with the origin of life, for that first life had to contain the mechanism for evolution. You keep returning to Darwin, but it is quite clear to me his theory is worthless in describing an evolutionary mechanism. > > dhw: It's not clear to me how symbolic fits in with evolution, but the passing on of information is clearly essential to all forms of life. We have had long discussions on the subject of information, and again to update you, we have concluded that it is absolutely necessary to distinguish between information itself and the intelligence that uses it. > > DAVID: Remember DNA is a symbolic code. From an ID review of Jablonka's book: > "Jablonka also argues that semantic information can only exist with living or designed systems. “Only a living system can make a source into an informational input.” On page 588 Jablonka emphasizes the function of bioinformation. Thus the joint authors of this paper are not alone in our emphasis on the formal nature of life's many control mechanisms." > > dhw: In other words, as we agreed, it requires intelligence to make information meaningful.-Yes, and both are onboard living organisms.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
dhw: In the simplest of terms: did life/intelligence originate by chance or by design? This question, however, is irrelevant to the actual process of evolution. DAVID: No, no, no! If life was designed then per force, design rules evolution. You want design to start the process and then stop?-dhw: ...An alternative to your God's preprogramming/dabbling and my autonomous inventive intelligence is Darwin's random mutations, but he also stated explicitly that the origin of life was not relevant to his theory. Another alternative of course is Creationism, but our subject here is evolution. DAVID: Darwin is not an authority. I don't care what he explicitly stated. I view evolution as starting with the origin of life, for that first life had to contain the mechanism for evolution. You keep returning to Darwin, but it is quite clear to me his theory is worthless in describing an evolutionary mechanism. -Why have you isolated the reference to Darwin and ignored the rest of my post? Of course first life had to contain the mechanism for evolution, but I was responding to your claim that if that mechanism was designed, design ruled evolution. That is true of your hypothetical reading of God's mind - that he designed the mechanism so that it would automatically produce humans and food for humans. But according to my hypothesis - theistic version - God designed the mechanism and gave it autonomous intelligence to do its own designing (a different meaning for "design rules evolution"). And according to Darwin - theistic version - God designed the mechanism so that it would produce random combinations (design does not rule evolution, even if the mechanism was designed). We are not arguing about the likelihood of ANY of these. I am merely pointing out that yours is only one version of God's design, and it depends entirely on your fixed belief that humans were his purpose. -However, I was wrong to say that the origin is irrelevant to the process. I made the same mistake as you, and focused only on my own hypothesis concerning how evolution proceeds. Your hypothesis (preprogramming/dabbling) is clearly not possible if God did not design the mechanism, whereas mine (autonomous intelligence) and Darwin's (random mutations) would function, whether God designed the mechanism or not. (I think Darwin's is a lot more far-fetched than mine!) dhw: In other words, as we agreed, it requires intelligence to make information meaningful. DAVID: Yes, and both are onboard living organisms.-There is information both inside and outside the organism, and both types need onboard intelligence to give them meaning.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, December 10, 2015, 16:57 (3269 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Of course first life had to contain the mechanism for evolution, but I was responding to your claim that if that mechanism was designed, design ruled evolution. -Makes perfect sense to me. If life took design to begin, my position, then design set up the mechanism for evolution. You are skipping the consideration of design.-> dhw: But according to my hypothesis - theistic version - God designed the mechanism and gave it autonomous intelligence to do its own designing (a different meaning for "design rules evolution").-But that hypothesis leaves out a drive for humans; they then are an accident of chance, a la Gould.-> dhw: And according to Darwin - theistic version - God designed the mechanism so that it would produce random combinations (design does not rule evolution, even if the mechanism was designed).-Again, Darwin! I don't need him at all. For him humans are a chance result.