Universal Intelligence (The nature of a \'Creator\')
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Saturday, September 19, 2009, 18:36 (5543 days ago)
dhw (in the 'Revise this' thread) wrote; "At least we know from the outset that the question of how a universal intelligence got here can't possibly be answered, because if it exists, it's on an entirely different plane from us, and we're simply not equipped to investigate it."-This is just outright mysticism, verging on theosophical higher planes nonsense. This is the god who "works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform". DT wrote something similar recently that I meant to pick up on.-The idea of a universal intelligence, i.e. a mind permeating or coexistent with the universe, and of which our minds are a part or are in some way related to, is a pure fantasy for which there is no scientific evidence. But I see no reason why the existence of such a thing should not be possible of investigation. The only trouble is that it is so vague.-Presumably if a "designer" exists, this is what it would be. But then how does its carry out its designing? Does it think "let there be light" and there is? If it is on a higher plane where it cannot be investigated by us worms, what is the point of such a hypothesis? Can its existence even be proved?
--
GPJ
Universal Intelligence
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 20, 2009, 03:34 (5542 days ago) @ George Jelliss
dhw (in the 'Revise this' thread) wrote; "At least we know from the outset that the question of how a universal intelligence got here can't possibly be answered, because if it exists, it's on an entirely different plane from us, and we're simply not equipped to investigate it." > > This is just outright mysticism, verging on theosophical higher planes nonsense. This is the god who "works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform". DT wrote something similar recently that I meant to pick up on. > > The idea of a universal intelligence, i.e. a mind permeating or coexistent with the universe, and of which our minds are a part or are in some way related to, is a pure fantasy for which there is no scientific evidence. But I see no reason why the existence of such a thing should not be possible of investigation. The only trouble is that it is so vague. > > Presumably if a "designer" exists, this is what it would be. But then how does its carry out its designing? Does it think "let there be light" and there is? If it is on a higher plane where it cannot be investigated by us worms, what is the point of such a hypothesis? Can its existence even be proved?-This directly falls in line with my general thinking, "Designer? There might be; but if we cannot study it, then why should we? Why base our thoughts on the unthinkable?"
--
\"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.\"
Universal Intelligence
I wrote: At least we know from the outset that the question of how a universal intelligence got here can't possibly be answered, because if it exists, it's on an entirely different plane from us, and we're simply not equipped to investigate it.-George responds - and Matt agrees with him - that this "is just outright mysticism, verging on theosophical higher planes nonsense. This is the god who "works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform."-You've actually taken my comment out of its context. It was written in response to Matt's preference for the alien race theory over the theory of a mystical driving force. I was pointing out that the alien theory would not solve the problem of how we got here, since the alien race would face the same questions as we do. -However, your subsequent arguments provide rich material for discussion. You go on to say that the idea of a universal intelligence is "a pure fantasy for which there is no scientific evidence." You then ask: "how does it carry out its designing? Does it think "let there be light" and there is? If it is on a higher plane where it cannot be investigated by us worms, what is the point of such a hypothesis? Can its existence even be proved?"-First things first. I agree that there is no scientific evidence, and that its existence can't be proved. Belief in the god theory requires faith. That is one reason why I'm not a theist or a deist. The theory that chance can put together the ingredients for reproduction, life, consciousness, emotion etc. also has no scientific evidence to support it, and until there is proof (if there ever is), belief in the chance theory also requires faith. And that is one reason why I'm not an atheist. -We seem to have different starting-points. Correct me if I'm wrong, but yours seems to be that the god theory is beyond credibility, and the chance theory is far, far, far more likely. Mine is that the chance theory demands far, far, far too much credulity on my part, and therefore I can in no way discount the god theory. Since you are not even prepared to consider the god theory, you close your mind to any evidence that might support it. I don't mean that rudely ... I have the utmost respect for your views, because I know you may be right. I'm simply trying to establish the difference between our approaches.