Karma

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#596

Here you go:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

From the link:

In April 2016, scientists presented an updated version of the "tree of life": a kind of family tree for every living species. Almost all of the branches are bacteria. What's more, the shape of the tree suggests that a bacterium was the common ancestor of all life. In other words, every living thing – including you – is ultimately descended from a bacterium.

This means we can define the problem of the origin of life more precisely. Using only the materials and conditions found on the Earth over 3.5 billion years ago, we have to make a cell.

So an adaptive system is assumed. If an adaptive situation is being assumed to get from complex chemicals coming together to bacteria, why does it suddenly become non-adaptive for snowflakes, or Newton's conservation of xxx laws?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Oh look Wigginhall, Hillside and Toe . Three non adaptives working as an adaptive emergent........

DICTYOSTELIUM ASSEMBLE!...........

Oh oh - troll boy has been let out to play again. More for the more rational here after his bed time I think.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But if you insist on ignoring the possibility of intelligently guided events bringing us into being...

No-one ignores the possibility of anything. Your problem though is to construct an argument to take you from possible to probable. I don't know how to do that for leprechauns, but maybe you'll have more luck with your conjecture.

[Jack Knave]

It's interesting that while most religions tell stories that adherents are then encouraged to believe in, in Zen the opposite seems to apply. There's a peeling away of narrative into a kind of non-identity (which is perhaps an everything-identity). I guess it's human nature to want to be a someone and maybe the irony is that what we really want can only be found by becoming a no-one.

You have to first find yourself and get to know 'who' you are and be firmly grounded in this before then reaching out into the wider field else you will just dissolve away.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

So an adaptive system is assumed.

No – it’s deduced using the strong evidence that points in that direction, just as gravity making apples fall and germs causing diseases is deduced for the same basic reason.

If an adaptive situation is being assumed to get from complex chemicals coming together to bacteria,…

It isn’t.

…why does it suddenly become non-adaptive for snowflakes, or Newton's conservation of xxx laws?

Snowflakes are non-adaptive emergent systems because they stay snowflakes. Ants and people and some software and cities on the other hand are adaptive because, well, they adapt in response to new stimuli. If you’re at all interested, the adaptive systems that last are those with the greatest survival advantage – whether the constituent parts are termites or shoe shops.

Look, I can see why you don't like this - removing the need for a top down designer is another nail in the coffin of the ghost in the machine you call "God". You can't though just remain in ignorance of or misrepresent the facts in the hope they'll go away - they really won't.

[Jack Knave]

“Sitting quietly, doing nothing, spring comes, and the grass grows by itself” — Matsuo

Lazy bastard!!!

[Jack Knave]

Well, the guy sees his clumsy side as 'bad', therefore hides it, as he shows his brilliant performance side.   However, you could argue that the teacher is not saying that his 'bad' side is 'good', but beyond good and evil,  because it is.   I know some people say that it's good because it is, but that can become tricky.
 

I thought you lot had got this. It was good because the guy had hid this fault from himself and had had his eyes opened to other aspects of himself : his weak or inferior function. Self knowledge leads to a better whole person.

[Jack Knave]

And maybe you need to define what you mean by it.

I always take consciousness to mean self consciousness/self awareness. What they are describing, because they have down graded it, is really for the most part are our various aspects of instincts etc.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

You’ve proved it for me every time you’ve told us in effect that you cannot imagine how consciousness could emerge from the stuff of a brain.

I never said that. What I said in effect was that your (science) conclusions on the matter are unfounded and premature. Hence my charge on you of arrogance and hubris.

Go on then what? If you try a logical fallacy then it’s a logical fallacy, and logical fallacies are always wrong argument. There’s nothing more to be said.

Blue, you're coming across as a little sad now. You have to explain why it is in a reasoned argument form, hence my curt statement. Just saying so doesn't make it so and explains nothing, and you aren't God!

- every complex system we know of in nature comes from simpler component parts

Besides the point to the issue at hand.

- emergence theory shows that complex adaptive systems can emerge from their component parts, and can become by magnitudes more information rich than the sum of those parts

Besides the point to the issue at hand.

 

- there’s nothing inherently special about consciousness that suggests that it shouldn’t be the product if the same principles, especially given the astonishing complexity of the brain

This statement is a leap of faith and stems from your personal incredulity on the matter. You have no basis on which to make such a claim.