-> dhw: We are not arguing about the likelihood of ANY of these. I am merely pointing out that yours is only one version of God's design, and it depends entirely on your fixed belief that humans were his purpose. -You are explaining again our previous discussions. You, as usual are back to chance. I still see only the two possibilities, chance or design. > > dhw: However, I was wrong to say that the origin is irrelevant to the process. I made the same mistake as you, and focused only on my own hypothesis concerning how evolution proceeds. Your hypothesis (preprogramming/dabbling) is clearly not possible if God did not design the mechanism, whereas mine (autonomous intelligence) and Darwin's (random mutations) would function, whether God designed the mechanism or not. (I think Darwin's is a lot more far-fetched than mine!)-Thank you. Shall we now rate 'farfetchedness? Tell me where does 'autonomous intelligence' come from? Not from the initial rocky earth as in your Bbella discussions. Does your form of auto-intelligence arise de novo? The philosophic issue really is can intelligence arise when none existed before in an inorganic universe? I think not. Intelligence exists in consciousness. According to Haisch, who uses quantum examples, he states consciousness is the basis of reality. I've read his book. Watch his video. It is only 30 minutes, 40 with the questions discussion. His reasoning and the many quantum theorists who support him, is why I stress so much quantum mechanics in my entries. > > dhw: There is information both inside and outside the organism, and both types need onboard intelligence to give them meaning.-Exactly. I have my origin of that intelligence. You have none.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by romansh 
, Friday, December 11, 2015, 17:52 (3268 days ago) @ David Turell
David Exactly. I have my origin of that intelligence. You have none.-What we call intelligence is actually (in my opinion) simply a pattern of behaviour of molecules, electrons, ions an no doubt some "quantum" fields that has evolved over time. -Arguments from incredulity for an intelligence to set all this in motion, just don't work for my pattern.-I would like to see the evidence for this magical "intelligence" that we imbue one another with.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Friday, December 11, 2015, 18:06 (3268 days ago) @ romansh
David Exactly. I have my origin of that intelligence. You have none. > > Romansh: What we call intelligence is actually (in my opinion) simply a pattern of behaviour of molecules, electrons, ions an no doubt some "quantum" fields that has evolved over time. > > Arguments from incredulity for an intelligence to set all this in motion, just don't work for my pattern. > > I would like to see the evidence for this magical "intelligence" that we imbue one another with.-The usual problem. I recognize my consciousness and my intelligence, and I have to assume you possess the same. I assume you control your thoughts as I do. You drag in quantum fields as an evolved latecomer. You might want to review the Haisch video I presented yesterday. Based on quantum observations he thinks consciousness is the basis of reality, so everything starts with quantum reality.-Thursday, December 10, 2015, 01:31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nttB3Wze3Y8
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by romansh , Friday, December 11, 2015, 18:39 (3268 days ago) @ David Turell
David The usual problem. I recognize my consciousness and my intelligence, and I have to assume you possess the same. I assume you control your thoughts as I do. -In the everyday vernacular I have more than my fair share of intelligence and I can only suppose an average share of consciousness.-But then when I use this supposed intelligence and consciousness I find cracks in these concepts, not just intellectually speaking but in actual practice.-If I look carefully I can find myself confabulating my supposed intelligence and consciousness. -Again for me, everything is conscious or nothing is conscious ... they are two sides of the same immaterial coin.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Friday, December 11, 2015, 18:59 (3268 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh: In the everyday vernacular I have more than my fair share of intelligence and I can only suppose an average share of consciousness. > > But then when I use this supposed intelligence and consciousness I find cracks in these concepts, not just intellectually speaking but in actual practice. > > If I look carefully I can find myself confabulating my supposed intelligence and consciousness. > > Again for me, everything is conscious or nothing is conscious ... they are two sides of the same immaterial coin.-I don't find confabulation. I just accept what I feel. With Haisch saying everything starts with consciousness I guess you have a point, at least, that consciousness is immaterial, and I would remind you, totally unexplained.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by romansh , Sunday, December 13, 2015, 19:19 (3266 days ago) @ David Turell
I don't find confabulation. I just accept what I feel. With Haisch saying everything starts with consciousness I guess you have a point, at least, that consciousness is immaterial, and I would remind you, totally unexplained.-What would confabulation look like if you could find it?
