|
On July 17 2010 00:59 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 00:33 SirKibbleX wrote:On July 17 2010 00:17 Yurebis wrote:On July 16 2010 23:56 Jazriel wrote:
Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. Anyone want to try and provide proof to the contrary? (This is an attempt to continue some interesting discussion.) I have an objection Life isn't the ultimate end to everyone How do you explain suicide? While I only until recently would have agreed that Objectivism is the only correct philosophy (I assume you don't mean political "Objectivism" like what Ayn Rand advocates, but rather a view of the world through objective external consensus reality), I think there is enough sense of doubt in the world and in the failures of our senses to reject that Objectivism should be the only correct philosophical view. Either way this argument is stupid. If life is the ultimate end to everyone there would be more, not less motivation for committing suicide. By suicide I mean, ending ones own life How's ending one's life a motivation for the pursuit of life? hmmm
You're right in that I was pretty unclear with that, rereading my wording. If you want a deeper explanation I'd just tell you that complex lifeforms like humans with higher intelligence are capable of rejecting or slightly repressing their base functions and programming. That humans like all other species are driven to do things like eat, reproduce, use the bathroom seems pretty obvious. But we can also starve ourselves intentionally, choose to be celibate, or repress our urges to use the restroom, for example, if it serves some higher cause.
If a person believes that his or her life has become so vile and disgusting or useless or even a drain to the whole of humanity, then maybe that person might consider suicide as a way to relieve perceived pain. Imagine if there was an alien race that invaded Earth and told you that they would kill 1000 people a day, including one person you loved, each day you were still alive. You would either kill yourself or try your best (perhaps suicidally) to break out, free or help your friends.
|
On July 17 2010 02:31 Gnosis wrote:
No, I'm going to be getting to that today. I've been reading up on Buddhism, which accounts for the delay. As for the question, in my mind information is required before natural selection can work.
Oh cool  . Sorry if I sounded pushy I'm just eager to keep discussing.
The way I have always perceived of the idea of natural selection working, and most of this will be familiar to you, is that first you have the 'empty space' of 'chemicals and energy'. Planets, stars, all that jazz forms. On one planet, lets call this planet "Earth" (lol), chemicals are swirling around in its primordial soup forming different permutations over time. Sooner or later a stable self-replicating chemical is found via this permutation process. There is no information in the processes of its environments and none in its random (Edited: Random meaning it does not change towards a specific goal) permutations it is merely an inevitable effect of these processes.
Similarly, the self-replicating chemical slowly undergoes more permutations until it forms what we would perceive as a life form. The way in which this formed had nothing to do with information and all to do with the processes of its environment and its chemical nature.
Therefore, in natural selection what we are seeing is not an intelligent system of evolution but a random process of environment effecting chemical, and these 'bodies' of chemicals (us) effecting the environment.
And out of these process is the emergent phenomena that to our minds is perceived to be as evolution and natural selection.
|
A good time for me to ask a question, then. Is information already present in "empty space," as well as in those "chemicals" and "energy"?
(And you didn't sound pushy)
|
On July 17 2010 02:45 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 02:31 Gnosis wrote:
No, I'm going to be getting to that today. I've been reading up on Buddhism, which accounts for the delay. As for the question, in my mind information is required before natural selection can work. Oh cool . Sorry if I sounded pushy I'm just eager to keep discussing. The way I have always perceived of the idea of natural selection working, and most of this will be familiar to you, is that first you have the 'empty space' of 'chemicals and energy'. Planets, stars, all that jazz forms. On one planet, lets call this planet "Earth" (lol), chemicals are swirling around in its primordial soup forming different permutations over time. Sooner or later a stable self-replicating chemical is found via this permutation process. There is no information in the processes of its environments and none in its random permutations it is merely an inevitable effect of these processes. Similarly, the self-replicating chemical slowly undergoes more permutations until it forms what we would perceive as a life form. The way in which this formed had nothing to do with information and all to do with the processes of its environment and its chemical nature. Therefore, in natural selection what we are seeing is not an intelligent system of evolution but a random process of environment effecting chemical, and these 'bodies' of chemicals (us) effecting the environment. And out of these process is the emergent phenomena that to our minds is perceived to be as evolution and natural selection.
this is basically the current understanding. my only corrections are:
(a) the bit about the primordial soup and self-replicating chemicals is abiogenesis, not natural selection. natural selection begins when the first cells are formed by abiogenesis.
