Is there evidence of " Cleverness " in Nature and it's processes ?

[Phi for All]

 

But this is no longer Natural section [ either way ]. As with changes in human society. human life and its environment has a very high proportion of self determination, not natural selection as its major influence..

 

mke

 

I'm not a fan of putting humans outside of nature. Why is it when we use our intelligence, something that was naturally selected just like wings or claws or fins, some people consider this "artificial"?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I'm not a fan of putting humans outside of nature. Why is it when we use our intelligence, something that was naturally selected just like wings or claws or fins, some people consider this "artificial"?

 

Yes , well I can understand your argument . But there are nonetheless spurious reasons, and influences which could mislead a separate argument to do with looking for ' cleverness '

 

For example the sheep issue I mentioned.

I think if you tracked it down, it is probably for a mixture of pressures. Like , in England with our small land area, farmers are living near their home barns, the weather is particularly wet in spring, sheep have a habit of giving birth in ditches in the wet . The farmer sees the lambs dying . Each one represents £50 each. If I take the mothers into a warm barn in straw to lamb the lambs. The tradition has built up in the u.k. This is what uk. farmers do or we go bust. Result is breeding mother sheep that rely on human support during birth. Newzeland went a different route . Too far away from home barns , no option . Too many sheep to tend, survival of hardy lambing stock.

For the argument of looking for clever system I think this will muddy the water unnecessarily .

 

Mike

Edited February 26, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

I deliberately have not mentioned , that I am saying , a God, A creator omnipotent being . is responsible .

...

For the argument of looking for clever system I think this will muddy the water unnecessarily .

 

Mike

I take it you mean 'clever' as in the following:

 

1. Mentally quick and original; bright.

source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clever

 

Aren't you just putting a wolf in sheep's clothing? The wolf of course is creationism, and rather than the black wool of intelligent design you have put white wool on clever.

 

Keep in mind that depending on where one is from, clever is not as clever may seem.

 

5. New England Affable but not especially smart.

Quickly, bring me a beaker of wine, so that I may wet my mind and say something clever. ~ Aristophanes

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I am not sure why everybody gets so steamed up !

 

It's obviously a sensitive subject all round. It makes me wonder what everybody is so frightened about ?

 

My take on all this , is as I have said ! I have had a lifetime to observe. And something out there looks pretty d.. clever to me. And I am quite happy to describe why the engineer/physicist in me thinks it looks so clever.

 

If you come to a similar conclusion about cleverness as me , as I see it , we need to decide from the options I suggested ( there may be many more )

 

Namely : -

 

Quote

mike smith post at the beginning page 1

 

"some form of cleverness, in fact I would think a great deal of clever systems that must have been active "

 

is up for grabs.

 

[] Some form of Master race already existing ( something like ) 10, Trillion in Number , beavering away with mechanism which would make our scientific minds burn

 

[] Some form of Thing that self generated from out of Chaos, in logic, number, math.probability, selective feedback system , super human like being/s

 

[] To an omniscient ... , that you have spoken about. (Aahh !!!! ///////////. ......... )

 

[] NO one lays claim for nature. Natural selection appeared one day out of nowhere with all it's extraordinary clever capabilities for generating a universe ,out of nothing.

 

[] Any and many more is up for grabs.. (But Nothing ...then the whole shebang ..to me is not common sense )

 

 

[] Or you just go on like me looking, thinking, and maybe concluding.

 

Mike

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

I am not sure why everybody gets so steamed up !

 

It's obviously a sensitive subject all round. It makes me wonder what everybody is so frightened about ?

...

I can only speak for myself. First, I'm not frightened; I'm angry. Here in the US we have folks trying to pass this creationism/intelligent-design/cleverness malarkey off as science and then trying to make it part of the science curriculum in public schools. This at a time when the US is apparently falling behind many other countries in the math and science scores as it is. Whatever name you hide 'it' behind, it's philosophy at best and religious fanaticism at worst. But friend, it is most assuredly not science.

 

That you claim to be oblivious to all this I find hard to swallow given your opening. You apparently got grief for 'it' in other threads and what do you do but start up yet another. Seems to me you are purposefully provoking people. If you think it's fear you're provoking then more's the shame on you than if you just mean to anger people or rattle their cages. Whether you understand why folks are getting steamed up or not strikes me as irrelevant in the face of you knowing that fact and yet persisting.

 

So; what part of that -if any- do you not understand?

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I can only speak for myself.

 

So; what part of that -if any- do you not understand?

 

 

. . I have not been to USA . Here in the u.k. You will be lucky to find anybody to talk about, or discuss such matters. British too embarrassed .

 

Malcolm Muggeridge used to ( he is dead I think) , , the chap who does " In our time " , Melvin Bragg does, everybody else seems to be talking about politics . And corruption.