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Sunday, December 13, 2015, 19:57 (3266 days ago) @ romansh
David I don't find confabulation. I just accept what I feel. With Haisch saying everything starts with consciousness I guess you have a point, at least, that consciousness is immaterial, and I would remind you, totally unexplained. > > Romansh: What would confabulation look like if you could find it?-But I don't find it. You appear to interpret your sense of consciousness as a misinterpretation, not willfully intended.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by romansh , Wednesday, December 16, 2015, 02:08 (3264 days ago) @ David Turell
David I don't find confabulation. I just accept what I feel. With Haisch saying everything starts with consciousness I guess you have a point, at least, that consciousness is immaterial, and I would remind you, totally unexplained. > > > > Romansh: What would confabulation look like if you could find it? > > David But I don't find it. You appear to interpret your sense of consciousness as a misinterpretation, not willfully intended.-Neat sidestep. Do you understand the concept of confabulation?-If the answer is yes, please have a go at answering my question above.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 16, 2015, 05:35 (3264 days ago) @ romansh
David But I don't find it. You appear to interpret your sense of consciousness as a misinterpretation, not willfully intended. > > Neat sidestep. Do you understand the concept of confabulation?-Since you are still questioning and I've given you my concept of confabulation, I have no idea what you are after. I think you are saying you don't trust your own experience of consciousness as meaning what it seems.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by romansh , Thursday, December 17, 2015, 02:06 (3263 days ago) @ David Turell
David But I don't find it. You appear to interpret your sense of consciousness as a misinterpretation, not willfully intended. > > > > Neat sidestep. Do you understand the concept of confabulation? > > Since you are still questioning and I've given you my concept of confabulation, I have no idea what you are after. I think you are saying you don't trust your own experience of consciousness as meaning what it seems.-What would confabulation look like for you, if you experienced it?-You say you have not experienced it so you must know what to look out for. So when you say you have not experienced it what are you looking out for?-If you have described what confabulation means for you, then please provide a link, thanks.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
dhw: Of course first life had to contain the mechanism for evolution, but I was responding to your claim that if that mechanism was designed, design ruled evolution. DAVID: Makes perfect sense to me. If life took design to begin, my position, then design set up the mechanism for evolution. You are skipping the consideration of design.-Complete misunderstanding. For the sake of argument, I have accepted that design set up the mechanism for evolution. But that does not mean the mechanism preprogrammed the course of evolution. Your God could have designed it to do its own thing.-DAVID: But that hypothesis leaves out a drive for humans; they then are an accident of chance, a la Gould.-Of course it leaves out a drive for humans. That is the issue we are debating: your belief that your God geared evolution to the production of humans. I am offering you divinely inspired alternatives: 1) God says, “I wanner make life, and see what comes of it.” The mechanism runs free. 2) Same as 1) but as things develop, God says: “Hey, let's do a dabble here and invent humans (you can still have your special status). 3) God says: ”I wanner make humans, but I dunno how to do it.” (Special status, but the mechanism runs free, and God has a dabble here and there, like when humans turn out to be dinosaurs.) All three explain the higgledy-piggledy bush, and even 1) is designed by the mechanism, but humans are not your God's purpose.-DAVID: I don't need him [Darwin] at all. For him humans are a chance result.-Random mutations within God's mechanism are just another example of divine design without humans as the purpose of every phase (as in 1)). I realize that you don't “need” any alternative. Nobody ”needs” alternatives when they've made up their minds. Richard Dawkins might say the same. But some of us are still testing the various alternatives, to see what makes sense.-DAVID: Shall we now rate 'farfetchedness? Tell me where does 'autonomous intelligence' come from? Not from the initial rocky earth as in your Bbella discussions. Does your form of auto-intelligence arise de novo? The philosophic issue really is can intelligence arise when none existed before in an inorganic universe?-“Where does autonomous intelligence come from?” is one of the great unanswered and unanswerable questions. Your answer is all earthly life and intelligence comes from another form of intelligence which didn't come from anywhere but simply IS. And you mutter “first cause”, as if that explained everything. Since the only intelligence we know is associated with materials, the claim that “first cause” is intelligent is no more credible than the claim that intelligence can arise “de novo” through a particular combination of materials. Of course it's far-fetched. If there was a convincing explanation, we wouldn't have the problem. -DAVID: According to Haisch, who uses quantum examples, he states consciousness is the basis of reality. I've read his book. Watch his video. It is only 30 minutes, 40 with the questions discussion. His reasoning and the many quantum theorists who support him, is why I stress so much quantum mechanics in my entries.-I found an interview on a rather dull programme called The Moore Show. I can see why you like him, and there was one intriguing idea that God's purpose is to know himself through us. Maybe his book explains what he means. If “many” quantum theorists support him, that can only mean that some do not, and so it would be difficult for a non-quantum-theorist to take sides. (I see you've now given a link to the video. I'll try to catch up over the weekend.)