In the absence of a better argued and evidenced explanation, consciousness as an emergent property of the brain is therefore the working hypothesis, and asserting alternatives is equivalent to asserting the stork conjecture over midwifery.

So in fact your position is very iffy as an hypothesis is nothing more than a tentative jab at what the answer could be. What usually happens at this stage of things is that people either offer their own hypotheses on the matter from the data to date or comment on the on going hypothesis to why it is not reasonable and misguided.

That’s not an argument – it’s just an assertion. What argument do you think you have to support it?

All you have are assertions. That's my point your conclusions or arrogant claims are based on nothing but the prevailing materialistic fashion of science to see things in a certain light, such that the conclusions are already expected to be of a given outlook and perspective before all the data is obtained, pending some devastating revelation that would shake you lot out of your complacency. You lot have jumped the gun by hours!!!

That’s just wrong. There are countless “firm facts”, all pointing in the same direction. That there isn’t a complete theory is a different matter but, absent any facts at all for an alternative, that’s the best we've got.

You have no firm facts and my point again is that science has concluded causes that are no more than correlations. Also, you lot seem to have redefined consciousness to be more like instincts. This is not self awareness.

To the contrary, I rely on facts and reason. What facts or reason do you think you have for an alternative explanation that invalidates mine?

Just repeating myself here. I'm saying science is looking at and approaching this with a biased and confirmation bias mind set.

No, they’re founded on a lot more than speculation (see above) but I’m happy to accept other possibilities. How plausible they are though is a different matter – what explanation do you propose that better fits the observable phenomena?

Phenomena? I thought we were dealing with facts?

[Jack Knave]

A crude definition of reductionism and I don't see how you can interpret my usage here how you have.
By reductionism I mean explaining everything higher up in the order of complexity by means of the previous level or even several levels down as Dawkins does with the gene with all else a kind of froth on the top and mere vehicles or mechanisms.
By reductionists I mean the bottom up brigade. One doesn't need sky hooks or top down though. In fact the mention of bottom up in your recommended book seems to be a hoorah for reduction.
Emergence is ''side in''.

The differences between reductionism and emergence were outlined long ago by Paul Davies in his New Scientist article.

That is kind of what I sense from them as well. That consciousness is a threat to their world view and they are trying to turn it into 'froth', as you put it.

[Jack Knave]

I notice that the word 'adaptive' has been introduced, which I don't remember seeing before.  What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?

From what I can gather the term adaptive here means its potential to do so or at least venture to do so but success being another issue.

[Gordon]

In addition, when it comes to biological stuff (as opposed to snowflakes), there is evolutionary change (such as mutations) to consider: as noted in this current article re. the human brain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38226810

[Jack Knave]

Very interesting.  It seems to deal with the objection that individual neurons are dumb, since individual ants are pretty dumb, but gain in information and processing power en masse.   

The other thing I found interesting is that there isn't an overseer.   This is often a critique of brains, that no-one is in charge, well, there is, the jolly old soul.

But an ant colony doesn't have consciousness and more pertinently self consciousness, or a sense of self or a sense of being an individual colony of ants. It is nothing more than a machine.

[Alan Burns]

Just a comment on emergence:

I see two types of emergence.  One is that extolled by Bluehillside in which some form of perceived functionality or complexity emerges from a series of apparently unguided events which incrementally contribute towards the perceived (but unintended) goal.

The other is the emergence of objects of human creativity from a series of events which are deliberately manipulated and guided by the conscious will of humans to achieve an intended goal.

Could the creative power of the latter be a pale reflection of the creative power which brought us into existence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

torri,

Yeah I thought so, and I find the subject fascinating too. I you haven't read it already, you'd enjoy Steven Johnson's book I think.

For "ants" you can swap pretty much "neurons" and other equivalent phenomena too and the same principles hold. SOTS would say that the information in the emergent system was in the ants/neurons etc anyway, but the evidence is very much that learning systems gain in information as they adapt – ie, they learn. Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.

Why consciousness and not something else?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is kind of what I sense from them as well. That consciousness is a threat to their world view and they are trying to turn it into 'froth', as you put it.

Agreed.

[Sebastian Toe]

Can you describe in more then 25 words how you opened up?

