Luc Turpin

1- The situation might not be the same, but the need to do something about it, find a way to survive, is basically the same. 2- An example? Like jelly fish losing their capacity to sting in a non threatening environment, but recovering it when needed. If so, having both options (simple-complex reactions) and deploying one or the other depending on cricumstance, is it not more complexity? Or are you talking about organisms downregulating to a simpler life form with no capacity of recovery to their former complex serlves? If it is the latter, then I need to know more about it as I believed that this was possible only in very limited circumstances. Would that organism have a lesser chance of survival than its counterpart that preserved its more complex feature? 3- Higher complexity would not be a direction?

1- Agree that that which gets selected for is contingent upon the local environment and circumstances. But, are the circumstances not almost always the same? A defence measure is countered and a new measure is devised to counter the countering measure! More weapons in the arsenal of survival thus engendering more complexity. Outwitting the opposition is also a survival mechanism. 2- More complexity propagated by mind as an intrinsic factor of the living is indeed a direction, but one that you disagree with.

There are laws to be obeyed, and beyond that, randomness? chance occurences? probabilistic outcome? If intent there is, would it not only be for the living?

1- in their quest for survival, do organisms not deploy ever more complex strategies for survival? 2– survival or doom is the direction, is it not?

Is probability not a restricted form of randomness? There is certainly no intent nor volition in molecules. 1- should have stated that the author and I are asking the same question! Its the almost instantaneous nature of multi-circuit effect that begs the question of how can this operate by randomness 2- in its ongoing battle for survival doesn’t even the simple organism deploy more and more sophisticated counter measures to defend itself from predators? Also, agree that simple organisms are fundamental for life

Then there were simple organisms and now more complex ones. Why is this? I am saying that if mind was all over in nature, why would it not be a factor in evolution? And I did not say that more complexity was good; just said that it was so. Survival of fittest and wittiest, that is the direction I am supposing.

1- Agree that you can drive a galaxy through. The inflexion point is where inanimate matter turns supposedly into animate matter and no one knows so far how this was accomplished. That is the point, I suppose, where the capacity to acquire, conserve and use information came about. And that is where intent came into being for the living. 2- please tell me more Then there must be something wrong with his interpretation of data. Hopefully, I will obtain the it and we can both have a look at it.

1-Good point; so the composition and movement of molecules are therefore not random? 2- life may have appeared by chance, but had the capacity to acquire and integrate information from experience and then use this to plot the next move or outcome; hence, the direction towards more complexity to survive. A war of attrition.

My contention remains, molecules bump into each other randomly while living matter starts with randomness and then integrates experience into how best to survive. Where does information acquisition occur, at the molecular or animate matter level, I do not know! The intention was to post my last comment with the preceding one, not with the quote that showed up unintentionally.

There is then no real randomness baked into the universe if mind plays an integral role in it. The universe would not be a random occurrence and would have a direction to it. It would be a better explanation for the complexity found in nature.

Real randomness; baked-in, irreducible randomness, baked in to the universe Moving along

I am not getting this? I guess that it is intended for me. What did I find so problematic?

While waiting a response from the author, here is a link to advancements in imaging technology. For those interested in this kind of information-technology. http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/a-new-way-to-image-cells-with-vibrational-spectroscopy

1- all mechanisms that can change the genomic content occur randomly, correct? 2- I will try and obtain the research that seems to link thought and subunit diversity. I too find this incredible 3- My only contention here is that these findings might be relatively recent and thus unknown to most. If I can get the studies then both of us can interpret them Contacted the author, awaiting a response, hopefully!

1-He has been posting his summary of studies wth links on his internet site and now on X. I have looked at his linked studies and agree with his interpretation most of the time. 2- I thought that that would be the case, but if one would be aware of any convincing or coherent example it would be you. 3- yes, evolution is based on inheritance. However, would gene editing and splicing would have some sort of impact on evolution?. I guess not.

Thank you for the response. I have been following the individual for years and I am aware that he reviews numerous scientific studies and articles on a daily basis, summarizes each of them before writing up his blog. I believe that he has an interesting process going on and that the information provided is reliable. His interpretation of data can be brought into question, but not the amount of data provided as it is quite extensive. I also have a question for you, if mind was a separate entity of its own influencing living matter, what would that entail for evolution? thank you for considering my request for a response.

in what sense is it inappropriate? because it is a derivative of mind? or that mind does not exist pa say?

Randomness and mind! “All of mathematics is a subset of mind.” Is this statement correct?

Can this only be due to randomness? “Neuroplasticity: When a thought or learning occurs, it triggers wide-ranging changes in large brain circuits. I have discussed a wide range of different mechanisms that occur in hundreds of different parts of these circuits at the same time. A very brief list includes: Changes inside neurons of scaffolding molecules and movement of mitochondria strengthening synapses. Complex receptor proteins that exchange their subunits. A cooperative alteration of both pre synaptic neurotransmitter and postsynaptic receptor. Triggering of specific new complex motors. Alterations in the post synaptic density, a complex of over a thousand interlocking unique large proteins, different each brain region. Complex alterations of the molecules in the extracellular space not attached to any cells.” - Jon Lieff https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/where-is-mind-in-nature

Notwithstanding the poor choice of words on my part, science is still about trying to find out how the world works, is it not? What seems to be ad infinitum claims are actually a series of possibilities that open up if it is not mind from brain. Those are the mind through brain implications. I reiterate, the science is sound, but I disagree with the interpretation of the data. I do not want to be right, but want to provide an alternative to what is the current mind view. Not because I just want to do so, but because I think that some data is not being looked at or misinterpreted, which could change the picture. I feel as well frustrated by the conversation and feel that consensus is only possible on one side of the fence. If moving to philosophy would smooth things out, then so be it.

I accept the criticism and will try and be less recalcitrant and reflexive moving forward. Agree that I have an odd way of posting. Notwithstanding, I think that valuable evidence has been provided and that a better discussion can ensue.

We have got to find out how to investigate it or else we will never be able to understand the true essence o f reality. Metascience is an interesting choice of word.

Apologies, you are right. I copy pasted the whole thing, because I have been trying to convey my position on the matter without great success. I guess that I am not very good at it. Jon Lieff’s text was much clearer, concise than what I could have done. It becomes easier to discuss things when positions are understood.

Jon Lieff’s position on the interaction of mind and brain that closely resembles mine. “Study of the human brain reveals processes that cannot be easily explained without the interaction of brain and mind.

After thinking about it and some research I will change my statement "Maybe, just maybe, but the avenue may very well show potential in the future.