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Saturday, December 12, 2015, 01:07 (3268 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Complete misunderstanding. For the sake of argument, I have accepted that design set up the mechanism for evolution. But that does not mean the mechanism preprogrammed the course of evolution. Your God could have designed it to do its own thing. > > DAVID: But that hypothesis leaves out a drive for humans; they then are an accident of chance, a la Gould. > > dhw: Of course it leaves out a drive for humans. That is the issue we are debating: your belief that your God geared evolution to the production of humans...... All three explain the higgledy-piggledy bush, and even 1) is designed by the mechanism, but humans are not your God's purpose.-You are a great playwright, but your imagination of God's purposes does not look at the results of evolution. Have you every answered the question, why are there humans at all? Never required by nature when they showed up. Everyone else was doing fine.-> > dhw: Random mutations within God's mechanism are just another example of divine design without humans as the purpose of every phase-See Noble's lecture. NO random mutations.-> > dhw: “Where does autonomous intelligence come from?” is one of the great unanswered and unanswerable questions. Your answer is all earthly life and intelligence comes from another form of intelligence which didn't come from anywhere but simply IS. And you mutter “first cause”, as if that explained everything. Since the only intelligence we know is associated with materials, the claim that “first cause” is intelligent is no more credible than the claim that intelligence can arise “de novo” through a particular combination of materials. Of course it's far-fetched.-What is farfetched is assuming that 'somehow' consciousness can arise from non-living inorganic material. See Haisch's lecture. -> DAVID: According to Haisch, who uses quantum examples, he states consciousness is the basis of reality. I've read his book. Watch his video. It is only 30 minutes, 40 with the questions discussion. His reasoning and the many quantum theorists who support him, is why I stress so much quantum mechanics in my entries. > > dhw: I found an interview on a rather dull programme called The Moore Show. I can see why you like him, and there was one intriguing idea that God's purpose is to know himself through us. Maybe his book explains what he means. If “many” quantum theorists support him, that can only mean that some do not, and so it would be difficult for a non-quantum-theorist to take sides.-I've never seen disagreement. He's not the only one. Heisenberg is another famous proponent. Consciousness plays a role in all experiments where choice and timing of choice is involved. I've covered this several times in the past. Remember delayed choice can change the original observations!-> (I see you've now given a link to the video. I'll try to catch up over the weekend.)-I don't know what website you found I presented him twice now, once on Thursday:-Thursday, December 10, 2015, 01:31
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
dhw: I agree that the one-toed horse is a modification, and it does not require the inventive intelligence we see in the whale series.... but I wouldn't call a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every evolutionary innovation simple either. DAVID: Remember I don't know either whether the program exists. It is just one of several possibilities if God guides evolution.-The only other possibilities you have come up with so far are dabbling or a watered-down version of my autonomous inventive mechanism which is neither autonomous nor inventive.-DAVID: But that hypothesis leaves out a drive for humans; they then are an accident of chance, a la Gould. dhw: Of course it leaves out a drive for humans. That is the issue we are debating: your belief that your God geared evolution to the production of humans...... All three explain the higgledy-piggledy bush, and even 1) is designed by the mechanism, but humans are not your God's purpose.-DAVID: You are a great playwright, but your imagination of God's purposes does not look at the results of evolution. Have you every answered the question, why are there humans at all? Never required by nature when they showed up. Everyone else was doing fine.-I have answered it a thousand times: nothing beyond bacteria was “required by Nature”, but dinosaurs, the weaverbird and the duckbilled platypus all showed up. I have indeed looked at the results of evolution, and I see an extraordinary variety of life, and I learn that 99% of the variety has died, and none of this fits in with what you call an “arrow of purpose”. Even you have admitted you don't know how your God “guided” evolution, and your 3.8-billion-year computer programme may not even exist. The trouble is, “your imagination of God's purposes does not look at the results of evolution.” Your imagination does not look beyond humans, and so you refuse to consider other explanations. You have even left out two hypotheses (2 and 3) in which humans did have a special place, but perhaps you can't bear the thought of your God not knowing everything right from the start. -dhw: Random mutations within God's mechanism are just another example of divine design without humans as the purpose of every phase. DAVID: See Noble's lecture. NO random mutations.