-What evidence is there, apart from the complexities needed to create physical life? Everything connected with our spiritual, emotional, intellectual, artistic, psychic experiences. Since I can't believe in chance origins, I have to consider (not the same as believe in) design, and since design entails some sort of outside intelligence, I can make a link between it and all the above. These experiences suggest the possibility ... no more than that ... of something beyond the material world as we know it. You see "no reason why the existence of such a thing should not be possible of investigation." I don't see how its origins can be investigated. Its existence can. But not by science (at the moment), which can only deal with the material world as we know it (at the moment), and you do not accept any other form of evidence. -How does a universal intelligence carry out its work? That ties in with our discussion on identity. I wanted to know the source of the will that controls the physical material of my body. One answer to your question might be that the universal intelligence has the same control over the physical material of the universe as my will has over my body. It doesn't think, "Let there be light", but manipulates the material in such a way that one blob of matter burns, and another revolves round it. What is the point of the hypothesis? It provides an explanation of the various unsolved mysteries that I've listed. It's no more and no less irrational than the belief that life and all its manifestations and developments initially came about through a vast series of coincidences. There is, however, one interesting difference. We can all see at a glance that belief in some sort of god requires an enormous leap of faith. The leap of faith required by belief in chance can easily be glossed over by clever use of language and a coating of scientific authority. Dawkins, for instance, would no doubt howl with derision if you told him, "God is the creator of life." Has the scientific world howled with derision at his statement that "Evolution is the creator of life"? If not, why not?
Universal Intelligence
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, September 21, 2009, 13:03 (5541 days ago) @ dhw
dhw writes: "First things first. I agree that there is no scientific evidence [for a universal intelligence], and that its existence can't be proved. Belief in the god theory requires faith. That is one reason why I'm not a theist or a deist. The theory that chance can put together the ingredients for reproduction, life, consciousness, emotion etc. also has no scientific evidence to support it, and until there is proof (if there ever is), belief in the chance theory also requires faith. And that is one reason why I'm not an atheist. We seem to have different starting-points." -Yes we do have different starting points. This is not a question of having faith in anything. It is merely a question of Where do we start from? The answer is that we start by as far as possible assuming nothing. Then we look at the evidence. The evidence for a material universe is overwhelming, it has been worked out in minute detail in the sciences of physics, chemistry and biology, and we even have a detailed scenario back to a tiny fraction of time after the big bang. On the other hand, the evidence for a universal intelligence is as far as I can make out merely anecdotal and based on poetic fancies.-Your idea that "The theory that chance can put together the ingredients for reproduction, life, consciousness, emotion etc. also has no scientific evidence to support it." I regard as manifest nonsense. The evidence for this being the case is overwhelming. Though of course I dispute your propaganda that places emphasis on "chance" rather than "natural causes" in general.-dhw continues: "Since you are not even prepared to consider the god theory, you close your mind to any evidence that might support it." -Certainly not. I have considered the evidence and found it wanting. Possibly more important: I have also considered the "theory" and found it wanting. What are the axioms on which it is based? What are the laws of its operation? -dhw writes: "Everything connected with our spiritual, emotional, intellectual, artistic, psychic experiences. /// These experiences suggest the possibility ... no more than that ... of something beyond the material world as we know it. /// How does a universal intelligence carry out its work? /// One answer to your question might be that the universal intelligence has the same control over the physical material of the universe as my will has over my body." -You question Dawkins' statement that "Evolution is the creator of life"? In his article written in response to the question: "Where does evolution leave God?" He argues: "What is so special about life? It never violates the laws of physics. /// Never once are the laws of physics violated, yet life emerges /// And how is the trick done? The answer is /// the nonrandom survival of randomly varying coded information. /// To midwife such emergence is the singular achievement of Darwinian evolution. It starts with primeval simplicity and fosters, by slow, explicable degrees, the emergence of complexity." -As I understand your position, the only point where you disagree with this thesis, since you don't dispute the laws of physics or that evolution occurs, is the first appearance of the primeval simplicity of a replicating molecule. Your claims are based entirely on what you see as the improbability or impossibility of this step. The evidence shows that it happened. So it is not impossible. So to overcome the improbability, as you estimate it, of this step you postulate the intervention of an even more improbable designer, who carries out this intervention by means of the application of willpower, i.e. psychokinesis. Forgive me if I laugh!
