Life as Evolving Software... (Chaitin) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 31, 2011, 16:20 (4710 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
First, forgive me for waiting almost four days to reply. It was a combination of absorbing yours and David's words as well as personal reflection time. My wife got me a series of fantastic books for Christmas--including a direct English translation of a large extent of the ancient Buddhist Pali canon. (The only complete, surviving "book" from a language similar to the Buddha's.) I will be able to further discuss some of the differences as I see them, though soon I will post a Christmas Day writing I received from my current Zen Master.

Another I think you would enjoy surveys current (well, 10 years ago) thought about art, consciousness, and the Brain. It talks to Ramachandran as well as Rev. Rinpoche. (Current big-shot in Buddhist circles.)

Now for the post!

Nail on the head. Still... there's more discussion before there's one in the coffin.

The quotes you gave of Darwin's theory--again--aren't even discussed in the classes I had taken in college. The idea of gradualism for us, was/is a general idea that stems from the flow of genetic information.

Darwin's gradualism implies that flow. From a molecular standpoint, we don't care about *anything* that happens to an organism until the moment it generates offspring.

I agree with your assessment completely however: I'm on the same page, quibbling over a word. I just wanted to express why my view existed as it did.

David,

To me, again, epigenetics-->if it can be demonstrated that they can cause massive, inheritable phenotypical changes, it still doesn't change the fact that there is an environmental cause that leads to the effect, and as such, still doesn't leave a strong case for intense preplanning. The same effect would be created by having amassed a huge number of changes that don't manifest until the environment changes in the right way. I find the idea of cellular biochemical components "predicting the future" a pretty hard hill to climb, especially considering we've all agreed they aren't sentient.

Still, remember the classic moth experiment? A simple selection for color was all it took for an entire phenotype to flourish. Gradualism also exists in evolutionary arms races--generation by generation fights to one-up each other.

I agree with PE-->Let's make that clear. I never didn't. What I don't agree with is the assertion that there's something other than a self-guided process for the events. "Molecular Genetic Engineering" is something we did cover in class, but I will point out that it doesn't require our intervention in order to work. The proper place for discussing God in relation to the universe, is at the level of human consciousness.

--
\"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.\"