-I do not believe in random mutations either. But some people do. I have simply listed all the far-fetched options, including your 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all innovations, lifestyles etc., which I don't believe either. -dhw: ...Since the only intelligence we know is associated with materials, the claim that “first cause” is intelligent is no more credible than the claim that intelligence can arise “de novo” through a particular combination of materials. Of course it's far-fetched. DAVID: What is farfetched is assuming that 'somehow' consciousness can arise from non-living inorganic material. See Haisch's lecture. -You are repeating my own acknowledgement that it is far-fetched. What you cannot see is that your own concept of an eternal sourceless know-it-all intelligence is equally far-fetched. That is why you need faith to believe in it.-I listened to Haisch's lecture, in which he claims repeatedly that consciousness creates reality and reality depends on consciousness (sometimes substituting observation for consciousness). Then at long last someone asks him if there is no reality on a lifeless planet, and he has to scrabble around for a non-answer. Then a girl says there's a crowd of people with a rock in the middle, so does he mean the rock disappears when nobody is looking at it, or when they all go away, and he says he ”wouldn't go that far” and ”there is a mystery here.” I would say the mystery is the weirdness of the quantum world, but that doesn't make it any more real than the world we inhabit. We had the same discussion with Ruth Kastner. We all know that conscious perception is subjective, but that does not mean there is no such thing as objective reality, and from a stubbed toe to a rocket on the moon, we have as much evidence as we are ever likely to get that there are realities outside ourselves which do not disappear when we are not looking.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Saturday, December 12, 2015, 16:09 (3267 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have answered it a thousand times: nothing beyond bacteria was “required by Nature”, but dinosaurs, the weaverbird and the duckbilled platypus all showed up. I have indeed looked at the results of evolution, and I see an extraordinary variety of life, and I learn that 99% of the variety has died, and none of this fits in with what you call an “arrow of purpose”. -That is your analysis. You want reasons for all the variations of life. You want human-planning logic. I don't know that it is required. I admit, I look at the endpoint of evolution, and admit I do not fully understand the process.- > dhw: You have even left out two hypotheses (2 and 3) in which humans did have a special place, but perhaps you can't bear the thought of your God not knowing everything right from the start. -I assume, if God is guiding evolution, He knows everything.-> > dhw: You are repeating my own acknowledgement that it is far-fetched. What you cannot see is that your own concept of an eternal sourceless know-it-all intelligence is equally far-fetched. That is why you need faith to believe in it.-Not farfetched if one concludes it is the only answer to the 'why' question.-> > dhw: I listened to Haisch's lecture, in which he claims repeatedly that consciousness creates reality and reality depends on consciousness (sometimes substituting observation for consciousness). .....I would say the mystery is the weirdness of the quantum world, but that doesn't make it any more real than the world we inhabit. We had the same discussion with Ruth Kastner. We all know that conscious perception is subjective, but that does not mean there is no such thing as objective reality, .....-Thank you for listening. His point of view represents many famous quantum scientists. Consciousness is the basis of reality, which explains how I developed my idea of a universal consciousness.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
