S.J.Gould,Darwin,Jung ...and a common point

[Fausto Intil]

The theory of Stephen J.Gold of the pointed equilibrium, Darwin’s theory of the natural selection and finally Jung’s sincronicity, all have a sole common denominator: the extreme mathematical improbability of acasual events which characterize them.

Human intelligence does not completely follow the entropy principle, it actually constantly evolves towards a state of higher order; obviously I do not refer to the intelligence of each single human being and thus to the brief useful time span (which can be exploited with difficulty) as defined by his life, which has no way of increasing itself, but I refer to the intelligence of the entire human species.

At this point, it is absolutely necessary to remember that:

despite the probability of existence (or manifestation) of a higher order referring to a microscopic system (atomic-molecular) is extremely scarce, they will anyhow be much higher that the probability of existence (or manifestation) of a higher order referring to a macroscopic system.

In an isolated significant coincidence as well as in a qualitative leap at an evolutive level referring to mankind or to any other animal species, there is always therefore a trace of the shadow of a high improbability of manifestation of a higher order referring to a macroscopic system.

Because the probabilities of manifestation of a higher order referring to an atomic-molecular system, are higher in comparison to those of a higher order referring to a macroscopic system; it can be inferred that casual genetic mutation in an animal species must forcedly be more frequent than evolutive qualitative leaps as well as each significative coincidence (in this case intended as a significant event for the whole of mankind, such as a fall of a meteorite of immense dimensions on our planet).

If our neurons had not been able through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to reach a state of a higher order, we would very probably still find ourselves at the Stone Age; or maybe we would never have actually existed, because the impossibility, for an atomic-molecular system to reach a determined and rather elevated order state, would imply a “phase displacement” of some percentage upon the most common value of Nature constants (such as Plank’s for example) which, as well as not granting us our existence, would also not let the Universe, which to us is so familiar, to exist.

 

Fausto Intilla

(Inventor-scientific divulgator)

http://www.oloscience.com

[Aardvark]

Sorry to be rude, but my bullshit alarm is going ballastic.

 

 

The theory of Stephen J.Gold of the pointed equilibrium, Darwin’s theory of the natural selection and finally Jung’s sincronicity, all have a sole common denominator: the extreme mathematical improbability of acasual events which characterize them.

 

No they don't.

 

 

Human intelligence does not completely follow the entropy principle,

 

It doesn't follow the entropy principle at all. Evolution of human intelligence takes place in an open ended system, not a closed system. Therefore the entropy principle is inapplicable.

 

 

it actually constantly evolves towards a state of higher order;

 

Really?

 

Do you have any evidence of increasing human intelligence since the last ice age or since the original emergence of homo sapiens?

 

I doubt it.

 

At this point, it is absolutely necessary to remember that:

despite the probability of existence (or manifestation) of a higher order referring to a microscopic system (atomic-molecular) is extremely scarce, they will anyhow be much higher that the probability of existence (or manifestation) of a higher order referring to a macroscopic system.

 

You do understand the difference between biology and physics don't you? Life is not a random quantum event but a series of chemical reactions strongly directed by selective pressures.

 

 

In an isolated significant coincidence as well as in a qualitative leap at an evolutive level referring to mankind or to any other animal species, there is always therefore a trace of the shadow of a high improbability of manifestation of a higher order referring to a macroscopic system.

 

That sentence does not actually make any sense.

 

 

Because the probabilities of manifestation of a higher order referring to an atomic-molecular system, are higher in comparison to those of a higher order referring to a macroscopic system; it can be inferred that casual genetic mutation in an animal species must forcedly be more frequent than evolutive qualitative leaps as well as each significative coincidence

 

Does that mean that only a minority of mutations are benefical? If so, thanks, we already know.

 

(in this case intended as a significant event for the whole of mankind, such as a fall of a meteorite of immense dimensions on our planet).

 

Intended? By whom?

 

If our neurons had not been able through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to reach a state of a higher order, we would very probably still find ourselves at the Stone Age;

 

If we hadn't evolved we would not be where we are now.

 

I'm blinded by your insight.

 

or maybe we would never have actually existed, because the impossibility, for an atomic-molecular system to reach a determined and rather elevated order state, would imply a “phase displacement” of some percentage upon the most common value of Nature constants (such as Plank’s for example) which, as well as not granting us our existence, would also not let the Universe, which to us is so familiar, to exist.

 

If our neurons hadn't evolved the universe might not exist.

 

Pretentious and deliberately obfusticating, in the final analysis, meaningless.

 

Brevity rather than verbosity and pompous pontificating please.

[jeremyhfht]

In an isolated significant coincidence as well as in a qualitative leap at an evolutive level referring to mankind or to any other animal species, there is always therefore a trace of the shadow of a high improbability of manifestation of a higher order referring to a macroscopic system.