(b) natural selection is not a random process. the genetic mutations are random but the selection isn't, because genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't
|
On July 17 2010 02:26 Epsilon8 wrote:
Can you truly give an answer to the question of "What is energy?". You may try to say what it is by talking about how it works, i.e. it has the power to effect things in a kinetic way, but this would not establish what it actually is. I would take this a step further and say that if you cannot define what it is then you cannot actually establish its existence at all.
And then the natural question after the 'what is it' question has failed is to ask well if we can't answer the what then it must be a 'why' question. Because if 'what' it is can not really be said to be anything, then we must ask a 'why' this is.
I think the example you picked is unfortunate, because you can't expect science to explain everything right of the bat, specially a difficult topic like that. Some centuries ago we wouldn't know what the sun is, or what light is. Now we have a much more cleared understanding. However our understanding of energy is not as dim as you might think specially if you don't study physics or engeneering. Movement IS energy. You have kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, etc etc. Still, it's probably not even as close to what there is still out to find out. Besides, just because science can't explain something right now, doesn't mean it never will. If history is of any use, is that science will be able to explain most if not all things in the future, when more (all?) data is available. Whether it will be able to answer everything is debatable, and i doubt, with our current understanding of the universe, that we can come to any conclusion by argumentation. We are severly underinformed about how our world works to go on about drawing ultimate conclusions about our final understanding of the universe.
|
Informational theory, or "Where the laws and fundamental functions and assumptions of the universe come from," I suppose that is one of the deeper philosophical questions for which there is little or no scientific justification, by the definition of what Science's limits are.
Even if one were somehow able to answer questions like these (in one science fiction show I've seen, fifth-generational Space Battleships are able to rewrite the laws of physics locally in order to propel themselves) wouldn't it lead to other questions? In general, no explanations can ever be fully self-sufficient.
For example, even if we found out conclusively that there there was a God or force that created this world, new questions would arise. How did it do so? And what entity created this God and the physics and techniques it used to create the Universe and its physical properties? Is there some sort of metaverse/multiverse? Are there governing rules about what kind of rules a given universe can have? Is this universe a simulation of some other larger universe, much like how any simulation we humans can create must be able to fit within the conceptions of this one?
Deep questions indeed. The even deeper question is what exactly is relevant.
|
On July 17 2010 03:00 Duelist wrote:
would you mind fixing that quote, because i didn't say any of that
edit: thx
|
ok, had some troubles with the quote marks. Fixed now.
|
On July 17 2010 03:00 SirKibbleX wrote:
Informational theory, or "Where the laws and fundamental functions and assumptions of the universe come from," I suppose that is one of the deeper philosophical questions for which there is little or no scientific justification, by the definition of what Science's limits are.
Even if one were somehow able to answer questions like these (in one science fiction show I've seen, fifth-generational Space Battleships are able to rewrite the laws of physics locally in order to propel themselves) wouldn't it lead to other questions? In general, no explanations can ever be fully self-sufficient.
For example, even if we found out conclusively that there there was a God or force that created this world, new questions would arise. How did it do so? And what entity created this God and the physics and techniques it used to create the Universe and its physical properties? Is there some sort of metaverse/multiverse? Are there governing rules about what kind of rules a given universe can have? Is this universe a simulation of some other larger universe, much like how any simulation we humans can create must be able to fit within the conceptions of this one?
Deep questions indeed. The even deeper question is what exactly is relevant.
This is the general idea of what I'm getting at.
|
On July 17 2010 03:05 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 03:00 SirKibbleX wrote:
Informational theory, or "Where the laws and fundamental functions and assumptions of the universe come from," I suppose that is one of the deeper philosophical questions for which there is little or no scientific justification, by the definition of what Science's limits are.
Even if one were somehow able to answer questions like these (in one science fiction show I've seen, fifth-generational Space Battleships are able to rewrite the laws of physics locally in order to propel themselves) wouldn't it lead to other questions? In general, no explanations can ever be fully self-sufficient.
For example, even if we found out conclusively that there there was a God or force that created this world, new questions would arise. How did it do so? And what entity created this God and the physics and techniques it used to create the Universe and its physical properties? Is there some sort of metaverse/multiverse? Are there governing rules about what kind of rules a given universe can have? Is this universe a simulation of some other larger universe, much like how any simulation we humans can create must be able to fit within the conceptions of this one?
