How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, the joke is that you can just give the evidence instead of your actually answer.
So what are the observable properties of real as in regards to evidence as objective observation?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I have at least looked at the predictions for AI.

So have I. But I understand the limits of cogntion as computing different than you do.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So have I. But I understand the limits of cogntion as computing different than you do.

So you will put yourself up against a future AI?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you will put yourself up against a future AI?

What does that have to do with anything?
If there are actual regularities in the universe for knowing even in the physical sense, then they could be the same for humans and AI.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What does that have to do with anything?
If there are actual regularities in the universe for knowing even in the physical sense, then they could be the same for humans and AI.

But I thought you were talking about things that AI might never know - given it is still likely to have a physically based existence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, the joke is that you can just give the evidence instead of your actually answer.

This post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But I thought you were talking about things that AI might never know - given it is still likely to have a physically based existence.

Yeah and the evil demon problem by Descartes seem to be universal for all local beings in regards to knowing objective reality in itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This post.

No, your experince of reality is not the same as reality in the objective sense as independent of your experince of it.
That is the limit of knowledge in one sense.
We can the add the belief in cause and effect and you then have to solve the problem of the evil demon by Descartes. Or in a modern sense a Boltzmann Brain universe variation.

 

[PureX]

But unfortunately - as HHGTTG predicted - future AI will likely be produced by earlier AI, and even then we might not be able to comprehend why any AI does this, such that at some stage what AI produces might be beyond our comprehension - and much like creating a God figure.

If you look at 1960s prediction of life in the years 2000, we are all flying around with jet packs and living on the moon. The internet wasn't even on the list, though.

Our predictions of the future are notoriously wrong. I wouldn't give them much thought.

 

[Pogo]

Those are all the same proposition, just with different place-holder labels.

In the sense that they are all a cop-out to stop thinking yes

Why should a proposed source of existence be “useful” to us?

We are a curious species that thinks about the unknown.
Placeholder excuses for not thinking are detrimental to that process.

Why would this matter? That seems like a very weirdly selfish comment.
“I only care that God exists if I can use it to my advantage.”

It has to do with our desire for understanding,
ending the game with a joker is quitting.

 

[wellwisher]

How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?​

The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe has to increase. Entropy is the natural drive for all types of change in nature, including life. Life is uniquely designed to tap into entropy, and enhance the second law, by first lowering entropy into ordered states, thereby created an enhance potential zone for entropic change. This entropy enhancing mechanism is connected to the interaction of water and organics, via the water and oil effect. If we randomize water and oil, by shaking, and let them settle, order will appear from the chaos.

For example, freshly synthesized protein are at maximum entropy; open, unfolded and wiggling like worms. However, since the organic side groups will cause surface tension in the water, the water will pack these protein to optimize its own free energy, with the orderly packing and folding lowering the entropy of the enzyme to a minimal state. This causes the protein to go against the 2nd law, and thereby creates a zone of entropic potential, that is expressed as catalytic change, for example. This protein activity increases the entropy around itself, while the water keeps the protein in a perpetual state of entropic potential; water and oil effect.

In terms of the DNA, the DNA double helix is also a lowered entropic state, due to water and the water and oil effect. The water forces the DNA to bury the bases and sugars so these have less impact on the bulk water. The double helix is the answer. If we dissolved DNA into an organic solvent like an alcohol, this solvent allows the DNA to remain less ordered, by dissolving or freeing up the bases and sugars; into higher entropy. This is not very bioactive, since the potential for change is not the same. It is already doing fine with respect to solvent entropy.

An important source of enhanced entropic potential in life is connected to ion pumping and the exchange of sodium and potassium ions. Each cation has a different impact on water. The sodium is kosmotropic or creates more order in water that water creates for itself. While potassium is chaotropic and creates more chaos or disorder in water than water creates for itself. With sodium accumulating outside the cell, the outside water has an entropic potential; too ordered. The entropy increase is connected to the attraction of food materials to the outside cell surface to help create more aqueous complexity. The potassium ions inside enhances the disorder of water. This loosens up the water induced organic structures, while also adding potential for enhanced change, even on the DNA. As ion pumping got stronger and stronger change was inevitable and quickened, driven by metabolic energy expenditure lowering ionic entropy.

In terms of the human body, the brain uses about 90% of its metabolic energy ion pumping and exchanging, to creates these two potentials inside and outside the neurons. These are the highest entropic ionic potentials of the body. This has an impact on increasing complexity in the brain to the highest level of the body, that we call learning potential and then forward integration into synapses; platforms for higher thinking. This is the platform for consciousness.

