New knowledge vs paradigm shifts (split from Mind-brain)

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, DrmDoc said:

 As I have stated in this discussion thread, I am seldom in agreement with author's conclusions provided in citations for various reasons.  

I acquiesce that DrmDoc and myself are seldom in agreement on matters related to mind.

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

.Good luck in your studies of evolutionary biology.

And here is another "crackpot" intervention of mine; this time on molecular and evolutionary biology

"Technical advances have brought an accelerating flood of data, most recently, giving us complete genome sequences and expression patterns from any species. Yet, arguably, no fundamentally new principles have been established in molecular biology, and, in evolutionary biology, despite sophisticated theoretical advances and abundant data, we still grapple with the same questions as a century or more ago."

The point being made is that we easily remember what is right, but seldom acknowledge what is wrong with our well established scientific models.

[DrmDoc]

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The point being made is that we easily remember what is right, but seldom acknowledge what is wrong with our well established scientific models.

Excellent point!

[Luc Turpin]

We also quickly remember our successes, but seldom acknowledge our failures

And it's more complicated than we thought!

"With extensive PR, the Genome Project promised rapid cures for many diseases by deciphering the genetic code for less than 2% of the human DNA involved in making proteins in a small number of people. After the genome Project, there were almost no cures found in that code. In the decade after the project, research increasingly showed the fantastic complexity of the regulation of that tiny percentage of our DNA in a region at least tem times larger that the "genes". It, also, showed that many differences in code exist between normal individuals. Millions of regulatory RNA were discovered. The massive use of alternative splicing in the human brain was discovered. It, also, was found that in diseases that are based on a series of mutations, such as cancer. there are many individual variations in the mutations causing the same disease. Many disease have large number of genes that are somehow related and not understood - autism, schizphrenia as examples. Also, it was found that fifty percent of the total DNA is "jumping genes" with critical effects on normal brain function and human brain evolution" - Jon Lieff

Enough of me digressing.

 

 

[TheVat]

13 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The point being made is that we easily remember what is right, but seldom acknowledge what is wrong with our well established scientific models.

Who is this "we" you speak of?  Scientists love to engage in peer review and try to poke holes in each other's models and data.

This thread might be better suited for the Speculations forum.

[Luc Turpin]

29 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Who is this "we" you speak of?  Scientists love to engage in peer review and try to poke holes in each other's models and data.

This thread might be better suited for the Speculations forum.

I give you credit for at least responding, which is more than most.

"We" is the scientific community as a whole; we are good at poking holes in individual research, but less so when it comes to poking holes in established scientific models. I retain that my last two posts speak loudly to this.

"In sociology of scientific knowledge, Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views".

This is a "split" thread, so I was not the one to assign where it went.

[DrmDoc]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

This thread might be better suited for the Speculations forum.

Perhaps, but with the direction of your natural/artificial selection argument we'd be debating the age old question of nature versus nurture--a debate that apparently won't be settled by or between us in any assigned forum.

Edited April 7 by DrmDoc

[dimreepr]

On 4/7/2024 at 5:14 PM, DrmDoc said:

Perhaps, but with the direction of your natural/artificial selection argument we'd be debating the age old question of nature versus nurture--a debate that apparently won't be settled by or between us in any assigned forum.

But it is fun to speculate... 🧐

Seems obvious to me...

[Phi for All]

On 4/7/2024 at 8:46 AM, Luc Turpin said:

"We" is the scientific community as a whole; we are good at poking holes in individual research, but less so when it comes to poking holes in established scientific models. I retain that my last two posts speak loudly to this.

This is completely wrong. Established models are tested EVERY DAY in the course of their use. It's not that we're bad at poking holes in established models, it's that the established models are established because we can't falsify them. No place to poke, which means it's our best current explanation until someone using it finds a flaw.

Your argument is assuming that once a model is "established", we never test it again. That's absurd.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This is completely wrong. Established models are tested EVERY DAY in the course of their use. It's not that we're bad at poking holes in established models, it's that the established models are established because we can't falsify them. No place to poke, which means it's our best current explanation until someone using it finds a flaw.

Your argument is assuming that once a model is "established", we never test it again. That's absurd.

So, why molecular-evolutionary biologists are sticking to their "guns"? A statement from one of theirs speaks loudly.

"Technical advances have brought an accelerating flood of data, most recently, giving us complete genome sequences and expression patterns from any species. Yet, arguably, no fundamentally new principles have been established in molecular biology, and, in evolutionary biology, despite sophisticated theoretical advances and abundant data, we still grapple with the same questions as a century or more ago."

And why the need for the Plank's principle

"In sociology of scientific knowledge, Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views".

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

You can obtain "an effect on the brain" in many ways, e.g.: decrease the oxigen/nutrients/water supply, increase/decrease temperature, apply pressure, cut, puncture, whatever 😛  but there is no definitive proof that waves are "implicated in memory". Can you imprint a memory using waves?