--
GPJ
Universal Intelligence
George: This is not a question of having faith in anything. [...] The evidence for a material universe is overwhelming.-I don't think even the most devout theist would deny that there is a material universe! What requires faith is the theory that "chance can put together the ingredients for reproduction, life, consciousness, emotion etc." According to you the evidence for this being the case is overwhelming, though you prefer to call the agent "natural causes" rather than chance. Yes, of course you do. "Natural causes", with a tiny concession of "in general", sounds far more rational and scientific than "chance". If something is natural, how can anyone dispute it? Presumably the fact that natural things happen in nature is also what constitutes your "overwhelming" evidence, since no-one has yet provided any scientific proof of the theory.-I wrote that you had closed your mind to any evidence that might support the god theory. You reply that you have considered the "theory" and found it wanting. You have finalized your position, and of course I accept that, and tried to indicate in my post that this was simply a statement of fact to differentiate between your position and mine.-I attacked Dawkins' statement that "Evolution is the creator of life". In response you have quoted his thesis that life starts with "primeval simplicity and fosters, by slow, explicable degrees, the emergence of complexity." That is not the point at issue. He claims in the same article, which you recommended: "We know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that [Darwinian evolution] is the process that has generated life on our own planet." I object to a renowned scientist claiming that evolution created/generated life. I am not, as you put it, claiming the "improbability or impossibility" of the first appearance of a replicating molecule, and you know perfectly well that I'm not. I too believe that it happened. But it was not produced by Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution had nothing to work on until there was already life. That is what makes Dawkins' statement absurd. Secondly, however, what you virtually brush aside as the "primeval simplicity of a replicating molecule" is something so complex that even our modern scientists are unable to reproduce it, and that is why I am sceptical that it could have come about by chance. Thirdly ... a point which time and again you refuse to accept ... there would have been no evolution if those first molecules had not contained within themselves the potential for future variation, thus adding to their complexity. This is not "a step". It's the very foundation of everything that followed. Fourthly, as I indicated with my references to consciousness, emotion etc., I'm not convinced that chance is capable of assembling the ingredients that can lead to such phenomena.-Lastly, I am not "postulating" the intervention of a designer. I do not believe in chance, which you would prefer to cloak as "natural causes", and I am prepared to consider (not postulate) an equally irrational alternative. If there is a universal intelligence, it would certainly exercise its willpower, though I don't know how. I don't even understand the nature of my own will. But of course I will forgive you if you laugh. I'm only surprised that your sense of humour does not extend to the idea of chance assembling a self-replicating organic computer.
Universal Intelligence
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 13:08 (5539 days ago) @ dhw
dhw wrote: "I attacked Dawkins' statement that "Evolution is the creator of life". In response you have quoted his thesis that life starts with "primeval simplicity and fosters, by slow, explicable degrees, the emergence of complexity." That is not the point at issue. He claims in the same article, which you recommended: "We know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that [Darwinian evolution] is the process that has generated life on our own planet." I object to a renowned scientist claiming that evolution created/generated life. I am not, as you put it, claiming the "improbability or impossibility" of the first appearance of a replicating molecule, and you know perfectly well that I'm not. I too believe that it happened. But it was not produced by Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution had nothing to work on until there was already life. That is what makes Dawkins' statement absurd." -I agree that Dawkins here is redefining "Darwinian evolution" to include abiogenesis. But if you object to this why don't you do so directly to Dawkins' face, by writing to him or posting a comment on his forum?