The current model of evolution sort of says the same thing, but uses a random dice and cards approach. Entropy is not exactly random, since it has to increase via states. Energy, is conserved, and energy can shift between forms of energy and accommodate random. Entropy is an ordering principle and is a state function. Entropy absorbs energy and moves forward or increases in steps, like stable platforms for further change. An enzyme has a specific job it does well, but is not subject to in situ random change. Like photons there are entropic quantum states instead of continuous functions, thereby eliminating the assumed randomness inside the gaps. This may not be obvious, when the entire cell is the dynamic state, but changes on the DNA are predictable, if you know the original state and the next quantum step; new species.

There is a logic to the biological system of change we call evolution, but this logic is being blurred by the black box assumptions of statistics, that tries to eliminate the light; reason, needed to see. Statistics is a tool and too many are afraid to lose this tool, since their logic has atrophied in favor of the coin toss and lottery tickets.

The debate between Creation and Evolution is really one between order versus chaos. Evolving order can be induce via the steps of entropic states. This make evolution more in line with a natural ordering principle; 2nd law. The second law should be redefined as the 1st law, since energy is conserved, but entropic has to increase, in time, in steps, and leads change as energy/enthalpy lowers; metabolism. My approach looks different than Creation or Evolution, since I used the order assumption of Creation, and the Science assumptions of water, ions and entropy to create evolving ordered states; a bridge between.

 

[Pogo]

I can validate the claim two ways ("demonstrate" is a stupid request). One, is that it is logical and reasonable for us to presume that existence as we know it has a source; call it "God", call it a "singularity", call it "Bob". Whatever we call it, the name is just a placeholder for a profound mystery that neither science, religion, or philosophy can penetrate.

This is the objection, we don't accept that placeholder as profound or impenetrable. to do so is to give up.

And the second form of validation is also via logic. And that is that whatever this mystery source is, it would logically have to be transcendent in scope and power of that which has sprung from it. By definition, it would have to be "supernatural" to have manifested the 'nature' of all that exists.

This isn't logic, It is religious faith in a circular argument, I can't know it because I think it is beyond me.

You all are just going to keep repeating this idiocy because you honestly have no idea how to participate in a philosophical discussion.

Or you have an idiot's philosophy?

 

[Pogo]

You can prefer it all you like. What you can't do is defend it logically or evidently, as you are constantly demanding everyone else must. You say you prefer, "I don't know", but then you fight with and insult anyone that dares to share a viable possibility. How can you be so certain they are wrong when you don't know the answer, yourself?

Or are you a slave to your own biased ego and so just can't help yourself?

No I can't defend Pixies did it logically or evidentialy, and neither can you though claiming the equivalent with your placeholder i what you are doing.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not the least bit anti-science. I just don't make an idol of it as the scientism crowd here does.

Your distorted view of science is reflected in your pejorative accusations of scientism.

You need not list anything since you make it extremely clear your anti-science agenda.

Your entire history of posts is most definitely related to anything close to relevant science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you!

It is interesting that you admit it. It comes form the distorted belief in ancient mythology.

 

[Pogo]

but of course you believe in magic ... you just don't realize it , perhaps never encountering it. Think of your primative ancestors encountering aliens with superior abilities and technology -- they saw magic with their own eyes .. or what they believed was magic.

Were you to have an interaction with an equivalently advanced entity -- you would believe in magic .. because you had seen it with own eyes.. and when it comes down to it ... technology "IS" a form of magic .. and it is not evolution or magic.. Evolution is the Magic ... har har har ..

The proof of God is Evolution if you define "Magic" and define "GOD" properly ..

Redefine conveniently to your convenience, of course as Humpty Dumpty says, words mean exactly what I say they mean.

 

[shunyadragon]

So have I. But I understand the limits of cogntion as computing different than you do.

You 'believe' in limits you do not understand.

 

[shunyadragon]

How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?​

The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe has to increase. Entropy is the natural drive for all types of change in nature, including life. Life is uniquely designed to tap into entropy, and enhance the second law, by first lowering entropy into ordered states, thereby created an enhance potential zone for entropic change. This entropy enhancing mechanism is connected to the interaction of water and organics, via the water and oil effect. If we randomize water and oil, by shaking, and let them settle, order will appear from the chaos.