 

Sounds like you have a verbal war going on ! ( between atheists and God fearing people ) who's winning ?

 

I just rather like the idea of philosophers like Socrates , Plato , Aristotle and a few others ( as Michel 12345 says , not on the acropolis but in a venue in Athens ,the name escapes me. ) Theses and antithesis stretching their minds , as to the nature of the cosmos , arguing without having a heart attack ! That's all . I think it is the most important , rewarding thing a human being could do . What is wrong with that.

 

Mike

. . I have not been to USA . .

Mike

Alister Cook in letter from America once said " I found myself sitting next to the Delhi. Lama on a flight to America and I was not sure wether to say Its a lovely day out there or what ? " His conversation was quite interesting.

This sums my attitude up ? If I found myself sitting next to the Dali lLama , I would go strait to it " tell me what is it like to be re-incarnated ? " not pussy footing around saying what a nice day it is.

 

That sums up my approach on the science forum and anywhere else I ever find myself. I do not like trivial small talk , never have , bores me to tears . Occasionally do it ,because my wife tells me at a party " you are NOT to talk about the cosmos " ask them about their babies , house garden , holiday BUT NOT THE COSMOS . But here on the science forum , I go strait to the core questions. When people, if they do, give me flack ! I just quietly pick myself up , and try again . As far as I am concerned , the things I bring up are the most important issues there are ! That is of course ,unless I am relaxing , then it's my painting , my dog , my wife ( not in order of priority ) , my daughters , my friends, reading , countryside , swimming , sun , glass of wine , over to Italy . Etc

 

Mike

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Unity+]

I don't think it would be a measure of "cleverness" but rather a measure of how long it takes for nature to obtain a both efficient and stable mechanism. Wouldn't it be better to not use cleverness and instead use some other word to describe it? Cleverness is being able to understand something quickly and be able to apply such an idea.

 

We could mathematically represent this in nature, but it wouldn't be cleverness.

 

For simplicity:

 

[math]C=\frac{T}{I\times M}[/math]

 

Where T is the quantity stable form of a particular mechanism in an internal system and I is the amount of times it took to reach such a stable mechanism and M is the total amount of mecanisms that were gone through to get to the stable mechanism.

 

However, I think another problem with such a measurement is deciding what is clever and what is not. The human mind is not always the best decider in this particular situation.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Unity+

[Acme]

. . I have not been to USA . Here in the u.k. You will be lucky to find anybody to talk about, or discuss such matters. Malcolm Muggeridge used to , , the chap who does " In our time " does , Melvin Bragg does, everybody else seems to be talking about politics .

Yes I know such matters aren't contentious in the UK, and I've never been there. Wonder of wonders I do a bit of reading from time to time.

 

Sounds like you have a verbal war going on ! ( between atheists and God fearing people ) who's winning ?

By & large science & reason have won out when the issue has come to legislation or gone to court. In the broader social arena it varies widely by demographic considerations such as region, age, and education. A bit of reading on your part would do wonders in expanding your contemporary cosmopolitanism.

 

I just rather like the idea of philosophers like Socrates , Plato , Aristotle and a few others ( as Michel 12345 says , not on the acropolis but in a venue in Athens ,the name escapes me. ) Theses and antithesis stretching their minds , as to the nature of the cosmos , arguing without having a heart attack ! That's all . I think it is the most important , rewarding thing a human being could do . What is wrong with that.

 

Mike

You seem to imply that scientists & science enthusiasts are narrow minded and/or that they never consider the wonder of nature and other such philosophical musings. That is erroneous. What is wrong with what you are doing here is that after seeing that your writing has created discord & vexation, you carry on anyway. It strikes me as rather mean-spirited. By all means correct me or justify the behavior as is fitting.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't think it would be a measure of "cleverness" but rather a measure of how long it takes for nature to obtain a both efficient and stable mechanism. Wouldn't it be better to not use cleverness and instead use some other word to describe it? Cleverness is being able to understand something quickly and be able to apply such an idea.

 

We could mathematically represent this in nature, but it wouldn't be cleverness.

 

For simplicity:

 

[math]C=\frac{T}{I\times M}[/math]

 

Where T is the quantity stable form of a particular mechanism in an internal system and I is the amount of times it took to reach such a stable mechanism and M is the total amount of mecanisms that were gone through to get to the stable mechanism.

 

However, I think another problem with such a measurement is deciding what is clever and what is not. The human mind is not always the best decider in this particular situation.

Hi unity +

I have been noticing you support various threads like arc. and others , you have my admiration, for what that is worth. Probably at a bit of a low(measurable quantity ) at the moment.

 

I presume you are trying to put a formula to cleverness =

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

...

However, I think another problem with such a measurement is deciding what is clever and what is not. The human mind is not always the best decider in this particular situation.

