Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:05:43 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D7FE867.C796F4B3@mindspring.com> References: <20020911150151.C45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > At a fundamental level, the universe is quantized, > > > > and this causes certain emergenet behaviours in matter. > > > > > > Really? What do you mean, when you say, "the universe is quantized"? > > > > E.g. it takes exactly 13.6 electron volts to take an electron > > from an s orbital to infinity. Not 13.4, not 13.8. > > So how does this prove that "order comes from disorder"? That wasn't the argument we were having. The argument was that simple systems may have complex emergent properties. http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/sugarscape/ "Complex effects need not have complex causes[...]" Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up Joshua M. Epstein and Robert L. Axtell Brookings Institute Press ISBN: 0-2625-5025-3 > > > And what do you mean by "certain emergent behaviours in matter"? > > > You seem to think that quantum physics can do all things, like > > > reconcile the irrational. To say that order comes from disorder, > > > no matter how much you try to dress it up is still irrational. If, > > > on the other hand, you mean there never was disorder in the first > > > place, I can buy that. > > > > Your _opinion_ on what's rational or not has been noted, but is > > not really germane. > > Okay, I can play this game. *Your* _opinion_ on what's rational has > been noted as well, but is not really germane. The reason your opinion is not germane is because you keep making irrational conclusions without providing evidence. What's your reason for your claim about my opinion? > > No, you are actually right that we can't count on them in the > > future. There's evidence that the speed of light was much > > higher, much earlier in the life of the universe, for example. > > You miss the point. Without assuming the uniformity of nature, there > *could be no* evidence about the speed of light at all. We have observed no evidence which contradicts the theory that nature is uniform. Therefore, the simplest explanation is that it *is* uniform. Barring contradictory observations, then, we shall take this as our working hypothesis. > > > "Stories" seems to be an apt description. > > > > It is. It's why I used it. Don't confuse stories with reality; > > it's impossible for you to directly observe reality. > > Really? How then is the scientific method even possible? Why are you implying that direct obervation of reality, rather than a scientist's individual perceptual model of reality, is a requirement for the scientific method to work? By your argument, it's impossible for a color-blind person to know that a difference between red and green exists at all, because they are unable to directly observe a difference by direct observation. > > We have to control the conditions, because it's not possible > > to simulate the appropriate conditions. High partial pressures > > of CO2 and SO2 don't occur naturally on Earth any more. > > It's not even possible to KNOW the appropriate conditions! The whole > exercise is one big begging of the question. It's funny that you claim that, but that the conditions were decided before the experiment was run, rather than the experiment being run iteratively over all possible conditions to find which ones worked. 8-). Someone had a predictive theory, and their predictions from it were not falsified by experiment. > > Whether you consider amino acids "life" or not is also pretty > > irrelevant, since you are going to keep moving the finish line, > > the deeper we get, so as to continue to be "right". 8-). > > What makes you think this? My observation of your behaviour has made it my working hypothesis. Feel free to falsify it by providing me with contradictory observations, in which you don't insist on drawing conclusions which are not merited by the preceeding statements. > > > > > 4) Intelligence came from non-intelligence. > > > > > > > > Our best theory is that intelligence is an emergent property of > > > > complex self-regulating systems over a certain threshold density. [ ... ] > > We can demonstrate that complex behaviour emerges from simple > > rule sets. Conway's game of Life and other cellular automata > > demonstrate that (e.g. "Sugarscape"). > > Conway's game of Life doesn't demonstrate anything close to intelligence. It is insufficinetly complex. The example was only intended to demonstrate that complex behaviour is an emergent property of simple rule sets governing self-regulating systems, which it does. > Once more, if you believe this, you have no reason for believing that > your belief about the origin of intelligence is true, unless you give > yourself a priviledged position of being right by definition. The priviledge of the idea, if it has any at all, arises from its simplicity, relative to other, competing, ideas. > > > Lets start with your own reasoning ability. To review, if you are a > > > naturalist, all of your brain functions are due merely to physical > > > laws acting on antecedent brain states. On your view, reason is an > > > illusion, and you have no way of knowing whether or not your reasoning > > > is sound, since all of it is due merely to the electro-chemical > > > reactions taking place in your grey matter. > > > > How does it follow that "reason is an illusion"? You've made a > > leap there which you haven't really justified making... > > For the same reason that water doesn't "know" how to flow downstream. > If everything in your brain is the result of the laws of physics, you > couldn't *help* but believe what you do. This is an insupportable statement. How would my beliefs be dictated in this case? > All of your reasoning is suspect. Why should *your* beliefs be > considered "true" while a theists beliefs are considered "false"? I will point out once again, that the scientific method doesn't require belief to function. It's not sorcery. It functions whether you want it to or not. It's not a *belief*, it is a *process*. And you can be a theist or an atheist, and it doesn't matter, it will still function. The scientific method is orthogonal to theism: it is totally unrelated. It's a different axis on the graph. > Both are the result of physics, Theism isn't a result of physics, unless you are prepared to admit that God does not exist apart from the universe. > and have nothing to do with what corresponds to any such > notion as "right reason" or "truth". Everybody just believes what > they believe. Believing that light bulbs don't work won't make them not work. 8-). > > Yeah, "right" and "wrong" are subjective; that one of the problems > > consensus solves for us: it gives us an external ruler. > > What do you mean by "problem"? If there is no right and wrong, no > "problem" can even be defined, let alone solved. Here you go with another conclusion out of thin air. Say that there is no "right" or "wrong". How the heck does it necessarily follow that you can not define problems? > > If "randomness" was equal to "irrationality", don't you think > > that we wouldn't have invented a second word, or that at least > > one would be defined in terms of the other in your dictionary? > > Uh, no. I was counting on you to draw the necessary inference. But if > you must have it spelled out for you, when you apply "randomness" to our > thinking processes, what results is irrationality. Why? Why do you claim this? What evidence do you have to support this claim? Please present evidence to support this claim. Obviously, the reson I didn't draw this inference is that it is an improper inference to draw. > Sound reasoning involves applying objective standards to our > thought processes, and has nothing to do with "randomness". You can't apply objective standards to your own thought processes; every paranoid person believe that they are sane, and that people really are out to get them. > > Sure I can. I have schelling points, which I can use to establish > > communication. > > By the way, Terry, what *is* a schelling point anyway? 8-) I've already defined it in a previous posting in this thread; if you are going to argue, at least *read* the responses. > Communication is not the problem. The ability to reason is > necessary before any communication is possible. You still > have not provided any basis for reason. Randomness does > not get you there. AGAIN: Our best theory is that intelligence is an emergent property of complex self-regulating systems over a certain threshold density. Would you quit pulling the word "random" out of your butt? Thanks. > This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to justify the arbitrariness > of your assumptions. Let me disabuse you of this paranoid theory. It is not that, it is me impugning your understanding. You may be erudite, at some level, but do not mistake that for educated in logical discourse. > > This is, in the limit, the same argument that is normally > > put forth in defense of a creator, but it's stated as "Absence of > > evidence is not evidence of absence". 8-). > > Of course, I disagree with that premise as well. 8-) Of course you do, but you can't recreate your "evidence" under laboratory conditions, instead we are expected to believe in it bcause you tell us to believe in it. St. Thomas Aquinas used this same (logically invalid) technique; it's called "begging the question", where you must assume your result in order to prove it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D7FE867.C796F4B3>