--
GPJ
Universal Intelligence
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 23:46 (5538 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I checked on RD.net whether anyone had raised this issue in the comments, and there was one by a J. D. Lipsitz. I reproduce his comment some replies:- 105. Comment #414485 by JDLipsitz on September 13, 2009 at 4:38 am -For a group of critical thinkers on this site, we really do let Prof Dawkins over-apply evolution via natural selection as an explanation for the origin of life. Evolution is a delicious explanation for biodiversity and the distinct characteristics of species, but it does nothing to explain how life originated in the first place. While I agree with most of what the Prof says, our nature as a group of atheists should help identify us as critical thinkers. Richard Dawkins is not - nor would he wish to be - exempt from our critical thought. If any opponent thinker came up with something so baseless, he would get trashed in these comments. Please be fair, and apply critical thought evenly. - 110. Comment #414493 by Quine on September 13, 2009 at 5:37 am -You make a fair point. We each have to make a judgment call on where to draw the line in each discussion. We are advancing on a theory of abiogenesis, but it very thinly supported v. origin of species. Theism used to stand on a prop of necessity because we had no natural explanation of our origins. Having removed that prop does not negate Theism, it just has less to stand on. Some theists have retrenched back to abiogenesis, but that does them little good because without the direct special creation of humans, something as simple as a protocell doesn't give much upon which to base scripture.-When it comes to the argument about teaching the ToE in schools, I agree with your point. It has to be the strict post protocell story of life. However, in the discussion of props for theism I think more latitude can be given because our nature as beings comes from the ToE no matter how the first cells got started. - 119. Comment #414512 by bendigeidfran on September 13, 2009 at 8:09 am -Yes. The exorcism that Darwin started continues all the way back to the origin of life. It is undeniable that unsophisticated primitive molecules can emerge into existence if the appropriate atoms are available, for little molecules are just a few atoms stuck together, and atoms stick together. Simple replicators can evolve as we watch, and more complicated 'molecules of life' are routinely found in comets and meteors. These are molecules of complexity deemed 'impossible' by creationists. As for the point at which non-life becomes life, it is difficult to draw a line in the soup, and uncertain whether or not it was seeded by space-croutons. But this is evolution at it's simplest and the only problem is the number of answers. - 121. Comment #414518 by Jos Gibbons on September 13, 2009 at 8:23 am -Does evolution explain abiogenesis? Yes and no, if you'll forgive the expression. Evolution began once self-replicators existed, and abiogenesis extends at least that far back, but one would probably insist on defining it as going further, for explanatory purposes, since the existence of self-replicators needs explanation too. How far? I've not heard people arguing to go back to the Big Bang, for example. Wherever you start abiogenesis, evolution explains it from an intermediate point onwards. As for the explanations so far suggested for the earlier parts, they are unsurprisingly harder to understand than natural selection (a simple idea par excellence), but they're very interesting. I suggest you read about them; you'd love it. - 153. Comment #414703 by Steve Zara on September 13, 2009 at 7:41 pm -There is a rather wonderful model of how life began. Actually, it is more like a set of models, but they all have the same foundation - life began as polymers of RNA. Richard mentions this idea in his latest book. It is called the "RNA World". If it is true, then evolution is there right at the very start. It could be said it is the origin of what we would call life. -It works like this: In a certain environment, countless long strands of RNA formed. This looks quite feasible for several reasons. There are only 4 possible bases at each position along the RNA strand, so a particular sequence is hugely more likely than the equivalent for proteins, where there would be at least 20 possibilities. Also, we now know of several physical and chemical environments that could have been present on the early Earth where RNA polymerizes quite nicely. It also looks likely that all the nucleotides would have been around in some quantity.-So, strands of RNA which catalyse their own formation, and which make mistakes in that formation, so allowing for variation to be selected by the environment, sound like a very likely possible origin of life, and would involve selection of nucleotide sequences, which would have directly coded for structure and catalytic activity right at the very start. -We have produced such RNA strands in the laboratory, so we know that they exist. We also know that in Nature RNA sometimes has catalytic activity - it works like enzymes.-So, this is selection of digital information - evolution by Natural Selection.-If the RNA World model is the right one, abiogenesis IS evolution: digitally replicating molecules are the origin of life.