The waves produced by neurons are a result of electrical signals travelling through neurons. See here how this works. A quote:

How can waves be a cause of this and not a (by)product?

“Traveling waves influencing the storage and retrieval of memory”

"Broadly, we found that waves tended to move from the back of the brain to the front while patients were putting something into their memory,"

"When patients were later searching to recall the same information, those waves moved in the opposite direction, from the front towards the back of the brain,"

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-03-brain-memories-recalled.html

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

If "some recipients identified the names of their donors and recalled specific events from their donor’s lives", yes, it would be huge ... if proved real. New/thorough studies are needed.

Agreed that new studies are needed

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

Information in the form of electromagnetic energy?! I don't get it. Can you offer a link to more details?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness#:~:text=Electromagnetic field theories (or "EM,McFadden's and other field theories.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, why molecular-evolutionary biologists are sticking to their "guns"? A statement from one of theirs speaks loudly.

Why do you think this means we aren't good at poking holes in established theories? And if we aren't coming up with fundamentally new principles in molecular biology, can you show evidence that it's because we aren't good at poking holes in established theories? Maybe science is just not good at jumping to conclusions as fast as some would like. 

[swansont]

On 4/6/2024 at 8:14 PM, Luc Turpin said:

And here is another "crackpot" intervention of mine; this time on molecular and evolutionary biology

"Technical advances have brought an accelerating flood of data, most recently, giving us complete genome sequences and expression patterns from any species. Yet, arguably, no fundamentally new principles have been established in molecular biology, and, in evolutionary biology, despite sophisticated theoretical advances and abundant data, we still grapple with the same questions as a century or more ago."

The point being made is that we easily remember what is right, but seldom acknowledge what is wrong with our well established scientific models.

What did the genome sequences reveal that discredited established biology?

If there are none, why would there be any new principles?

[Luc Turpin]

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why do you think this means we aren't good at poking holes in established theories? And if we aren't coming up with fundamentally new principles in molecular biology, can you show evidence that it's because we aren't good at poking holes in established theories? Maybe science is just not good at jumping to conclusions as fast as some would like. 

We cannot even see our own biases.

This says that even when presented with evidence, our brains fail to shift.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

What did the genome sequences reveal that discredited established biology?

If there are none, why would there be any new principles?

Maybe the model needs changing!

we still grapple with the same questions as a century or more ago."

Genome sequencing promissed many cures to diseases. This did not happen.  What we found since then was a whole lot of things that we did not expect.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What did the genome sequences reveal that discredited established biology?

If there are none, why would there be any new principles?

"With extensive PR, the Genome Project promised rapid cures for many diseases by deciphering the genetic code for less than 2% of the human DNA involved in making proteins in a small number of people. After the genome Project, there were almost no cures found in that code. In the decade after the project, research increasingly showed the fantastic complexity of the regulation of that tiny percentage of our DNA in a region at least tem times larger that the "genes". It, also, showed that many differences in code exist between normal individuals. Millions of regulatory RNA were discovered. The massive use of alternative splicing in the human brain was discovered. It, also, was found that in diseases that are based on a series of mutations, such as cancer. there are many individual variations in the mutations causing the same disease. Many disease have large number of genes that are somehow related and not understood - autism, schizphrenia as examples. Also, it was found that fifty percent of the total DNA is "jumping genes" with critical effects on normal brain function and human brain evolution" - Jon Lieff

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Genome sequencing promissed many cures to diseases. This did not happen.  What we found since then was a whole lot of things that we did not expect.

 

"With extensive PR, the Genome Project promised rapid cures for many diseases by deciphering the genetic code for less than 2% of the human DNA involved in making proteins in a small number of people. After the genome Project, there were almost no cures found in that code. In the decade after the project, research increasingly showed the fantastic complexity of the regulation of that tiny percentage of our DNA in a region at least tem times larger that the "genes". It, also, showed that many differences in code exist between normal individuals. Millions of regulatory RNA were discovered. The massive use of alternative splicing in the human brain was discovered. It, also, was found that in diseases that are based on a series of mutations, such as cancer. there are many individual variations in the mutations causing the same disease. Many disease have large number of genes that are somehow related and not understood - autism, schizphrenia as examples. Also, it was found that fifty percent of the total DNA is "jumping genes" with critical effects on normal brain function and human brain evolution" - Jon Lieff

“Gene-based disease is more complicated than we thought” is not evidence of a flaw in the established biology. It’s not like anyone found that such diseases aren’t genetic. It looks to me like they found that an assumption - that these diseases were based on some simple genetic code - was in error. In that way, the model was modified.

That you did not answer the question, and just repeated your previous dribble, suggests you have nothing to offer in the way of evidence.