 

If I may translate: This is pure jargon. It isn't meant to be understood, it's just meant to make the reader seem intelligent. Then again, so does most of the post. I'm sorry to say, but jargon does not equal intelligence. Instead, ability to convey your ideas properly does.

 

In the future, kindly speak in easily understood terms (usage of a broad vocabulary is recommended, but not obscure words like the ones you kept choosing).

 

And as for the rest of the post, the prior poster pretty much hit most key points on the head.

[ParanoiA]

I think you all are just pissed because he's being poetic about logical science. This doesn't read all that different than some text books I've read. Sometimes I could read a paragraph 10 times before I realized it wasn't really saying that much.

 

or maybe we would never have actually existed' date=' because the impossibility, for an atomic-molecular system to reach a determined and rather elevated order state, would imply a “phase displacement” of some percentage upon the most common value of Nature constants (such as Plank’s for example) which, as well as not granting us our existence, would also not let the Universe, which to us is so familiar, to exist.[/quote']

 

Ok, so he's saying that for an atomic-molecular system to reach an elevated order state in the form that we know it, requires common values like Plank's constant. Otherwise, it would different by some percentage, which would also change the constants (like Plank's) in this system which could mean the non-existence of the universe, let alone us.

 

I don't agree, but that's what he's saying I think.

 

In an isolated significant coincidence as well as in a qualitative leap at an evolutive level referring to mankind or to any other animal species, there is always therefore a trace of the shadow of a high improbability of manifestation of a higher order referring to a macroscopic system.

 

Sounds to me like he's saying in any evolutionary leap or mutation, there's an inherent high improbability it will succeed. This makes the higher order kind of leap even more improbable.

 

At least, that's what I got out of it.

 

I didn't see any obscure words in his post. Broad vocabulary is a good thing and he's writing romantically about scientific concepts. Scientists hate that.

[insane_alien]

no, scientists just hate made up words. like evolutive. wtf does that mean? it isn't in any dictionary or scientific paper i've read. for all i know it could mean 'to have bananas shoot out your ears whilts you eat a bar of choclate'

 

there isn't much content to that post. just oodles of fluff.

[jeremyhfht]

He is NOT writing "romantically". He's combining words improperly, using poor sentence structure, and if that's poetry I'll stab my eyes out.

 

The entire point behind clear speech is so that you don't require a translator. I've read numerous scientific books and all of them speak clearly even WHEN using jargon, this guy takes the cake for the most BS and least content I have seen so far.

 

Also, as the above poster states, made-up words and phrases.

[Aardvark]

I didn't see any obscure words in his post.

 

And yet when you try to interpret his post you are reduced to positing what you think he might be trying to state.

 

His post may not have used any obscure words (evolutive?) but it certainly puts them together in an obscure fashion.

 

Nothing romantic, just an attempt to seem intelligent by writing nonsense (i use the word carefully) in an obscure and convoluted system.

[mimefan599]

What was he trying to say?

[the tree]

What was he trying to say?

Mostly that he is there, also that he knows the names of a few high profile scientists, that he has heard of entropy and that he knows how to spell acausual (I'm pretty sure that isn't right). All in all, nothing of importance.

[jeremyhfht]

I had considered a detailed analysis and rejection of Fausto's hypothesis, but it's summed up by saying: What an awful piece of writing. He's posted it on a few other threads I know of, too. Each one pretty much said the same things you all have.

[Aardvark]

I had considered a detailed analysis and rejection of Fausto's hypothesis, but it's summed up by saying: What an awful piece of writing. He's posted it on a few other threads I know of, too. Each one pretty much said the same things you all have.

 

I've just had a quick google and found several sites where he has also posted this gibberish. On each one he just posts and runs, nowhere does he make any attempt to reply or discuss.

 

As this is a discussion forum perhaps a moderater might decide that this thread be locked? I can't see any sign of 'Fausto Intilla' making any effort to actually discuss his 'ideas'.

[ParanoiA]

And yet when you try to interpret his post you are reduced to positing what you think he might be trying to state.

 

His post may not have used any obscure words (evolutive?) but it certainly puts them together in an obscure fashion.

 

Nothing romantic, just an attempt to seem intelligent by writing nonsense (i use the word carefully) in an obscure and convoluted system.

 

Well I just figured you guys would know what he's talking about since all of it is over my head. Apparently I took up for the wrong guy.

 

I'm just mindful of scientists and romance and their oil and water relationship. If a scientist has a big name, then he can be all fluffy or artsy with his writing on something, but if nobody knows who he is then scientists get all stuffy and pissy with them. Scientists like their world to be dark, exact, logical, unfeeling, unemotional - anything more than that gets them bent out of shape. At least that's been my experience.