Luc Turpin Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 1 hour ago, iNow said: Wow. Someone went on a neg rep spree in this thread hitting up posts from very early on Page 1. Okay... but care to comment on why you found them so problematic? After 7 pages of repetition and disregard of critique, they seem accurate IMO. I am not getting this? I guess that it is intended for me. What did I find so problematic?
Phi for All Posted July 1 Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I am not getting this? I guess that it is intended for me. What did I find so problematic? ! Moderator Note Not you, someone else. Taken care of, move along.
Luc Turpin Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 1 hour ago, swansont said: What randomness are you talking about? Real randomness; baked-in, irreducible randomness, baked in to the universe 2 minutes ago, Phi for All said: ! Moderator Note Not you, someone else. Taken care of, move along. Moving along
swansont Posted July 1 Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Real randomness; baked-in, irreducible randomness, baked in to the universe And what does this have to do with this topic?
Luc Turpin Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, swansont said: And what does this have to do with this topic? 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.
swansont Posted July 1 Posted July 1 10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 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. So not only is the mind not from the brain, it doesn’t even require life? And it existed prior to the universe? Those are rather bold claims, and not consistent with your previous definition of mind.
Luc Turpin Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 31 minutes ago, swansont said: So not only is the mind not from the brain, it doesn’t even require life? And it existed prior to the universe? Those are rather bold claims, and not consistent with your previous definition of mind. My contention remains, molecules bump into each other randomly while living matter starts with randomness and then integrates experience into how best to survive. 1 hour ago, swansont said: And what does this have to do with this topic? 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.
iNow Posted July 1 Posted July 1 48 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: molecules bump into each other randomly It only seems random bc we lack sufficient information about the state of the system overall to better model them. 48 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: living matter starts with randomness and then integrates experience This is word salad
Luc Turpin Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 11 minutes ago, iNow said: It only seems random bc we lack sufficient information about the state of the system overall to better model them. This is word salad 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.
swansont Posted July 1 Posted July 1 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: My contention remains, molecules bump into each other randomly while living matter starts with randomness and then integrates experience into how best to survive. There’s a gap between “molecules bump into each other randomly” and “living matter” that you can drive a galaxy through 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: the composition and movement of molecules are therefore not random? The results of atoms and molecules bumping into each other is decidedly not random.
CharonY Posted July 1 Posted July 1 10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 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 No some, such as chemical mutations are mostly random. Others, such as splicing are not. Some, such as recombination are slightly random, but follow somewhat predictable patterns. 3 solving a major challenge in a given scientific area usually sweeps through the community rapidly. After all, many many folks are working on it and the moment someone finds the smoking gun, everyone will know.
Luc Turpin Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 2 hours ago, swansont said: There’s a gap between “molecules bump into each other randomly” and “living matter” that you can drive a galaxy through The results of atoms and molecules bumping into each other is decidedly not random. 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 1 hour ago, CharonY said: 3 solving a major challenge in a given scientific area usually sweeps through the community rapidly. After all, many many folks are working on it and the moment someone finds the smoking gun, everyone will know. 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.
swansont Posted July 1 Posted July 1 52 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 2- please tell me more If you have a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms bumping into each other, are the resulting molecules randomly formed? You’ll get H3O2 as often as H2O?
iNow Posted July 1 Posted July 1 5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: hence, the direction towards more complexity to survive That’s not how evolution works. More complexity isn’t de facto better. In many environments it reduces probability of reproducing and this would get selected against. There is no direction to evolution.
Luc Turpin Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 44 minutes ago, iNow said: That’s not how evolution works. More complexity isn’t de facto better. In many environments it reduces probability of reproducing and this would get selected against. There is no direction to evolution. 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.
CharonY Posted July 2 Posted July 2 On 6/30/2024 at 6:25 AM, Luc Turpin said: 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 The question shows that you are not thinking correctly about the the mechanism. Neuroplasticity is fundamentally related to activity, which in turns can reorganize the brain on multiple levels. I have no idea why that is supposed to be something groundbreaking, it is something we have known for a long time. Other tissues can also do quite a bit of reorganization, following a wide of cues related e.g. to injury, inflammation or all sorts of signals. I have, therefore no idea what difference these tidbit really are supposed to make. 7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Then there were simple organisms and now more complex ones. Why is this? The simple organisms still exist. There is no push in a specific direction. The way to think about it, is that certain more complex organisms can occupy niches that were previously inaccessible. But then, they become niches themselves, too and then get colonized by new, but simpler organisms. But the fundamental process on Earth are still driven by the simpler ones. To wit, if all complex organisms disappeared from Earth, there would be still life on it. But if all the simple organisms disappeared, life would eventually cease.
iNow Posted July 2 Posted July 2 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I did not say that more complexity was good You implied that evolution leads to more complexity. That is not true. It just represents change. 35 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Survival of fittest and wittiest, that is the direction I am supposing. There is no direction Edited July 2 by iNow
Luc Turpin Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 11 hours ago, swansont said: If you have a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms bumping into each other, are the resulting molecules randomly formed? You’ll get H3O2 as often as H2O? Is probability not a restricted form of randomness? There is certainly no intent nor volition in molecules. 9 hours ago, CharonY said: The question shows that you are not thinking correctly about the the mechanism. Neuroplasticity is fundamentally related to activity, which in turns can reorganize the brain on multiple levels. I have no idea why that is supposed to be something groundbreaking, it is something we have known for a long time. Other tissues can also do quite a bit of reorganization, following a wide of cues related e.g. to injury, inflammation or all sorts of signals. I have, therefore no idea what difference these tidbit really are supposed to make. The simple organisms still exist. There is no push in a specific direction. The way to think about it, is that certain more complex organisms can occupy niches that were previously inaccessible. But then, they become niches themselves, too and then get colonized by new, but simpler organisms. But the fundamental process on Earth are still driven by the simpler ones. To wit, if all complex organisms disappeared from Earth, there would be still life on it. But if all the simple organisms disappeared, life would eventually cease. 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
Luc Turpin Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 9 hours ago, iNow said: You implied that evolution leads to more complexity. That is not true. It just represents change. There is no direction 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?
swansont Posted July 2 Posted July 2 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Is probability not a restricted form of randomness? There is certainly no intent nor volition in molecules. The earth has no intent either, but a dropped rock will fall toward it, and not in a random direction. There is more to natural phenomena than randomness.
Luc Turpin Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 35 minutes ago, swansont said: The earth has no intent either, but a dropped rock will fall toward it, and not in a random direction. There is more to natural phenomena than randomness. 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?
iNow Posted July 2 Posted July 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: in their quest for survival, do organisms not deploy ever more complex strategies for survival? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That which gets selected for is contingent upon the local environment and circumstances. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: survival or doom is the direction, is it not? That’s not a direction. Edited July 2 by iNow
Luc Turpin Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 53 minutes ago, iNow said: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That which gets selected for is contingent upon the local environment and circumstances. That’s not 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.
iNow Posted July 2 Posted July 2 Just now, Luc Turpin said: are the circumstances not almost always the same? no 1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said: More weapons in the arsenal of survival thus engendering more complexity. again, not always. sometimes it "engenders" more simplicity 1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said: More complexity propagated by mind as an intrinsic factor of the living is indeed a direction no, it's not... but then again this is borderline "not even wrong"
Luc Turpin Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 5 minutes ago, iNow said: no again, not always. sometimes it "engenders" more simplicity no, it's not... but then again this is borderline "not even wrong" 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?
Recommended Posts