dhw: I have answered it a thousand times: nothing beyond bacteria was “required by Nature”, but dinosaurs, the weaverbird and the duckbilled platypus all showed up. I have indeed looked at the results of evolution, and I see an extraordinary variety of life, and I learn that 99% of the variety has died, and none of this fits in with what you call an “arrow of purpose”. DAVID: That is your analysis. You want reasons for all the variations of life. You want human-planning logic. I don't know that it is required. I admit, I look at the endpoint of evolution, and admit I do not fully understand the process.-If I am presented with a theory full of holes, of course I want reasons, just as you do when applying your human logic to alternatives. dhw: You have even left out two hypotheses (2 and 3) in which humans did have a special place, but perhaps you can't bear the thought of your God not knowing everything right from the start. DAVID: I assume, if God is guiding evolution, He knows everything.-Why do you assume that? Haisch thinks God wanted to experience what it was like to live in the universe. So God wouldn't have known that in advance, would he? Some process theologians suggest that God is learning all the time: he is (in) the process of “becoming”. And if he created life as a great experiment, there would not be much point if he knew every result in advance. My hypotheses 2 and 3 allowed for guidance and God NOT knowing everything. dhw: You are repeating my own acknowledgement that it is far-fetched. What you cannot see is that your own concept of an eternal sourceless know-it-all intelligence is equally far-fetched. That is why you need faith to believe in it. DAVID: Not farfetched if one concludes it is the only answer to the 'why' question.-And so it is far-fetched if one concludes that it's not the only answer. And indeed it is far-fetched and not the only answer if one concludes it is far-fetched and not the only answer. Human logic at its finest. dhw: I listened to Haisch's lecture, in which he claims repeatedly that consciousness creates reality and reality depends on consciousness (sometimes substituting observation for consciousness). .....I would say the mystery is the weirdness of the quantum world, but that doesn't make it any more real than the world we inhabit. We had the same discussion with Ruth Kastner. We all know that conscious perception is subjective, but that does not mean there is no such thing as objective reality ..... DAVID: Thank you for listening. His point of view represents many famous quantum scientists. Consciousness is the basis of reality, which explains how I developed my idea of a universal consciousness.-I understand why the idea appeals to you. What a pity the rock I stubbed my toe on didn't share Haisch's belief that consciousness creates reality. In the light of daily experience, for all its subjectivity, I would be reluctant to exclude matter and energy from any description of “the basis of reality”. BBella combines these with a sort of panpsychist intelligence, though without the qualities of consciousness and divinity. Maybe we should confine ourselves to Haisch's wonderfully helpless response to the simplest of questions: ”There is a mystery here.”
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Sunday, December 13, 2015, 19:44 (3266 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: If I am presented with a theory full of holes, of course I want reasons, just as you do when applying your human logic to alternatives.-What you see as holes, simply I don't, so we are stuck with the difference.-> DAVID: I assume, if God is guiding evolution, He knows everything. > > dhw: Why do you assume that? Haisch thinks God wanted to experience what it was like to live in the universe. So God wouldn't have known that in advance, would he? Some process theologians suggest that God is learning all the time: he is (in) the process of “becoming”. And if he created life as a great experiment, there would not be much point if he knew every result in advance. My hypotheses 2 and 3 allowed for guidance and God NOT knowing everything.-I cannot deny that thought.-> DAVID: Thank you for listening. His point of view represents many famous quantum scientists. Consciousness is the basis of reality, which explains how I developed my idea of a universal consciousness. > > dhw: I understand why the idea appeals to you. What a pity the rock I stubbed my toe on didn't share Haisch's belief that consciousness creates reality. In the light of daily experience, for all its subjectivity, I would be reluctant to exclude matter and energy from any description of “the basis of reality”.... Maybe we should confine ourselves to Haisch's wonderfully helpless response to the simplest of questions: ”There is a mystery here.”-Yes a great mystery. We don't understand delayed choice experiments except by invoking the primacy of consciousness.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