--
GPJ
Universal Intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, September 26, 2009, 00:28 (5536 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> > 153. Comment #414703 by Steve Zara on September 13, 2009 at 7:41 pm > > There is a rather wonderful model of how life began. Actually, it is more like a set of models, but they all have the same foundation - life began as polymers of RNA. Richard mentions this idea in his latest book. It is called the "RNA World". If it is true, then evolution is there right at the very start. It could be said it is the origin of what we would call life. > > It works like this: In a certain environment, countless long strands of RNA formed. This looks quite feasible for several reasons. There are only 4 possible bases at each position along the RNA strand, so a particular sequence is hugely more likely than the equivalent for proteins, where there would be at least 20 possibilities. Also, we now know of several physical and chemical environments that could have been present on the early Earth where RNA polymerizes quite nicely. It also looks likely that all the nucleotides would have been around in some quantity. > > So, strands of RNA which catalyse their own formation, and which make mistakes in that formation, so allowing for variation to be selected by the environment, sound like a very likely possible origin of life, and would involve selection of nucleotide sequences, which would have directly coded for structure and catalytic activity right at the very start. > > We have produced such RNA strands in the laboratory, so we know that they exist. We also know that in Nature RNA sometimes has catalytic activity - it works like enzymes. > > So, this is selection of digital information - evolution by Natural Selection. > > If the RNA World model is the right one, abiogenesis IS evolution: digitally replicating molecules are the origin of life.-DHW asked me to comment on this entry from Dawkins commentary area on his website.-This acolyte, Zara, swallows Dawkins writings, hook, line and sinker, and we now know he, Dawkins, like to fudge his facts. The RNA world is a postulated beginning for life and the idea has gone nowhere. Yes, there are naturally occurring RNAzymes used in protein production under the genetic direction of DNA. Naturally occurring self-replicating RNAzymes only exist as developed by human intelligent design in the laboratory after many years of effort. Recently one was developed that replicated without error. Before that error rates were as high as 5%. Also it is quite clear that we do not know of environmentally friendly climates in which RNA could polymerize easily. The premises of this comment are so off base (To use an American baseball term) as to be funny. Leslie Orgel who was a proponent of the RNA World finally renounced that idea. The best book to read currently about all this is "Genesis" by Robert M. Hazen, 2005. Hazen is a long-time researcher in the origin of life field.-The moral is: read for yourself. People like Dawkins have an agenda. Books by true authorities are out there. I don't trust folks like Dawkins. I think it is more intellectually honest to go to authorities in each field, reach your own summaries for yourself, and don't trust others.
Universal Intelligence
In response to my request, David has commented on Zara's RNA World entry on the Dawkins website. -Many thanks for your very clear and concise critique. I'm in no position to judge the scientific arguments, but Zara's conclusion had set the alarm bells ringing: "If the RNA World model is the right one, abiogenesis IS evolution: digitally replicating molecules are the origin of life." -At least he formulates the claim with an "if", unlike Dawkins who states without any qualification at all that Darwinian evolution is the creator of life. But it's interesting that apart from Lipsitz, none of the comments George has reproduced for us (again, thank for you doing so) actually pursue the criticism. They all go off at a tangent rather than confront their master. Even George, who is usually pretty forthright when he disagrees with something, calls Dawkins' pronouncement "redefining Darwinian evolution to include abiogenesis". Have a look at this, then: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one." This is Darwin in a later edition of The Origin of Species (not the first edition ... an item of knowledge which again I owe to George), redefining Darwinian evolution to include God. But what did poor old Darwin know about Darwinian evolution?
Universal Intelligence
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, September 27, 2009, 22:08 (5534 days ago) @ dhw
I've raised the question of Prof Dawkins' statement on the Hastings Humanists blog under the title "Is Dawkins Moving the Goalposts?" (a reference to another recent news story). It remains to see if it gets any response. -As a counter to dhw's quote from Darwin, here is another, from his "Recapitulation and Conclusion":-"These authors seem no more startled at a miraculous act of creation than at an ordinary birth. But do they really believe that at innumerable periods in the earth's history certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues? Do they believe that at each supposed act of creation one individual or many were produced? Were all the infinitely numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or seed, or as fully grown? and in the case of mammals, were they created bearing the false marks of nourishment from the mother's womb? Although naturalists very properly demand a full explanation of every difficulty from those who believe in the mutability of species, on their own side they ignore the whole subject of the first appearance of species in what they consider reverent silence."