(“this will help cure disease” might just be some boiler-plate PR that‘s included; I saw this quite often in atomic physics, where some discovery or investigation was touted as improving atomic clocks, which rarely happened because the technique was too difficult to implement, or the complexity/benefit ratio was way off. One shouldn’t pay too much attention to the message sent to the masses)

 

edit: wasn’t the COVID vaccine enabled by genetic sequencing?

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

“Gene-based disease is more complicated than we thought” is not evidence of a flaw in the established biology. It’s not like anyone found that such diseases aren’t genetic. It looks to me like they found that an assumption - that these diseases were based on some simple genetic code - was in error. In that way, the model was modified.

That you did not answer the question, and just repeated your previous dribble, suggests you have nothing to offer in the way of evidence.

(“this will help cure disease” might just be some boiler-plate PR that‘s included; I saw this quite often in atomic physics, where some discovery or investigation was touted as improving atomic clocks, which rarely happened because the technique was too difficult to implement, or the complexity/benefit ratio was way off. One shouldn’t pay too much attention to the message sent to the masses)

 

edit: wasn’t the COVID vaccine enabled by genetic sequencing?

It would take me a few days to go back and find all of the studies that had the words "unexpected findings" written into study abstracts.

I have no inclination in doing so; Therefore, your right, I have nothing to offer in the way of evidence.

If possible, I would like to come back to the topic of mind-brain as I know a bit more than genetics.

I have enough of a battle on my hands with mind-brain that taking on another challenge is not warranted for now.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

It would take me a few days to go back and find all of the studies that had the words "unexpected findings" written into study abstracts.

I have no inclination in doing so; Therefore, your right, I have nothing to offer in the way of evidence.

If possible, I would like to come back to the topic of mind-brain as I know a bit more than genetics.

I have enough of a battle on my hands with mind-brain that taking on another challenge is not warranted for now.

I’m not sure why “unexpected findings” would be the evidence I’m asking for. We have unexpected findings all the time in physics without requiring a paradigm shift. What it does is fill in some blanks or force some small adjustments to existing models.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

“Gene-based disease is more complicated than we thought” is not evidence of a flaw in the established biology. It’s not like anyone found that such diseases aren’t genetic. It looks to me like they found that an assumption - that these diseases were based on some simple genetic code - was in error. In that way, the model was modified.

Also, that was not a broad consensus. Most researchers had hopes that more disease markers could be identified (and to be fair, some have been), but especially folks working more closely in the areas of physiology were highly skeptical about the benefit of such an approach. In these communities the complexity of biological systems is very apparent. There is a big differences in what one sees in the news and popular science publications as there you need to find grappling headlines. 

Saying that "stuff more complicated, just as some folks expected, but others hoped it wouldn't be" somehow does not quite engage the public.

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

(“this will help cure disease” might just be some boiler-plate PR that‘s included; I saw this quite often in atomic physics, where some discovery or investigation was touted as improving atomic clocks, which rarely happened because the technique was too difficult to implement, or the complexity/benefit ratio was way off. One shouldn’t pay too much attention to the message sent to the masses)

Exactly, this is a bit of a dirty secret for studies that primarily generate minable information. We really do not know what we get (otherwise we wouldn't need to look), but it just sounds so much better if it is linked to something the public understands. A running joke is that everyone is somehow curing cancer.

[Luc Turpin]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

I’m not sure why “unexpected findings” would be the evidence I’m asking for. We have unexpected findings all the time in physics without requiring a paradigm shift. What it does is fill in some blanks or force some small adjustments to existing models.

I am sure that this will not satisfy you, but nonetheless, here is one that I think is more than just patching small holes.

• DNA mutations are not random as previously thought
• Findings change our understanding of evolution

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6

Now, on to mind-brain.

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

Also, that was not a broad consensus. Most researchers had hopes that more disease markers could be identified (and to be fair, some have been), but especially folks working more closely in the areas of physiology were highly skeptical about the benefit of such an approach. In these communities the complexity of biological systems is very apparent. There is a big differences in what one sees in the news and popular science publications as there you need to find grappling headlines. 

Saying that "stuff more complicated, just as some folks expected, but others hoped it wouldn't be" somehow does not quite engage the public.

 

Exactly, this is a bit of a dirty secret for studies that primarily generate minable information. We really do not know what we get (otherwise we wouldn't need to look), but it just sounds so much better if it is linked to something the public understands. A running joke is that everyone is somehow curing cancer.

Layers upon layers of "unexpected" complexity was added in the last few years to genetics and science as a whole.

Again, on to mind-brain.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am sure that this will not satisfy you, but nonetheless, here is one that I think is more than just patching small holes.

• DNA mutations are not random as previously thought
• Findings change our understanding of evolution

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6

"Changes our understanding of evolution" is not the same as a fundamental new principle.

