Evolution has never been observed

[painted wolf]

That does not make any sense to me. Physics does not put any constraint. Physics is our way of comprehending the ways of part of nature that is amenable to us.

Fluid dynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The beings of nature sense the constraints and either are curtailed/crushed by the constraints or they overcome the constraints. That suggests inherent power of observation and analysis throughout the nature.

No, they are not doing any choosing or analysis... The giraffe didn't get a long neck because it really wanted one any more than you can choose to turn your arms into wings and fly away.

The\ rules of the universe determine the direction we evolve not us.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

No, they are not doing any choosing or analysis... The giraffe didn't get a long neck because it really wanted one any more than you can choose to turn your arms into wings and fly away.

How do you know a giraffe's mind?

The\ rules of the universe determine the direction we evolve not us.

wa:do

That is nothing different from saying: Rules of God determine the direction we evolve.

I ask, do you think that the same nature of universe, that you are alluding to be controlling evolution, is not within beings?

 

[atanu]

The experience of a rock is not the same as yours...yet you are both governed by the same physics. Neither of you can fly, and for the same reasons. Both of you will fall at the same speed, regardless.

wa:do

Yes. Yet, thoughts may devise a way to stop the fall. Awareness is not same as the rock.

 

[Photonic]

How do you know a giraffe's mind?



That is nothing different from saying: Rules of God determine the direction we evolve.

I ask, do you think that the same nature of universe, that you are alluding to be controlling evolution, is not within beings?

Prove it.

 

[atanu]

Prove it.

Your question proves that you have posed a question with awareness.

 

[Photonic]

Your question proves that you have posed a question with awareness.

That is true. But you can also prove that animals are aware too. You can also prove that most are NOT aware that they know they exist.

 

[Acim]

Poetic language, let me rephrase... There is only one shape that reduces drag in water enough to move through it at high speed.

Less of an implication, but still comes down to spectrum of oddly coincidental and/or conscious selection.

This is like saying that stars and planets are both round because they like circles. It's no more a coincidence than that.

Thank you for helping to make my point.

No it's a property of reality... all of reality conforms to it. Even rocks succumb to this aspect of waters nature. Unless rocks are consciously intelligent?

And this 'all of reality' is consciously determined by us and our science (actually our philosophy). This notion of conformity is determined by our consciousness. The question of whether rocks are consciously intelligent (or not) is I'm sure intended to be rhetorical, but is really making the point I am making.

Biased by your own experience. The experience of a rock is not the same as yours...yet you are both governed by the same physics.

Let me know how you might demonstrate that the experience of a rock is not consciously determined, and that this is a fact. I'll be most interested in the part that projects fact onto that, while also deny that consciousness is involved. Good luck.

Neither of you can fly, and for the same reasons. Both of you will fall at the same speed, regardless.

Falling at same speed is something that is consciously determined. You have described (consciously) a situation where rock experience and my experience would be the same. Interesting that you denied this just moments ago.

 

[atanu]

That is true. But you can also prove that animals are aware too. You can also prove that most are NOT aware that they know they exist.

From my observation I know that they are subject to caress, love, fear etc. etc. They fight for self. They also have protevtive feelings about their kin. They have senses. I have no reason to think that human awareness is the only kind of awareness. Moreover, in fact, the genetic code and its deciphering and deciphering from codes written in seeds and sperms as to what kind of plant/animal will come up -- and many other facts-- do indicate, to me at least, that human awareness is not the only kind of awareness.

 

[atanu]

That is true. But you can also prove that animals are aware too. You can also prove that most are NOT aware that they know they exist.

It is often said "nature does it". My point is that whether this nature is solely outside us or whether this nature is also part or substratum of our nature?

If one resolves this without bias, one will see that "God did it" and "Nature did it" are essentially same. The difference is merely in the name and not in meaning.

 

[Photonic]

From my observation I know that they are subject to caress, love, fear etc. etc. They fight for self. They also have protevtive feelings about their kin. They have senses. I have no reason to think that human awareness is the only kind of awareness. Moreover, in fact, the genetic code and its deciphering and deciphering from codes written in seeds and sperms as to what kind of plant/animal will come up -- and many other facts-- do indicate, to me at least, that human awareness is not the only kind of awareness.