And what other decider have you in mind?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

?..What is wrong with what you are doing here is that after seeing that your writing has created discord & vexation, you carry on anyway. It strikes me as rather mean-spirited. By all means correct me or justify the behavior as is fitting.

WHAT IS ALL THIS VEXATION ! I am the one who is getting the questioning! I thought this is all part of debate ! Seems healthy enough to me !

 

Mike

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

WHAT IS ALL THIS VEXATION ! I am the one who is getting the questioning! I thought this is all part of debate ! Seems healthy enough to me !

 

Mike

Therin lies the rub. If you ignore your wife's better judgment then what chance have we? I assure you that intentionally pissing people off is not healthy behavior. If you doubt me you can always check with a professional in the mental health field.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Therin lies the rub. If you ignore your wife's better judgment then what chance have we? I assure you that intentionally pissing people off is not healthy behavior. If you doubt me you can always check with a professional in the mental health field.

Pardon me WHO am I supposed to be , to quote " pissing people off " unquote ? You have got to be kidding me ! Now I know YOU are trying to wind me up ! Come on , this is a joke ! You are kidding ? " Well I go to the foot of our stairs " that has quite taken my breath away. Bunters ! That is not a swear word ! Just exasperation sound !

 

Mike

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

Pardon me who am I ,to quote " pissing people off " unquote ? You have got to be kidding me ! Now I know YOU are trying to wind me up !

 

Mike

Whatever that wording is, it isn't a sentence in English, Queens or otherwise. You said:

I am not sure why everybody gets so steamed up !

Steamed up=pissed off. Since you said "everybody" then it's not just me you think you have bothered. I'll let the other respondents give their own assessments.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Whatever that wording is, it isn't a sentence in English, Queens or otherwise. You said:Steamed up=pissed off. Since you said "everybody" then it's not just me you think you have bothered. I'll let the other respondents give their own assessments.

 

My main thrust of that remark , was I am getting the distinct feeling that over the pond in USA you all seemed to be getting steamed up about the issue we were discussing. That certainly seems to spill over into the forum. When I meet with colleagues over here in a cafe in uk. We have pleasant talks about geology, centrifugal forces , theories of particles , and the like .

 

Mike

[Unity+]

And what other decider have you in mind?

It was simply my input on personal incredulity. As we know of, this Universe displays one form of an efficient and stable mechanism of creation and destruction. We do not know of any other and therefore we have no relative "view point" to see cleverness for cleverness is a measure relative to another, if you get what I am saying.

Hi unity +

I have been noticing you support various threads like arc. and others , you have my admiration, for what that is worth. Probably at a bit of a low(measurable quantity ) at the moment.

 

I presume you are trying to put a formula to cleverness =

Yes, that is a conceptual formula for "cleverness."

 

The basic idea is you have a limit based on what is the most efficient and stable mechanism that could be produced using equations that nature has evolved.

 

[math]\lim_{n\to\alpha }O=M[/math]

 

Where O is the "equation" of what nature is using to approach [math]\alpha[/math] to achieve the mechanism M. However, the conceptual equation shows not the "cleverness" value, but simply what the equation approaches.

 

In order to measure such "cleverness", though correct me, would be to find a more or less efficient equation to approach M in a shorter amount of time because it must be relative to another equation to determine "cleverness".

 

[math]\lim_{n\to\alpha }O_{a}=M[/math]

 

[math]\lim_{n\to\alpha }O_{b}=M[/math]

 

This concept is similar to finding faster ways to calculate pi using different summations and such.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Unity+

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

It was simply my input on personal incredulity. As we know of, this Universe displays one form of an efficient and stable mechanism of creation and destruction. We do not know of any other and therefore we have no relative "view point" to see cleverness for cleverness is a measure relative to another, if you get what I am saying.

Yes, that is a conceptual formula for "cleverness."

I will have to have a sleep on that and give it some thought ( currently 2:12 am here , need sleep ! ) hold the fort !

 

Mike

[Acme]

My main thrust of that remark , was I am getting the distinct feeling that over the pond in USA you all seemed to be getting steamed up about the issue we were discussing. That certainly seems to spill over into the forum. When I meet with colleagues over here in a cafe in uk. We have pleasant talks about geology, centrifugal forces , theories of particles , and the like .

 

Mike

Well this isn't a café in the UK and since you know -"getting a distinct feeling" as you say- that you're steaming folks up, then continuing to add fuel to the fire is simply rude.

[Unity+]

Well this isn't a café in the UK and since you know -"getting a distinct feeling" as you say- that you're steaming folks up, then continuing to add fuel to the fire is simply rude.

We could end the whole misunderstanding and get back to the topic. I think the topic needs consideration because calculating efficiency of a particular mechanism of the Universe is a very important one.