I was under the impression that the susceptibility to mutation not being uniform was known earlier than 2022. Also, the use of "random" is problematic here; things can be random even if the outcomes don't have equal probabilities. Fair dice are random, but you roll 7 more often than other numbers. A normal distribution is not a flat line.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am sure that this will not satisfy you, but nonetheless, here is one that I think is more than just patching small holes.

• DNA mutations are not random as previously thought
• Findings change our understanding of evolution

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6

Now, on to mind-brain.

Layers upon layers of "unexpected" complexity was added in the last few years to genetics and science as a whole.

Again, on to mind-brain.

I get what you're trying to say, but if I can quote Frank Herbert "science is like a balloon, we blow knowledge in, which inflates the ballon, but in doing so we increase the surface area of what is unknown" (or words to that effect), standing outside the balloon it's easy to say "look how big it is, there's so much that we don't understand, how can they say I'm wrong?".

Sometimes scientist's do fall into the trap of belief, like every other human on the planet, but that doesn't entitle you to say "therefore what I believe has equal legitimacy".

Edited April 11 by dimreepr

[DanMP]

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness#:~:text=Electromagnetic field theories (or "EM,McFadden's and other field theories.

Thank you for the link. Reading the material I realized that you may be right considering that our understanding/picture of the mind and consciousness is far from being settled. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree a bit with this cemi theory, but if such a theory is accepted/published in a peer review journal, it means that we are far from a clear understanding of the mind.

I already wrote my opinions about what you brought in our attention, so that's it, for me it's enough.

I wish you good luck in your effort of understanding the mind.

[Luc Turpin]

6 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Thank you for the link. Reading the material I realized that you may be right considering that our understanding/picture of the mind and consciousness is far from being settled. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree a bit with this cemi theory, but if such a theory is accepted/published in a peer review journal, it means that we are far from a clear understanding of the mind.

I already wrote my opinions about what you brought in our attention, so that's it, for me it's enough.

I wish you good luck in your effort of understanding the mind.

Thanks DanMP!

My journey may also be nearing its end!

2 hours ago, swansont said:

"Changes our understanding of evolution" is not the same as a fundamental new principle.

I was under the impression that the susceptibility to mutation not being uniform was known earlier than 2022. Also, the use of "random" is problematic here; things can be random even if the outcomes don't have equal probabilities. Fair dice are random, but you roll 7 more often than other numbers. A normal distribution is not a flat line.

Randomness is at the heart of science. We owe our existence to chance, random quantum fluctuations, evolution - random mutations and natural selection, molecules bumping into each other, etc. I understand this. However, in my readings of the science literature over many years, I have been amazed at how much complexity, organisation and structure that appears to come out of nothing. And I have read many articles that seem to edge their bets toward non-randomness events. This is what I think has not been properly addressed in science. Take my numerous posts in the mind-brain thread. They are replete with studies and statements hinting at maybe something more, but this is mostly ignored by the general science community. The foundation of science is that everything occurs by chance and I am saying that my modest readings seem to tell me differently. Is science being too dogmatic about randomness and chance events? you tell me!

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I get what you're trying to say, but if I can quote Frank Herbert "science is like a balloon, we blow knowledge in, which inflates the ballon, but in doing so we increase the surface area of what is unknown" (or words to that effect), standing outside the balloon it's easy to say "look how big it is, there's so much that we don't understand, how can they say I'm wrong?".

Sometimes scientist's do fall into the trap of belief, like every other human on the planet, but that doesn't entitle you to say "therefore what I believe has equal legitimacy".

Your quote is helpful!

I believe that I have less "legitimacy" than most participants in these scientific forums.

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I believe that I have less "legitimacy" than most participants in these scientific forums.

Who told you that?

It's up to you to gain legitimacy, through reasonable conjecture.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

The foundation of science is that everything occurs by chance and I am saying that my modest readings seem to tell me differently. Is science being too dogmatic about randomness and chance events? you tell me!

That’s not a foundation of science; there are plenty of non-random, deterministic interactions.

The reading you shared did not say that mutations are not random. It said certain outcomes have a bias, i.e. outcomes do not all have the same probability.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I believe that I have less "legitimacy" than most participants in these scientific forums.

The word would be credibility, which is gained or lost by whether one is posting information and making arguments that are credible.

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That’s not a foundation of science; there are plenty of non-random, deterministic interactions.

The reading you shared did not say that mutations are not random. It said certain outcomes have a bias, i.e. outcomes do not all have the same probability.

The word would be credibility, which is gained or lost by whether one is posting information and making arguments that are credible.

How do you get non-randomness from randomness?

I am neither searching for "legitimacy" nor "credibility"! Just trying to understand and to me, at least, something appears off. But, maybe, it's just my imagination running wild.

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

How do you get non-randomness from randomness?

By including some kind of deterministic process, i.e. a filter.

What non-random result are you referring to?