Deep questions indeed. The even deeper question is what exactly is relevant.
This is the general idea of what I'm getting at.
yeah, if "what caused the laws of physics to be the way that they are?" is ever answerable by science, it will only open new questions. if "spirituality" (complete nonsense imo) helps answer this question for you, you're welcome to it
|
On July 17 2010 03:10 Win.win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 03:05 Gnosis wrote:On July 17 2010 03:00 SirKibbleX wrote:
Informational theory, or "Where the laws and fundamental functions and assumptions of the universe come from," I suppose that is one of the deeper philosophical questions for which there is little or no scientific justification, by the definition of what Science's limits are.
Even if one were somehow able to answer questions like these (in one science fiction show I've seen, fifth-generational Space Battleships are able to rewrite the laws of physics locally in order to propel themselves) wouldn't it lead to other questions? In general, no explanations can ever be fully self-sufficient.
For example, even if we found out conclusively that there there was a God or force that created this world, new questions would arise. How did it do so? And what entity created this God and the physics and techniques it used to create the Universe and its physical properties? Is there some sort of metaverse/multiverse? Are there governing rules about what kind of rules a given universe can have? Is this universe a simulation of some other larger universe, much like how any simulation we humans can create must be able to fit within the conceptions of this one?
Deep questions indeed. The even deeper question is what exactly is relevant.
This is the general idea of what I'm getting at. yeah, if "what caused the laws of physics to be the way that they are?" is ever answerable by science, it will only open new questions. if "spirituality" (complete nonsense imo) helps answer this question for you, you're welcome to it
Ideologically, I haven't accepted scientific naturalism... If the answer is true, wherever it comes from, I'll accept it.
|
On July 17 2010 03:00 Win.win wrote:
this is basically the current understanding. my only corrections are:
(a) the bit about the primordial soup and self-replicating chemicals is abiogenesis, not natural selection. natural selection begins when the first cells are formed by abiogenesis.
My bit about the primordial soup was not in relation to what natural selection is, it was an attempt to explain how the emergent phenomena of natural selection arose and the underlying processes in the mirco-universe as well as the macro-universe.
On July 17 2010 03:00 Win.win wrote:
(b) natural selection is not a random process. the genetic mutations are random but the selection isn't, because genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't
But it is random (Edited: Random meaning that they do not mutate towards a specific goal). There is no 'intelligent' force guiding the permutation of these genes or chemicals and because of this we cannot say that it is any way not random. If you were to say they are not random then you would be affirming your belief in some kind of higher power or inherent intelligence in the universe.
The emergent phenomena of these random permutations being selected is not a product of intelligence but a product of the processes it interacts with.
On July 17 2010 03:00 Duelist wrote:
I think the example you picked is unfortunate, because you can't expect science to explain everything right of the bat, specially a difficult topic like that. Some centuries ago we wouldn't know what the sun is, or what light is. Now we have a much more cleared understanding. However our understanding of energy is not as dim as you might think specially if you don't study physics or engeneering. Movement IS energy. You have kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, etc etc. Still, it's probably not even as close to what there is still out to find out. Besides, just because science can't explain something right now, doesn't mean it never will. If history is of any use, is that science will be able to explain most if not all things in the future, when more (all?) data is available. Whether it will be able to answer everything is debatable, and i doubt, with our current understanding of the universe, that we can come to any conclusion by argumentation. We are severly underinformed about how our world works to go on about drawing ultimate conclusions about our final understanding of the universe.
Again, you attempted to explain energy as the function of how it works. I.E. kinetic, potential, chemical. Really it is all the same thing doing different things. You did not answer what it is.
Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.".
Other then that I am not trying to provide a definitive explanation for why existence is the way it is, I am merely trying to expose science for not being able to answer the underlying 'deeper' questions upon which it makes its assumptions.
|
On July 17 2010 02:59 Gnosis wrote:
A good time for me to ask a question, then. Is information already present in "empty space," as well as in those "chemicals" and "energy"?
(And you didn't sound pushy)
From my point of view yes.
When I was explaining natural selection before I was trying to explain it from the point of view of the previous poster which is held by the majority of modern science and society.
There is some very interesting theories that I have read up on a little in the realm of 'quantum consciousness' area. I am not well versed in these theories and have heard that they are unfounded, although this may not be true.