[Acme]

 

...

However, I think another problem with such a measurement is deciding what is clever and what is not. The human mind is not always the best decider in this particular situation.

And what other decider have you in mind?

It was simply my input on personal incredulity. As we know of, this Universe displays one form of an efficient and stable mechanism of creation and destruction. We do not know of any other and therefore we have no relative "view point" to see cleverness for cleverness is a measure relative to another, if you get what I am saying.

 

Personal incredulity concerning what? You now say we know of no other viewpoint, but when you said we're not the best decider you imply you know of other deciders which would be other viewpoints. If we're just going to make any wild speculation that passes for thinking, then I propose we let strawberries decide what is or is not clever. Certainly you can't rule them out by your reasoning, so I must be right.

We could end the whole misunderstanding and get back to the topic. I think the topic needs consideration because calculating efficiency of a particular mechanism of the Universe is a very important one.

I understand perfectly well that this is all just so much word-salad. As to calculating what you propose, you don't actually have the necessary data/other viewpoint to do that. By the same token you can't even show validity of your equation/expression.

[Unity+]

Personal incredulity concerning what? You now say we know of no other viewpoint, but when you said we're not the best decider you imply you know of other deciders which would be other viewpoints. If we're just going to make any wild speculation that passes for thinking, then I propose we let strawberries decide what is or is not clever. Certainly you can't rule them out by your reasoning, so I must be right.

You are avoiding the whole point of what I said. What I was saying was that though we don't know of any other form or mechanism by which the Universe could be run, there could still be more mechanisms that potentially exist from which the Universe is run(or creates and destroys).

 

 

 

so I must be right.

I don't know what you are trying to do, but okay then.

 

EDIT: Had to fix some grammatical issues.

 

EDIT2: I don't want to assume anything, but was there any anger in that post? If anger in the topic is causing it to be pushed on me, I don't really want to get in the discussion.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Unity+

[tar]

Mike,

 

Regardless of the fact that I hate having the stupidity of creationists affect the schooling of my children, the universe still presents itself to me as extremely capable and clever. I am smart enough to know that 6000 years is not enough time for the Grand Canyon to have been carved by the Colorado, so know for certain that the creationist's story is impossible, foolish and absolutely wrong.

 

I am also smart enough to rule out a number of your options, such as the super intelligent capable race, who could not have possibly created themselves, and would require an even more clever super duper master of masters civilization to think THEM up.

 

No, the only "real" option is that we got clever right along with everything else that got clever. And that EVERYTHING is natural and connected, fits together exacty, and any wonderfulness or cleverness that exists certainly can exist without any one of us in particular, and we can certainly not exist without being wonderful and clever ourselves. Whatever the universe is doing, we are included, and it has not yet done what it is going to do next.

 

I am also smart enough to discount the possibility that I could possbibly be more clever than the clever thing that contains me.

 

My tag line might as well be that no single instance of cleverness is any more clever than all the cleverness that there is, put together.

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

You are avoiding the whole point of what I said. What I was saying was that though we don't know of any other form or mechanism by which the Universe could be run, there could still be more mechanisms that potentially exist from which the Universe is run(or creates and destroys).

 

I don't know what you are trying to do, but okay then.

 

EDIT: Had to fix some grammatical issues.

Roger grammatical issues.

 

I took careful pains to specifically address exactly what you said and show that it was contradictory. Then I was trying to show that your arguments make as much sense as consulting a strawberry. You are basically arguing that in the absence of knowledge, making up any old thing in its place is fine. Fine as in just as logical and reasonable as having knowledge and making real calculations.

 

I would label your effort as mental masturbation, but even that has some promise of a denouement. I suppose I will just give you credit for getting nowhere the long way.

 

Edit: No anger for you Unity unless you earn it.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Acme

[Unity+]

Roger grammatical issues.

 

I took careful pains to specifically address exactly what you said and show that it was contradictory. Then I was trying to show that your arguments make as much sense as consulting a strawberry. You are basically arguing that in the absence of knowledge, making up any old thing in its place is fine. Fine as in just as logical and reasonable as having knowledge and making real calculations.

 

I would label your effort as mental masturbation, but even that has some promise of a denouement. I suppose I will just give you credit for getting nowhere the long way.

 

Edit: No anger for you Unity unless you earn it.

It wasn't what I intended to argue, but to end an unnecessary argument I'll just leave it at that.

 

 

 

I would label your effort as mental masturbation, but even that has some promise of a denouement. I suppose I will just give you credit for getting nowhere the long way.

 

Now it seems like you are trying to be rude.

[Acme]

It wasn't what I intended to argue, but to end an unnecessary argument I'll just leave it at that.

Sounds fair enough.

 

 

Now it seems like you are trying to be rude.

I was trying to be clever.