Why?
Only for someone like you to say it was done incorrectly, whatever the answer given is, because it did not produce the result that you want.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Many people seem to think that spiritual ideas are completely unnecessary to explain life. They believe that it is just due to some kind of a compulsive need to find meaning and purpose to life (completely unwarranted) that we resort to such thinking.

For them, the objects that we can sense with our five senses are all that can exist and  are all that are needed to explain the world. Of course, as the senses of people get more powerful through microscopes and telescopes, their world expands somewhat...but they are still unable to imagine or comprehend any unseen forces that could explain the world more meaningfully.

Maybe it is to do with their own limitations and their own inability to sense phenomena that are outside the five senses. The ability to sense beyond the five senses  is what many people for centuries have called the sixth sense. Maybe some people just lack this faculty because of which what is obvious to others is completely indiscernible to them. Like a born blind person being completely unaware of light that is so obvious to everyone else.

So...instead of being shocked and intrigued by the spiritual understanding of people maybe they should be concerned about their own inabilities.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is kind of what I sense from them as well. That consciousness is a threat to their world view and they are trying to turn it into 'froth', as you put it.

And of course that "froth" is derived from lower levels and that would make any emerged property not properly emergent.

In terms of protecting their reductionist world view there is a simple test. Challenge them with the idea of Ontological irreducibility. A reductionist will see red, not accept the idea at all and therefore deny emergence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why?
Only for someone like you to say it was done incorrectly, whatever the answer given is, because it did not produce the result that you want.

No.
What have you got to hide after all shouldn't you want an inter subjective dialogue?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

torri,
 Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.

That's just retcon. Retrospective continuity.........and of course if there is continuity then that is a denial of emergence.

[torridon]

Just a comment on emergence:

I see two types of emergence.  One is that extolled by Bluehillside in which some form of perceived functionality or complexity emerges from a series of apparently unguided events which incrementally contribute towards the perceived (but unintended) goal.

The other is the emergence of objects of human creativity from a series of events which are deliberately manipulated and guided by the conscious will of humans to achieve an intended goal.

Could the creative power of the latter be a pale reflection of the creative power which brought us into existence?

What these insights around emergence and the evolution of complexity suggest, is that if this cosmos we appear to find ourselves in is in fact a product of 'intelligent design' by some higher or other 'being' or 'beings', then those other beings themselves would also be an outcome of the same principles.  The phenomenon of 'intelligent design' as practised by humans is itself ultimately a product of blind unintelligent design.

[torridon]

But if you insist on ignoring the possibility of intelligently guided events bringing us into being, you are bound to end up with an intelligently conceived scenario showing how our existence could possibly have been brought about by a series of natural events, with any gaps or unexplainable bits conveniently patched up with the assumption that there will be a future explanation.  So you may ask how we can possibly discover the real truth?  I would suggest you open up your spiritual awareness to allow God to reveal Himself.

I don't think invoking magic is any way to get closer to truth; rather I see that as an exercise in avoidance. We have learned that complexity evolves over time, conscious intentionality took 3.5 billion years to evolve on this planet for instance, so if this entire cosmos was the product of an intelligent designer in some higher realm, then that designer would presumably also be a product of its own evolutionary process of rising emergent complexity over time.

[Sriram]

What these insights around emergence and the evolution of complexity suggest, is that if this cosmos we appear to find ourselves in is in fact a product of 'intelligent design' by some higher or other 'being' or 'beings', then those other beings themselves would also be an outcome of the same principles.  The phenomenon of 'intelligent design' as practised by humans is itself ultimately a product of blind unintelligent design.

It is by no means essential or imperative that the higher beings should themselves be an outcome of the same principles. Why is that necessary? The  principles that operate in other worlds we cannot know. They don't have to be the same as the principles here.

Even assuming that the principles and outcomes in other worlds are the same...so what?  Why should that become an impediment to their intervention in our world?

[torridon]

torridon,

How can it go beyond that? As far as the robots are concerned, they cannot know anything about humans. How can they understand the motivations of humans let alone their origins? They don't know the reality of their own origins!

They are  making up theories about themselves based on limited information....which is all they can do.   

But the reality is that there is lots more beyond what they know and what they can comprehend.

Cheers.

Sriram

That might be true from the parochial viewpoint of the robots.  I was talking to the bigger picture of your analogy.