Its general idea is that your consciousness, as a discrete form, is made up of a 'quantum field' of potentialities. This is explained by the quantum physics ideas of super position and entanglement.
The idea of super position goes like this: If you have sub atomic particle A and it is not being currently observed or effected by anything at all the equations that describe this particle A in quantum physics cannot really say if it is in state SA or SB. Taken a little farther this means that particle A is in state SA and SB at the same time. And so it exists as potentialities and not as anything in particular.
Entanglement is a phenomenon that happens when two sub atomic particles become dependent on each other to define there state. Therefore, if you entangle two sub atomic particles and you effect one the other must necessarily be effected. If you affect an entangled particle the other must be affected even across vast distances. This goes against common knowledge of action at a distance not being possible.
The idea of quantum consciousness is that because super position implies that for a particle to be in any particular state it must be observed. This dependence on reality of consciousness can be taken further to the idea that this is because consciousness is a natural quality of the universe. So your consciousness is composed of a quantum field of entangled super positioned sub atomic particles.
Again this is my general understanding of the idea and I acknowledge that I am not an expert in this area.
|
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 03:00 Win.win wrote:
(b) natural selection is not a random process. the genetic mutations are random but the selection isn't, because genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't But it is random. There is no 'intelligent' force guiding the permutation of these genes or chemicals and because of this we cannot say that it is any way not random. If you were to say they are not random then you would be affirming your belief in some kind of higher power or inherent intelligence in the universe. The emergent phenomena of these random permutations being selected is not a product of intelligence but a product of the processes it interacts with.
random doesn't mean "not guided by intelligence". there are patterns in evolution. survival and reproduction are not random. genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't.
|
"But it is random. There is no 'intelligent' force guiding the permutation of these genes or chemicals and because of this we cannot say that it is any way not random. If you were to say they are not random then you would be affirming your belief in some kind of higher power or inherent intelligence in the universe."
Not true at all... you can have a deterministic viewpoint of the universe without believing in a higher power. You simply embrace that all events in the universe are determined by prior events, which were determined by events before them and so on in a chain of causes and effects that go back to the beginning of time. It's like if there was a natural catastrophe happening and you'd say "oh that was so random" when in reality it isn't at all. The universe is seen as having a certain order to it, which doesn't mean that it's an entity.
What people claim is random, in fact, just means that it seems unpredictable to us, and not that the events are truly random.
|
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 03:00 Duelist wrote:
I think the example you picked is unfortunate, because you can't expect science to explain everything right of the bat, specially a difficult topic like that. Some centuries ago we wouldn't know what the sun is, or what light is. Now we have a much more cleared understanding. However our understanding of energy is not as dim as you might think specially if you don't study physics or engeneering. Movement IS energy. You have kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, etc etc. Still, it's probably not even as close to what there is still out to find out. Besides, just because science can't explain something right now, doesn't mean it never will. If history is of any use, is that science will be able to explain most if not all things in the future, when more (all?) data is available. Whether it will be able to answer everything is debatable, and i doubt, with our current understanding of the universe, that we can come to any conclusion by argumentation. We are severly underinformed about how our world works to go on about drawing ultimate conclusions about our final understanding of the universe. Again, you attempted to explain energy as the function of how it works. I.E. kinetic, potential, chemical. Really it is all the same thing doing different things. You did not answer what it is.
I disagree. Movement, for instance, is energy. Movement is not how energy works, it's energy itself. It's not energy doing different things, it's energy taking different forms. How it works and what it does is the field of study of many branches of science like thermodynamics.
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote:Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.".
So acording to your words, science should be given less credibility, because we don't know if it will be able explain everything even if it explains a whole lot?
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote:Other then that I am not trying to provide a definitive explanation for why existence is the way it is, I am merely trying to expose science for not being able to answer the underlying 'deeper' questions upon which it makes its assumptions.
Science has been able to prove its theories through observation and experimentation, and is able to use its knowledge with effectiveness, proving that many of its concepts do apply to the real world. That's what gives science credibility and what distinguishes it from other fields. You can't ask for science to give explanations to underlying deeper questions anymore than you can ask a baby to ride a bycicle. Give it time and we will see. So far many assumptions appear to be correct, since the whole techonology world you see around yourself are based on them.
|
On July 17 2010 04:42 Win.win wrote:
random doesn't mean "not guided by intelligence". there are patterns in evolution. survival and reproduction are not random. genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't.