Awareness of self is the key aspect here.

 

[PolyHedral]

Underlined part, clearly makes it aspect of consciousness. It is bizarre to me that you would argue otherwise, but here we are.

What do algorithms have to do with conciousness?

 

[Willamena]

What do algorithms have to do with conciousness?

A method needs a methodee.

 

[painted wolf]

That is nothing different from saying: Rules of God determine the direction we evolve.

Not really....

I ask, do you think that the same nature of universe, that you are alluding to be controlling evolution, is not within beings?

Start flapping your arms and see how long it takes you to fly.
Being a part of something does not give you control of the thing.

Otherwise we would all have perfect weather.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Yes. Yet, thoughts may devise a way to stop the fall. Awareness is not same as the rock.

Better think quick... but you still fall the same.
Just because you change the ending doesn't change the physical nature of the fall itself.

wa:do

 

[PolyHedral]

A method needs a methodee.

But the methodee is not aware of what its doing.

 

[painted wolf]

Less of an implication, but still comes down to spectrum of oddly coincidental and/or conscious selection.

Not really, your spectrum is a false dilemma. But I'm sure you will keep to it.

Thank you for helping to make my point.

What point is that? That your argument is flawed?

And this 'all of reality' is consciously determined by us and our science (actually our philosophy). This notion of conformity is determined by our consciousness. The question of whether rocks are consciously intelligent (or not) is I'm sure intended to be rhetorical, but is really making the point I am making.

no, we just describe it in ways that we understand.
We are not the only reason for the universe to exist... it was fine without us and it will be fine when we go away again.
If reality is consciously determined then again, I'm sure you will have no problem flapping your way home like a bird.

Let me know how you might demonstrate that the experience of a rock is not consciously determined, and that this is a fact. I'll be most interested in the part that projects fact onto that, while also deny that consciousness is involved. Good luck.

You are asserting they are intelligently conscious, it's up to you to defend that assertion.

Falling at same speed is something that is consciously determined. You have described (consciously) a situation where rock experience and my experience would be the same. Interesting that you denied this just moments ago.

No it's not... again, unless you can flap your way home?
If the rock and you are having the same experience why is that? You both choose to fall?
Why would choose to fall at the same speed... do you like the company?
What if it was a race to see who hit the ground first? Do you not want the rock to feel bad by hitting the ground after you?

wa:do

 

[johnhanks]

Originally Posted by johnhanks
The point being made is that if animals from different taxa are being selected for speed of movement through water, the physics of water will always result in similar morphologies being favoured.

Do you think it's 'oddly coincidental' that leaves tend to be flat, or might the advantages associated with a large light-absorbing surface have something to do with it?

All underlined portions are part of why I don't subscribe to 'oddly coincidental' and do subscribe to 'consciously selected.'

Serves me right, I suppose, for trying to economise on language.

1. 'Selected for' does not imply a conscious selecting agent: any environmental factor that differentially affects survival and reproduction is a selector.
2. 'Being favoured' is a metaphor; I could more verbosely have written 'will always result in organisms with similar morphologies leaving more offspring, and therefore the genotypes associated with those morphologies becoming more frequent in the gene pool'.
3. Ditto 'advantages associated'.

 

[atanu]

Not really....

Start flapping your arms and see how long it takes you to fly.
Being a part of something does not give you control of the thing.

Otherwise we would all have perfect weather.

wa:do

Oh. That. That is your evolutionary timescale? BTW, I have a parachute.

But you avoided answering whether nature that does it isn't within us or not?

 

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by johnhanks
The point being made is that if animals from different taxa are being selected for speed of movement through water, the physics of water will always result in similar morphologies being favoured.

Do you think it's 'oddly coincidental' that leaves tend to be flat, or might the advantages associated with a large light-absorbing surface have something to do with it?

All underlined portions are part of why I don't subscribe to 'oddly coincidental' and do subscribe to 'consciously selected.'

Try not to confuse the language used to describe reality with reality itself.

 

[painted wolf]

Oh. That. That is your evolutionary timescale? BTW, I have a parachute.

You must get odd looks on the street.

But you avoided answering whether nature that does it isn't within us or not?

No I didn't... again, being part of something does not give you control of it.

wa:do