dhw: If I am presented with a theory full of holes, of course I want reasons, just as you do when applying your human logic to alternatives.-DAVID: What you see as holes, simply I don't, so we are stuck with the difference.-If there are aspects of a theory you don't understand (such as how divine planning/dabbling works, or why millions of species and lifestyles and wonders are necessary for the production of one species), I would suggest that not seeing holes is the result of closing your eyes! DAVID: I assume, if God is guiding evolution, He knows everything. dhw: Why do you assume that? Haisch thinks God wanted to experience what it was like to live in the universe. So God wouldn't have known that in advance, would he? Some process theologians suggest that God is learning all the time: he is (in) the process of “becoming”. And if he created life as a great experiment, there would not be much point if he knew every result in advance. My hypotheses 2 and 3 allowed for guidance and God NOT knowing everything. DAVID: I cannot deny that thought.-Thank you.-DAVID: Thank you for listening. His point of view represents many famous quantum scientists. Consciousness is the basis of reality, which explains how I developed my idea of a universal consciousness.-dhw: I understand why the idea appeals to you. What a pity the rock I stubbed my toe on didn't share Haisch's belief that consciousness creates reality. In the light of daily experience, for all its subjectivity, I would be reluctant to exclude matter and energy from any description of “the basis of reality”.... Maybe we should confine ourselves to Haisch's wonderfully helpless response to the simplest of questions: ”There is a mystery here.”-DAVID:Yes a great mystery. We don't understand delayed choice experiments except by invoking the primacy of consciousness.-And we don't understand toe-stubbing except by invoking the primacy of matter and energy.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Monday, December 14, 2015, 15:35 (3265 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: What you see as holes, simply I don't, so we are stuck with the difference. > > dhw: If there are aspects of a theory you don't understand (such as how divine planning/dabbling works, or why millions of species and lifestyles and wonders are necessary for the production of one species), I would suggest that not seeing holes is the result of closing your eyes!-Answered in my previous entry. My interpretation of the arrival of humans covers your holes.-> > DAVID:Yes a great mystery. We don't understand delayed choice experiments except by invoking the primacy of consciousness. > > dhw: And we don't understand toe-stubbing except by invoking the primacy of matter and energy.-Neat sidestep. Do you understand the concept of delayed choice experiments?
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
DAVID: What you see as holes, simply I don't, so we are stuck with the difference. dhw: If there are aspects of a theory you don't understand (such as how divine planning/dabbling works, or why millions of species and lifestyles and wonders are necessary for the production of one species), I would suggest that not seeing holes is the result of closing your eyes! DAVID: Answered in my previous entry. My interpretation of the arrival of humans covers your holes.-Ah, so you do know how God's 3.8-billion-year programme for all innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders works, and you do know why all these extinct and extant organisms and wonders were/are necessary for the production of one species. It's true that you have offered the balance of nature to provide food for humans as an explanation. But at other times you have admitted you don't know. And it is the aspects of your theory you can't explain that I call holes.-DAVID:Yes a great mystery. We don't understand delayed choice experiments except by invoking the primacy of consciousness. dhw: And we don't understand toe-stubbing except by invoking the primacy of matter and energy. DAVID: Neat sidestep. Do you understand the concept of delayed choice experiments? -I understand that nobody understands why particles behave the way they do, and observation appears to dictate their behaviour. How does that invalidate the fact that matter and energy have been proved over and over again to behave in an utterly predictable manner whether we observe them or not? I am not denying the importance of consciousness, but I am simply pointing out that quantum experiments do not make the quantum world any more real than the world we experience in our everyday lives, regardless of the subjectivity of our perception.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 16, 2015, 00:36 (3264 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Answered in my previous entry. My interpretation of the arrival of humans covers your holes. > > dhw: Ah, so you do know how God's 3.8-billion-year programme for all innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders works, and you do know why all these extinct and extant organisms and wonders were/are necessary for the production of one species. It's true that you have offered the balance of nature to provide food for humans as an explanation. But at other times you have admitted you don't know. And it is the aspects of your theory you can't explain that I call holes.-As I've said, it all leads up to the arrival of humans, and I don't consider your problems with it potholes in the road.