I think you have misunderstood me so let me clarify.
1. Genetic variants are random. Edited: (Random meaning that they do not mutate towards a specific goal but mutate on cause and effect)
2. The emergent patterns of 'survival of the fittest' are (Edited: Do have a pattern) but then again we cannot infer any kind of underlying 'intelligence' (Edited: that is nothing 'guiding' it) to this pattern either.
3. My first post that started all this was meant to explain the idea that we have a system, the universe/earth/whatever, that is made of stuff (i.e. chemicals, energy). This stuff interacts in certain ways with each other and eventually creates life as we know it. Now, in the processes of this 'stuff' we could not make any arbitrary distinction between the 'stuff' and some kind of 'environment'. However, now that we can make an arbitrary distinction between environment and stuff we can see emergent phenomena such as patterns of 'survival of the fittest'.
So within this concept the natural selection is not actually intelligent in some way although that does not mean that there is not any patterns to it. The patterns that emerge out of this are a product of processes between the 'stuff' and the 'environment'.
The 'stuff' and 'environment' are not really two. They are only two in the way that they effect each other. And out of this process of cause and effect we see the pattern of 'natural selection'.
Just to clarify to everyone, this is not my take on how things actually are it is only my take on how science has taken it.
|
The funny thing that I notice is that for someone to claim that things are ultimately random, he would have to be that higher intelligence, since there is no way for us to have access to that kind of knowledge. Logic dictates, on the other hand, that randomness is nothing but an interpretation of unpredictability.
|
On July 17 2010 04:42 Win.win wrote:
random doesn't mean "not guided by intelligence". there are patterns in evolution. survival and reproduction are not random. genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't.
Okay, there has been a lot of misunderstanding. When I am using the word random what I am trying to say is that genes do not evolve towards a specific goal. They just mutate based on cause and effect. In this way they would be 'random' in that they are not guided. Confusing I know. Sorry about that guys.
On July 17 2010 05:10 Hollow wrote:
Not true at all... you can have a deterministic viewpoint of the universe without believing in a higher power. You simply embrace that all events in the universe are determined by prior events, which were determined by events before them and so on in a chain of causes and effects that go back to the beginning of time. It's like if there was a natural catastrophe happening and you'd say "oh that was so random" when in reality it isn't at all. The universe is seen as having a certain order to it, which doesn't mean that it's an entity.
What people claim is random, in fact, just means that it seems unpredictable to us, and not that the events are truly random.
See reply to quote above ^.
On July 17 2010 05:15 Duelist wrote:
I disagree. Movement, for instance, is energy. Movement is not how energy works, it's energy itself. It's not energy doing different things, it's energy taking different forms. How it works and what it does is the field of study of many branches of science like thermodynamics.
But if 'energy' can take different forms then what is energy to begin with? And if energy is movement then how does energy become matter?
On July 17 2010 05:15 Duelist wrote:
So acording to your words, science should be given less credibility, because we don't know if it will be able explain everything even if it explains a whole lot?
I am saying we should get rid of the idea of that science in its current form can accurately describe reality.
On July 17 2010 05:15 Duelist wrote:
Science has been able to prove its theories through observation and experimentation, and is able to use its knowledge with effectiveness, proving that many of its concepts do apply to the real world. That's what gives science credibility and what distinguishes it from other fields. You can't ask for science to give explanations to underlying deeper questions anymore than you can ask a baby to ride a bycicle. Give it time and we will see. So far many assumptions appear to be correct, since the whole techonology world you see around yourself are based on them.
What science must do is prove its underlying assumptions before it can be said to accurately describe reality. I am not saying science is not useful, nor that it has not helped to make many things possible or describe how many things work.
But just as you can describe how a computer works by taking 8 different buckets and saying an empty bucket is 0 and a full bucket is 1 does not mean that this is the way the computer is. It is merely a description of how the computer works.
|
On July 17 2010 05:34 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 04:42 Win.win wrote:
random doesn't mean "not guided by intelligence". there are patterns in evolution. survival and reproduction are not random. genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't.
Okay, there has been a lot of misunderstanding. When I am using the word random what I am trying to say is that genes do not evolve towards a specific goal. They just mutate based on cause and effect. In this way they would be 'random' in that they are not guided. Confusing I know. Sorry about that guys.
ok, i don't disagree with that. well, i don't agree that random is the appropriate word to use there, but understood anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