--
GPJ
Universal Intelligence
George has quoted from The Origin:-"These authors seem no more startled at a miraculous act of creation than at an ordinary birth. But do they really believe that at innumerable periods in the earth's history certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues? Do they believe that at each supposed act of creation one individual or many were produced? Were all the infinitely numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or seed, or as fully grown? And in the case of mammals, were they created bearing the false marks of nourishment from the mother's womb? Although naturalists very properly demand a full explanation of every difficulty from those who believe in the mutability of species, on their own side they ignore the whole subject of the first appearance of species in what they consider reverent silence."-Perhaps someone has written a thesis listing the changes in different editions. That last sentence is missing from mine (which I think is a reprint of the second edition). Mine continues: "Undoubtedly those same questions cannot be answered by those who, under the present state of science, believe in the creation of a few aboriginal forms, or of some one form of life. It has been asserted by several authors that it is as easy to believe in the creation of a hundred million beings as of one; but Maupertuis's philosophical axiom 'of least action' leads the mind more willingly to admit the smaller number."-This makes it clear that he is defending the theory that all species descended from one or a few forms, and you will find just a few pages earlier that "it is no valid objection [to his theory] that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life." And for good measure, on the penultimate page of my edition, he talks of "the laws impressed on matter by the Creator". Strange statements from a man who is supposed to have claimed that evolution was the creator of life!-However, I'm delighted to hear that you are going to discuss Dawkins' misrepresentation of Darwin on your Hastings Humanists blog. Perhaps in due course you will summarize the results for us.
Universal Intelligence
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, October 01, 2009, 20:07 (5530 days ago) @ dhw
The passage I quoted was in a long paragraph that began: "Several eminent naturalists have of late published their belief that a multitude of reputed species in each genus are not real species; but that other species are real, that is, have been independently created. This seems to me to be a strange conclusion to arrive at. ///" He is ridiculing the idea of theistic creation. -I'm looking at the first edition as quoted in the final pages of Steve Jones' "Almost Like a Whale". I can't find the earlier pasage you cite, but on the very next page there is a paragraph that reads: "Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. /// Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."-Obviously in later editions he made alterations to appease his religious critics.
--
GPJ
Universal Intelligence
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, September 28, 2009, 20:49 (5533 days ago) @ David Turell
To describe Zara as an "acolyte" of Dawkins is pejorative.-He is an independent scientist. Here's his blog:-http://blogs.parkplatz.net/steve/2009/09/26/1253924520000.html-Some interesting thoughts on "fine tuning".
--
GPJ
Universal Intelligence
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 01:57 (5533 days ago) @ George Jelliss
To describe Zara as an "acolyte" of Dawkins is pejorative. > > He is an independent scientist. Here's his blog: > > http://blogs.parkplatz.net/steve/2009/09/26/1253924520000.html > > Some interesting thoughts on "fine tuning".-If he is a physicist, then he depends on Dawkins for biologic interpretation, and he sounded just like an acolyte in his comment, for he swallowed what is patently not true. The evidence shows he, as an 'independent scientist' is not thinking for himself. His fine tuning analysis takes Conway Morris to task for his theism, and sounds like the pure atheist analysis one should expect. I can match him on the other side with Gerald Schroeder, whose latest book is "God According to God, A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God", 2009.
Universal Intelligence
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 22:09 (5454 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I just have to post a link to this excellent article, which has been cited on RD.net. Although mainly a response to an article by Lanza and Chopra, it is also an excellent introduction to the latest ideas about the origin of the universe and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/-I was particularly struck by the Gell-Mann interpretation, briefly mentioned here, of fine-grained and coarse-grained aspects of reality. I posted a comment about this. It is something I would like to read more on.-The Hawking and Hertzog (2006) ideas about looking backwards at possible past histories of the universe, and time becoming a space dimension are also intriguing (and probably better than Stenger's interpretation of Hawking and Hartle's earlier work).-The writers also agree with my observations that consciousness is not such a great mystery as is made out by many.