- > dhw: Do you understand the concept of delayed choice experiments? > [/i] > > I understand that nobody understands why particles behave the way they do, and observation appears to dictate their behaviour. How does that invalidate the fact that matter and energy have been proved over and over again to behave in an utterly predictable manner whether we observe them or not? I am not denying the importance of consciousness, but I am simply pointing out that quantum experiments do not make the quantum world any more real than the world we experience in our everyday lives, regardless of the subjectivity of our perception.-In delayed choice, conscious changes in the outcome change the observations in the beginning. Choice changes the state of the initial quanta. That is as real as anything else, even if there is not a rational explanation except consciousness. And it is why many quantum scientists think consciousness is the basis of the universe. Do you have a problem with that? Matter and energy work under these rules all the time at macro levels while at the micro levels the particles are playing their game producing the macro level.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
DAVID: Do you understand the concept of delayed choice experiments?-dhw: I understand that nobody understands why particles behave the way they do, and observation appears to dictate their behaviour. How does that invalidate the fact that matter and energy have been proved over and over again to behave in an utterly predictable manner whether we observe them or not? I am not denying the importance of consciousness, but I am simply pointing out that quantum experiments do not make the quantum world any more real than the world we experience in our everyday lives, regardless of the subjectivity of our perception.-DAVID: In delayed choice, conscious changes in the outcome change the observations in the beginning. Choice changes the state of the initial quanta. That is as real as anything else, even if there is not a rational explanation except consciousness. And it is why many quantum scientists think consciousness is the basis of the universe. Do you have a problem with that? Matter and energy work under these rules all the time at macro levels while at the micro levels the particles are playing their game producing the macro level.-Thank you for this explanation. Perhaps you would also explain why some scientists do not think that consciousness is the basis of the universe.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, December 17, 2015, 00:56 (3263 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Thank you for this explanation. Perhaps you would also explain why some scientists do not think that consciousness is the basis of the universe.-I have no idea. The concept makes good sense, since it is a constant issue, and is constantly challenged by experimentation in every more complex ways..
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by BBella , Thursday, December 10, 2015, 06:03 (3270 days ago) @ dhw
> In other words, as we agreed, it requires intelligence to make information meaningful.-Exactly.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, December 10, 2015, 00:41 (3270 days ago) @ xeno6696
Matt: Describing evolution from this new synthesis, we have answers for certain criticisms. Firstly, that human evolution happened "too rapidly." If we are subject to four different kinds of evolutionary pressure, that sounds to me like exponential growth. Note that a diamond is created under extraordinary pressure...-Just found this article on dinosaurs developing in evolution more quickly than expected:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dinosaurs-evolved-in-a-startlingly-short-time/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20151209-"Dinosaurs took less than 5 million years to evolve from their reptile predecessors, the early dinosauromorphs, a new study finds.-"The finding revamps the time line between the dinosaurs and early dinosauromorphs. Until now, researchers thought that it took at least 10 million to 15 million years for the early dinosauromorphs to evolve into dinosaurs.-"Early dinosauromorphs were just like dinosaurs, except for a few key features. For instance, dinosaurs had a ball-and-socket hip that could rotate easily, and additional sacral vertebrae (a vertebra at the end of the spine), which helped strengthened the hips. This allowed dinosaurs to develop stronger leg muscles, which, along with their forward-hinging feet, helped them run faster than their competitors. They also developed an extra hole in their skulls, which let them cool off after vigorous activity."-Comment: We did a much more complex development in roughly the same period. I think this is the 'drive to complexity' mechanism dhw and I have pondered.
A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution
by romansh , Friday, December 11, 2015, 17:11 (3268 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by romansh, Friday, December 11, 2015, 18:02
Xeno I'm probably the closest thing to a materialist the site has, as I buy 100% into methodological materialism, (as does anyone who believes science is reliable) and I'm 99.99% of the way there for naturalistic materialism. -Eeeh ... I might give you a run for your money in this department.-Welcome back Matt