Bender

A figment of human imagination. You can apply that to any sensible definition of God.

Nature is not proof of God.

The Catholic church is ok with the big bang. More general: the God hypothesis is not falsifiable, and unfalsifiable hypotheses are useless to science.

What is a "pure" hue? White certainly isn't, and yellow rarely is. I'm particularly confused about this question with relation to computer screens, since these definitely don't sent out any "pure" yellow. If you forget the "pure" part, it is a bit unfair to compare blue and yellow, since blue has only one third of the light contributing, while yellow has two thirds.

Ok, so what is the relevance of a computer algorithm that guides a particle to the centre of a box?

Now you lost me completely. What does this have to do with an inverted pendulum? And what does either have to do with this thread?

I'm not sure where you got this info. Are you sure it is about human tetrachromacy? From the wiki article: "One study suggested that 2–3% of the world's women might have the type of fourth cone whose sensitivity peak is between the standard red and green cones" " Humans cannot see ultraviolet light directly because the lens of the eye blocks most light in the wavelength range of 300–400 nm" Especially this last bit makes it unlikely that your info is about humans.

Yes, that is the one I am referring to. Did you read it? Do you think fig 2 shows a spontaneous process?

There are differences in eg the M cones, which is why some people with two different M cones are tetrachromat. If all M cones were equal, there would be no tetrachromacy in humans.

Why do you keep linking to a computer algorithm that happens to employ a weighing function loosely based on the concept of entropy? Just look at fig 2. Does that look like a spontaneous process? Are inverted pendulums naturally stable?

Wikipedia : It is more than different sensitivity. The peak wavelength can vary, which is why some humans have tetrachromacy. This can only be possible if the variation is significant. (+1 for the appology and the change in attitude)

Ok, I guess I was thinking about spontaneous processes rather than computer algorithms. Why do you think an engineered problem solving/control algorithm is relevant to this topic? If it is a hypothesis, why do you present is as fact? How can your hypothesis, which diverges from the null hypothesis, be falsified? Except he doesn't mention "purpose in the realm of science". That's what you somehow make of it. I'm not. I see no reason to assume pseudo means anything other than "looks like, but not the real thing", as in "apparent". Why do you think it signifies "presence of purpose"? With archeo and neo, he simply wanted some catchy words for pseudo and actual. Catchy words make a great speech. It doesn't oppose the OP. It is simply delightfully applicable. No need to use the plural, though. I assume other readers don't need my enlightenment. Still, didactically, I think it would be more valuable if you found the link by yourself. It immediately answers all other points. Indeed it does not. There is nothing wrong with teleonomy.

Don't worry, there are plenty of members here prepared to undo the damage. I was about to upvote all those downvotes, but others must have beaten me to (most of) it. The voting system works!

From the minute you wanted me to watch and where he introduces archeo-purpose : "... a kind of pseudo-puposiveness, which I call archeo-purpose..." Did you honestly not hear that yourself? (I watched the whole video btw. Dawkins is a great speaker) You might also want to watch min 38 again about the flexibility paradox. I'll leave it to you to figure out why I think that is relevant here. You're late for the party :). This has already been pointed out repeatedly by me and others.

So it is option b) (you have an agenda). Thank you for clearing that out. I am going to give you my personal analysis and perhaps you can snap out of your mental lock. (I will use the term "religious belief" quite liberally. Try not to be too offended.) You seem to be in a state of cognitive dissonance : on the one hand, you hold a religious belief concerning the purpose of the human race, while on the other hand you resent religious beliefs (like me, you probably like feeling smug when watching Dawkins, which is hard if you hold such beliefs yourself). You found an answer to your dissonance in teleonomy, which you molded to suit your beliefs. That would explain why when I read about it, I draw different conclusions than you. You are correct that I hadn't heard about it prior to this thread, but I found the wiki article quite informative. Then the problem worsens as you make up apologetic nonsense, such as "apparent does not mean illusionary" thing or your entropy argument. Nature does not seek out ways to maximise entropy. In fact entropy maximisation isn't even a thing, only entropy increase, and that is a very stupid process. The only law related to this is dS/dt>=0. There is no law that says d^3S/dt^3=0 (maximisation of the increase in entropy) Anything life on Earth does is negligible in terms of entropy on a solar system scale anyway. To get to your agenda: I too think that we are heading towards an AI that is smarter than us, but I see no reason to draw in religious beliefs in purpose. I also doubt Dawkins would appreciate that you are using him as one of your profets.

1-3) I read through the Wikipedia article you like so much in greater detail in case I missed something. Did you notice that the article carefully avoids the word "purpose" by replacing it with "apparent purpose" or "end-directedness" and even uses words specifically invented to avoid a confusion such as yours: "puposiveness" instead of "purposefulness" ? It is also interesting to note that the concept of teleonomy was invented to be able to use goal-driven terminology that seems to imply purpose when there is none. (Eg "The Wood Thrush migrates in the fall in order to escape the inclemency of the weather and the food shortages of the northern climates."). Finally, your atom argument is a red herring. Eg the rotation of the sun around the Earth or Aristoteles' impetus were apparent for quite a while. This is clearly not the intention of the author of the Wikipedia article. 4) I see three options: a) you are be using a different definition of "purpose" than most people. b) you have an agenda c) you are trolling Could you perhaps clarify which it is or what I am missing? (I thought it was pretty obvious that I'm not religious. That remark points kinda points me in direction of option c, btw. Are you religious, because that could point to option b?) 5) theists reject evolution because their religious text says otherwise. No need to overestimate their motives. (English is my third language btw, but I understand enough to know what "apparent" or "purpose" means. Is it your first language? )

There are plenty of different calenders. There are even different times. Gps time is 18 s ahead, because they don't do in lead seconds. Also, non of gram-force, atmospheres, Torr, psi, inches of Mercury, Gram-force per square meter are SI units.

Your modules would also need to be pretty large to avoid too large a difference between your head and your feet.

1)I have seen no evidence of purpose in evolution. 2)Irrelevant as long as purpose is not demonstrated 3)You keep linking to the Wikipedia article, which clearly states "apparent" purpose. Despite your earlier claim of the contrary, the context makes it very clear that "illusionary" is what is meant here. 4)I can only guess at the relevance. 5)This makes no sense at all. Religious people dislike those things "because" they like purpose. In fact, a desire to find purpose is what drives a lot of people to religion.

Interesting thought. All religious texts contain knowledge/science from the time they were written, freezing that knowledge.

There are examples of persons making (part of) science into (part of) their religion. Scientologists and new agers come to mind. Since they usually end up adding completely unscientific beliefs to their mix and then rape and abuse science to support those beliefs, I think making science into a religion is generally a bad idea.

Newton defined seven colours (you forgot indigo), but chose that number because seven is a special number. It is otherwise completely arbitrary. We can only detect three colours (range of colour to be more correct), and perceive combinations of those as all the other colours. If we see yellow light, our red and green detectors get triggered, which our brain translates to "yellow" . When we simultaneously detect green and red light, the same detectors get triggered and our brain translates to "yellow". We cannot differentiate between those two situations. The same happens with white light, but instead all three of our detectors get triggered. There are many ways to do this with different spectra. We exploit the fact that we only have three detectors by putting only red, green and blue lights in any screen, as combinations of those can produce (almost) any colour we can perceive.

But entropy production fundamentally is a purely statistical process, governed by random chance.

Yes. For purple and yellow, they are always triggering different photoreceptors, even at lower brightness.

Then what exactly de is your question? We sample only three values of a spectrum. More degrees of freedom are lost to us.