For example, freshly synthesized protein are at maximum entropy; open, unfolded and wiggling like worms. However, since the organic side groups will cause surface tension in the water, the water will pack these protein to optimize its own free energy, with the orderly packing and folding lowering the entropy of the enzyme to a minimal state. This causes the protein to go against the 2nd law, and thereby creates a zone of entropic potential, that is expressed as catalytic change, for example. This protein activity increases the entropy around itself, while the water keeps the protein in a perpetual state of entropic potential; water and oil effect.

In terms of the DNA, the DNA double helix is also a lowered entropic state, due to water and the water and oil effect. The water forces the DNA to bury the bases and sugars so these have less impact on the bulk water. The double helix is the answer. If we dissolved DNA into an organic solvent like an alcohol, this solvent allows the DNA to remain less ordered, by dissolving or freeing up the bases and sugars; into higher entropy. This is not very bioactive, since the potential for change is not the same. It is already doing fine with respect to solvent entropy.

An important source of enhanced entropic potential in life is connected to ion pumping and the exchange of sodium and potassium ions. Each cation has a different impact on water. The sodium is kosmotropic or creates more order in water that water creates for itself. While potassium is chaotropic and creates more chaos or disorder in water than water creates for itself. With sodium accumulating outside the cell, the outside water has an entropic potential; too ordered. The entropy increase is connected to the attraction of food materials to the outside cell surface to help create more aqueous complexity. The potassium ions inside enhances the disorder of water. This loosens up the water induced organic structures, while also adding potential for enhanced change, even on the DNA. As ion pumping got stronger and stronger change was inevitable and quickened, driven by metabolic energy expenditure lowering ionic entropy.

In terms of the human body, the brain uses about 90% of its metabolic energy ion pumping and exchanging, to creates these two potentials inside and outside the neurons. These are the highest entropic ionic potentials of the body. This has an impact on increasing complexity in the brain to the highest level of the body, that we call learning potential and then forward integration into synapses; platforms for higher thinking. This is the platform for consciousness.

The current model of evolution sort of says the same thing, but uses a random dice and cards approach. Entropy is not exactly random, since it has to increase via states. Energy, is conserved, and energy can shift between forms of energy and accommodate random. Entropy is an ordering principle and is a state function. Entropy absorbs energy and moves forward or increases in steps, like stable platforms for further change. An enzyme has a specific job it does well, but is not subject to in situ random change. Like photons there are entropic quantum states instead of continuous functions, thereby eliminating the assumed randomness inside the gaps. This may not be obvious, when the entire cell is the dynamic state, but changes on the DNA are predictable, if you know the original state and the next quantum step; new species.

There is a logic to the biological system of change we call evolution, but this logic is being blurred by the black box assumptions of statistics, that tries to eliminate the light; reason, needed to see. Statistics is a tool and too many are afraid to lose this tool, since their logic has atrophied in favor of the coin toss and lottery tickets.

The debate between Creation and Evolution is really one between order versus chaos. Evolving order can be induce via the steps of entropic states. This make evolution more in line with a natural ordering principle; 2nd law. The second law should be redefined as the 1st law, since energy is conserved, but entropic has to increase, in time, in steps, and leads change as energy/enthalpy lowers; metabolism. My approach looks different than Creation or Evolution, since I used the order assumption of Creation, and the Science assumptions of water, ions and entropy to create evolving ordered states; a bridge between.

A long . . . too long wasted effort of a post rejecting science based on an ancient tribal agenda.

 

[Pogo]

It's not really a logical fallacy unless someone is wanting to make it into a logical argument that proves that there is a creator.
Otherwise it is one of the many things in life that can turn us to consider the possibility of a creator.

Is that not what @wordy80 was doing, using his awe and lack of understanding of the evidence as evidence for his desired conclusion / creator.
Yes it is a fallacious logic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No

Yes.

Posts find their way to forums through computers.
Therefor, the existence of a post is evidence of the existence of a computer from where it was posted.



Also, come over here and I'll take my pc and hit you upside the head with it. Tell me again that there's no evidence for it existing then.

, your experince of reality is not the same as reality in the objective sense as independent of your experince of it.

Yawn.

Yes, yes, we are all brains in vats and this is actually the matrix.

That is the limit of knowledge in one sense.
We can the add the belief in cause and effect and you then have to solve the problem of the evil demon by Descartes. Or in a modern sense a Boltzmann Brain universe variation.

Take your silly solipsism elsewhere man. It's really tiring.