--
GPJ
Universal Intelligence
George has drawn our attention to an article by Ajita Kamal and Vinod K. Wadhawan, responding to Robert Lanza and Deepak Chopra. Despite the following criticisms, I'd like to thank both George and David for constantly pointing us towards the latest developments in different fields.-Kamal and Wadhawan start by quoting Steven Weinberg, who says humans can't resist the belief "that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents." Their own belief in a chain of accidents underlies most of their arguments, but first they rightly (in my view) demolish Lanza's conclusion that "everything we perceive is created by the act of perception". Is Lanza a reincarnation of Bishop Berkeley (even down to using the example of colour)? I wonder how such people cope with life if they're convinced that the only "reality" is what's inside their heads. -However, the co-authors then move to the anthropic principle, and from now on the whole article seems to me like an exercise in foot-shooting. They quote Dawkins' list of essential planetary conditions for life, and admit that the probability is very low. This list is followed by "another highly improbable set of phenomena" ... the chemical events that led to the "emergence of a mechanism for heredity" ... and a third: "Like the origin of life, another extremely improbable event (or a set of events) was the emergence of the sophisticated eukaryotic cell (on which the life of humans is based)." In each case, they invoke the anthropic principle "to say that, no matter how improbable such an event was statistically, it did indeed happen; otherwise we humans would not be here." What sort of reasoning is this? Lanza's argument is: "There are over 2000 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains credulity to propose that they are random." Kamal and Wadhawan's answer is to describe one set of improbable events after another, and then to tell us we exist, as if somehow that proved it was all "a chain of accidents". -Our authors go on to give a useful summary of various theories about the universe. Everett's multiverse theory or Gell-Mann's theory of many alternative histories of the universe might expand the time scale way beyond the Big Bang, while string theory apparently "defines a near-infinity of multiple universes". These would vastly enhance the probability factor, of course, but as our authors do have the grace to admit, "many physicists feel uncomfortable with this unconfirmed world view". Hawking's idea that "the string theory landscape is populated by the set of all possible histories" can be tested through prediction "of specific fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and in the early spectrum of gravitational waves." Unfortunately, "gravitation waves have not even been detected yet." I'm not objecting to the theories, and I'd even agree with George that they are "intriguing", though as a non-scientist I have no idea how feasible they are. But I do understand the difference between unproven theories and scientific fact, and to my mind the former do not provide a basis for any sort of belief. -The next subject is consciousness. "In scientific terms, consciousness is a 'hard problem', meaning that its complete subjective nature places it beyond objective study." The authors quote Lanza, who acknowledges advances made in understanding structure and function, but says that the theories and observations "tell us nothing about how the performance of these functions is accompanied by a conscious experience" ... the problem being "how a subjective experience emerges from a physical process." You could hardly ask for a clearer exposition. Our authors respond: "This criticism of the lack of a scientific consensus on the nature of consciousness is empty, considering that Lanza himself proposes no actual mechanism for consciousness, but still places it at the centre of his theory of the universe. [...] There is no need to view consciousness as such a mystery." If someone says there's a mystery, but he himself doesn't propose a solution, does that mean there's no mystery? Our authors then explain how they (and Daniel Dennett) think consciousness works, but of course they don't explain how "a subjective experience emerges from a physical process." They can't. No-one can. I'm not arguing for a universal consciousness ... that, I agree, creates a whole new set of problems ... but I find it singularly unedifying when one form of faith launches irrational attacks on another.-They finish by quoting some searching questions posed by Chopra and Lanza about aspects of evolution. According to our authors, "all these quotes [...] demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of biology, let alone the theory of evolution by natural selection." To claim that arguments show a lack of understanding, and then not to explain why, is as unedifying as to claim that we're here and so we must have got here by accident. Sadly, one can only assume that these authors are writing for readers who share their faith in chance, so I doubt if anyone on the Dawkins website will dare to challenge them. After all, that's what the Master himself believes.
