Fred56

What precisely is meant by "God"? Like, here in the thread.

I still can't see why saying it's a function with a domain and range (life), is a problem, isn't a process a function? Isn't selection something an agent or a process "performs"? The only thing we know about that doesn't seem to be some kind of process is the instantaneous 'co-operation' or interaction between entangled states at the quantum level.

I see, I think you perhaps mean making change equivalent to entropy, but I might leave it there.Are you seriously saying entropy is not change (twice now)??

OK, my turn for some pointless quibbling. Are you prepared to present my oversimplified version of a speculative model of consciousness against your version? Or are you just going to keep warning everyone about morons?

So they're distinct things? Isn't a tool a function?

OK, the fact that you believe I can't doesn't make it so, either.

What's a function, isn't that a name we give to some "thing"? What's wrong with saying "evolutionary function", then saying "evolution is the process"?

OK, but what I'm getting at is one is a process, the other is the result. You could, of course, call both of them a process (and therefore also a result). Like one is the inverse or derivative of the other, or something.

Life, (all forms of life), is the derivative of the evolutionary function. Each organism has only the evolved set of "properties" of life (its phenotype), to "deal with" the current (instantaneous) conditions, to face the challenges of finding a source of food, and being able to exploit it. To take the necessary risks of choosing: to expend energy chasing something, or conserve energy and wait for it to come to you. So evolution is the process, a mapping, and life is the domain and range.

Evolution's function is selection?

They're called 'quasiparticles', mate. phonons, excitons, plasmons, the fractional Hall-effect.

This is the big problem with our current understanding of the evolutionary process: we can't explain how it 'started'. An evolving organism is "already evolving" -this is the definition- but the 'first' attempts at 'life' (or some kind of self-sustaining process) were presumably much simpler concoctions? The 'jump' or transition, from these first proto-life forms, is what we need to sort out, what did these things actually do, in terms of evolving; what was the set of 'drivers' that caused it to become self-replicating and be able to hand down its 'coded' form to new versions of itself: to reproduce successfully? P.S. possibly some of the confusion flying around is because we tend to use the same language to mean the thing itself, and what it does -"evolution is what evolution does". But the actual process is random and undirected, whereas the results appear purposeful, therefore evolution appears to have purpose. But it's like saying the messages are the channel. The channel is required for communication, but the messages are distinct from it. A book isn't information, the information "in" a book is actually in the mind of its reader. They aren't the "same" thing, after all.

Yo, I'm looking at one Bio philosophy course. I guess it's a new term for anthropological studies, maybe. I want to do Math though (I have EE papers to 3rd yr), and I'd like to do topology, Lie algebras and groups and so on. But they don't let you in 'til 4th yr. (I'm a postgrad, apparently -once you have that first- used to be undergrad, grad, postgrad). Here at the U of Akl, you can enrol in a Postgrad Dip. which is apparently more flexible than say a MSc. (according to the Math course advisor I talked to recently) So I'm a philosopher, huh? Never would have thought...

My initial response to this was: when did evolution begin? After life began to replicate? What was it doing to "hang in there for a while" before it could do this? Would you say that they must, therefore, have been simultaneous (or very closely timed 'events')? Because if any of their ancestors that came before them did not' date=' then they died, or at the very least did not reproduce as successfully as others.[/quote'] This looks just a little bit circular: How did ancestors "come before"; they were "better adapted" (because of the serendipity of the evolutionary process), so produced more progeny which inherited the 'better' genome? So their "apparent purpose" in producing progeny -reproducing- is driven by nothing more complex than "that's how it works"? Sure, I understand that you can define purpose out of the whole thing. I just think this might be an arbitrary thing we do in order to avoid the "problem" purposefulness presents to the "life in a box" concept. Maybe it's just me...

Sorry, wrong person, is sethyoufree there, somewhere perhaps (it was kinda early here when I posted the first)? How does the father seeing his son being tortured guarantee that he will "reveal the bomb locations and how to defuse them "?

Seriously? How about flood mythologies (a common religious theme)? Where did the Genesis account get the idea of the Earth 'condensing' (it doesn't actually use this word, but I think it implies that the world 'formed'), from some formless 'thing'?

What does this mean? Epac Mediates a cAMP-to-PKC Signaling in Inflammatory Pain: An Isolectin B4(+) Neuron-Specific Mechanism "A dose–response curve established that 1 uM isoproterenol produced translocation in a maximal number of cells. Translocation of PKC was transient, peaking at 30s, decaying by 90s, and returning to baseline after 5 min. Induction of translocation by isoproterenol was mediated by 2-AR as it was inhibited by the 2-AR-specific antagonist ICI. ICI is described as an inverse antagonist not only blocking receptor activation but also reducing its baseline activity (Bond et al., 1995), reflected by the decrease in baseline PKC translocation. ... • Epac Activates PKC in Nociceptors Because cAMP activates PKA (Neves et al., 2002), we used the well established activator of AC, forskolin, to test for its involvement in the signaling cascade leading to PKC epsilon translocation. With a maximal response time of 30s, forskolin also induced the translocation of PKC epsilon to the plasma membrane." --Tim B. Hucho, Olayinka A. Dina, and Jon D. Levine National Institutes of Health Pain Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143 Review: neuronal-glial interactions in central sensitization Abstract "Pain facilitation has conventionally been viewed as being created and maintained solely by neurons, whereas glia (microglia and astrocytes) were not considered to be involved. Current views of glial function include a dynamic role within the spinal cord dorsal horns to create and maintain enhanced pain. This review summarizes how spinal cord glia are now implicated in diverse exaggerated pain states by proinflammatory cytokines and other potential mediators of glia-neuron communication. Glial activation is shown to be necessary and sufficient to create pain facilitation in laboratory animals. The implications for potential clinical therapeutic treatment is discussed. " --Erin D. Milligan PhDa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Steven F. Maier PhDa and Linda R. Watkins PhDa a Department of Psychology and the Center for Neurosciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA Any clearer, at all?

Have you not done anything like this before, or what techniques have you thought about for separation or sorting of the fragments?

The cotyledon is the store of starches used during the germination phase. Once the seed is established (has a viable photosynthetic apparatus -i.e. the seed leaves, and a working root system), it has exhausted this 'bootstrap' supply of food, but that's ok, it's now able to make its own. If the starch conversion process is interrupted or prevented (by inhibiting the amylases that break it down into simpler units), the whole process comes to a grinding halt, and no viable seedling develops from the seed: the plant world's 'embryo', or an embryonic form, in a sort of suspended animation state of metabolism. It's a demonstration of the importance of the cotyledon's store, and what happens when a developing plant embryo is denied it. Or an example of how to sacrifice a plant upon the altar of investigative science (ignore that last remark, he he)...

You could have done though.

Sentire sapiens callide ti solum paucissimu scit. "(the) understanding a wise (and) clever man has (is) he serves only (that) very little he knows"

There are other 'mechanisms' as well as selection for evolution? Why are you claiming it isn't? Can you demostrate with some argument, that evolution (a process) is in fact purposeless? Isn't an organised activity which appears to be directed toward adaptation itself -in particular to an ability to adapt phenotypically to gradual but inexorable climatic changes, ushered in by things like continental drift, e.g., and also to micro-state kinds of change in local conditions -organisms that can exploit their environment in multiple ways are better adapted than ones who have evolved only a single method, and are specialised or obligate lifeforms, which can only occupy certain niche positions- purposeful? Evolution results in a range or a spread of representatives that are variously efficient (some may abandon multiple exploitative function for the option of developing a super-efficient one -putting all the eggs in one basket). Why are they able to do this? What do you mean by "the original drive"? What's it doing now and then, how is it do you suppose? ...life emerges from [its] structure much like a car or a washing-machine "emerges" not from its parts, but from the way they are put together (structured). Is a chemical reaction (chemistry) purposive? Is Life 'just' a chemical reaction? Is self-assembly of 'parts' purposive? Is a DNA repair enzyme an agent with purpose?

Well, certainly neurons interact, or communicate, using electrical 'signals'. These are nothing like what happens in an electrical network of real metal, where signals travel a lot faster. The network, or mesh of interconnected neurons isn't that efficient at signal transmission, but it does the job. Also the 'slowness' of the actual propagation time of the spikes that travel along an axon seems to be overcome somewhat by the sheer number of 'switching elements', or relays, and the thousands of connections each makes with other neuron 'units'. But it still takes tens or hundreds of msec to get a signal from a 'pain' neuronal assembly when you stub your toe (and reconfigure a few stress proteins, and trigger a signalling cascade). You "remember" the pain for a while. It's got to do with strengthening certain pathways, and its reliant on certain feedback cycles, which are themselves controlled by other stuff.

Is there an experience available to us or any sentient kind of life which we can't conceive of with our thinking? Is there, in other words, an experience which "surpasseth all understanding"? What do EEG waves represent, or signify, since they are obviously evidence that there are patterns of activity, waves of electrical activity and signal processing. How much of this is our actual "conscious" awareness, and how much is our "unconscious" self (the one we are when we sleep). Can we 'hear' our own brains 'singing' to us?

"Once the linear function of hydrocarbon oxidation no longer commutes with the entropic cycle of the engine-space, The system will not admit any allowed harmonics and the wave-function should collapse." (Moi, encore)