Universal Intelligence
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Saturday, December 19, 2009, 18:08 (5452 days ago) @ dhw
I posted a link to this thread in the comments on the "Nirmulka" article, but the authors decilned to come to this forum to respond. However, they have responded to a shortened version that I posted into their comments. You will need to access the article to read their replies.-One of the responses links to this article on Austin Cline's blog "About Atheism". It is a direct critique of the "Agnostic's Brief Guide", and something of a personal attack on DHW.-http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/01/23/dh-wilsons-guide-to-agnostic-arrogance-ignorance.htm-It is dated January last year (2008) so may have been noted here before, but is new to me. There is a comment at the end (10) by a Tom Haze that tries to defend DHW's position, but Cline responds by referring him to the associated discussion forum.
--
GPJ
Universal Intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, December 19, 2009, 21:49 (5451 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> One of the responses links to this article on Austin Cline's blog "About Atheism". It is a direct critique of the "Agnostic's Brief Guide", and something of a personal attack on DHW. > > http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/01/23/dh-wilsons-guide-to-agnostic-arrogance-ignorance.... > It is dated January last year (2008) so may have been noted here before, but is new to me. There is a comment at the end (10) by a Tom Haze that tries to defend DHW's position, but Cline responds by referring him to the associated discussion forum.-George, many thanks for this reference, and the previous one I have yet to have time for. It seems dhw's cover is blown, but I think that is of little significance. I thought Tom Haze did an excellent job. The Cline article is extremely biased and narrow minded, not at all similar to the way you have exhibited yourself here.
Universal Intelligence
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 02:10 (5448 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> I just have to post a link to this excellent article, which has been cited on RD.net. Although mainly a response to an article by Lanza and Chopra, it is also an excellent introduction to the latest ideas about the origin of the universe and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. > > http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-... -> > The writers also agree with my observations that consciousness is not such a great mystery as is made out by many.-Of course the writers agree. They are atheist, reductionist, materialist. And that's fine, but George has bugged me about not describing my sources. Anyhow, it's a great article, and thanks to George. From the article:-"In their recent article in The Huffington Post, biologist Robert Lanza and mystic Deepak Chopra put forward their idea that the universe is itself a product of our consciousness, and not the other way around as scientists have been telling us."-Does this mean the plasma that appeared after Plank time from the Big Bang was conscious? Were the first unicellar animals or plants conscious? Of course not. Unless God was watching as the only consciousness, the entire concept is foolishness.-And in section 3, the discussion of Brandon Carter's anthropic principal is also foolishness. It simply boils down to "we're here because we're here". It explains nothing. -The quantum discussion is quite good. I agree with George. I can see why they try to do away with the Copenhagen Interpretation, by citing Hugh Everett. It is not satisfying current science. I don't follow why they went just into the many worlds, parallel universes channel, and quoted Feynman. Penrose in the Road to Reality discusses it and five other interpretations to solve the problem of the paradox of quantum measurement. Penrose admits that a "full theory is certainly lacking". Multiple universes and parallel worlds are just fairy tales. They can never be proven. Something better is needed, as Penrose concludes.-String theory is brought up in section 6. As I have noted before, it may call for a multiverse, but after almost 30 years it has gone nowhere cosmologically as two recent books point out.-And the discussion of consciousness ends in a statement that has no proof whatever, but represents the atheistic viewpoint of the journal in which it is published:-"Consciousness....is a subjective illusion on one level, and the mechanistic outcome of evolutionary processes on another". Since we have no idea of what energy consciousness is made, if that is the way it appears, we cannot accept any interpretation as gospel at this time in scientific development.-I recognize the authors are attacking Chopra and Lanza's theory. To my mind it could dismissed in one brief statement as I did, but I enjoyed their discussion.