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

[Acme]

Rather than dismissing the idea 'out of hand ' .

I'm not dismissing it out of hand; I'm dismissing it after weeks of thoughtful consideration of all that's been writ here.

 

I would like to deal with things one at a time. GRAVITY

 

Some billions of years ago the scattered remnants from a super nova explosion/s lay scattered, spread out, their host star long since extinct. The dust and gas could be said to be harbouring potential energy in its diffuse state. But this energy was near to inaccessible .UNLESS ...GRAVITY ... could do some form of generation.

UNLESS ...CHANCE put enough stuff in the right places at the right times so's gravity could make some form of generation appear. And before that, chance burped up a hair-ball we call the big bang, and after that chance spat us into the torrid mix. No plan, no clever, no generative this-or-that...

 

To suffuse a little humor, allow me to quote from the Deteriorata:

You are a fluke of the universe.

You have no right to be here.

Whether you can hear it or not,

The universe is laughing behind your back.

...

source: >> http://plodplod.blogspot.com/2006/07/deteriorata.html

[tar]

Acme,

 

Blind chance and foreknowledge are not the only two possibilities, there is a combination of the two, that seems to be important in everything.

 

I would like to engage a favorite saying of mine, at this point. You can roll the dice as many times as you want, and you will only get a number of dots between 2 and 12. You will never get a queen of hearts. For that, you need a deck of cards.

 

 

Regards, TAR

 

If you launched a projectile at a high enough velocity it would fall toward the Earth, keep missing it, till it completed its orbit and hit you in the back of the head. Pure chance, or foresight, or some combination of the the two?

[Acme]

Acme,

 

Blind chance and foreknowledge are not the only two possibilities, there is a combination of the two, that seems to be important in everything.

 

I would like to engage a favorite saying of mine, at this point. You can roll the dice as many times as you want, and you will only get a number of dots between 2 and 12. You will never get a queen of hearts. For that, you need a deck of cards.

 

Regards, TAR

 

If you launched a projectile at a high enough velocity it would fall toward the Earth, keep missing it, till it completed its orbit and hit you in the back of the head. Pure chance, or foresight, or some combination of the the two?

I seem to recall some physicist gave this line, but damned if I can find the reference. Anyway, paraphrasing; the big bang is just one of those things that happens from time to time. My point being that you being here to write about queens and backs of heads and me being here to read it is nothing more or less than a result of blind chance. There is nothing in all that went before that could predict our exchange and nothing in the exchange that can predict what will follow.

[tar]

Acme,

 

Nothing at all?

 

I don't think that makes any sense.

 

First of all, there is a posibility that time began, along with space, at the moment of the big bang. So happening from time to time is not necessarily something that this universe does. While happening the way it has happened IS exactly what this universe has done in the last 13.8 billion years.''

 

Now its just a by chance thing, because one thing leads to another, and makes another possible. You can only launch the projectile out, and have it come back around the Earth and hit you in the back of the head, because you have the projective, and the motive force, and an Earth to try and throw the thing off of, unsuccessfully.

 

And once you start talking about life, it is not random chance that paints a Robin's breast the same color as his father's. What happened before, in the case of Robins is likely to happen again, and more than likely if you are in New Jersey and not in a busy city, you are liable to see some robins on a lawn here and there this spring. Happens like clockwork. Not a random chance kind of thing. Not at all. Its happened every year since I was old enough to know what a robin was, and I am now 60.

 

And as for our exchange, that is neither random chance, and one can point to what came before and what might come after. People have written to each other in English before, and the words we use are not by chance but rather with intentional meanings.

 

If you would like to imagine a cosmos that spawns universes from time to time, that is your perogative. My take is that this is the first time, this particular universe has gotten to this particular point, where there is an Acme and a TAR talking about it thusly. But it is not as if no two people never had a similar exchange. Not because pure chance would dictate that random letters would form into sentences with meaning on a page, but because human beings have been expressing ideas about what they sense of the universe, to each other for scores of thousands of years.

 

That chance happening must have been involved in our biogenesis is rather likely, but there have been two or three generations of stars that have lived prior life on Earth, that cooked up the heavy elements like carbon, upon which life is based. Once you have the deck of cards to deal from, the queen of hearts is a possibility. Before that, random chance has no way at all, to ever come up with it. You need ink and paper and technologies and processes, all put together in an intentional way, to get a deck of cards. THEN you could pull her, by blind chance. Not before. Which means you can not pull a Queen of Hearts, by pure chance. There is no way that pure chance could have made a deck of 52 cards, with a queen in it, to pull.

 

I suppose to you, that queens of hearts are just something that happen randomly from time to time. Bolderdash, I say. Bolderdash.

 

As a universe, anything that we are capable of, as a species, the universe is capable of, by virtue of the fact that we are here, doing the stuff that we do, in the the ways that we do it. We fit the place, a it fits us. We can be no smarter than the universe that we model. We cannot be other than the thing that we are. If the universe is not capable of intent, then I could not intentionally put these sentences together. I just did, so you have to admit the universe, at least in the case of us, is capable of intentional behavior. And being that the universe is tremendously more capable than any single human, I would have to say that blind chance has very little to do with how the universe is currently configured.

 

If you walked in a straight line, and kept swimming and walking in that direction for many months, you would wind up coming down your street from the other direction than you started out, without ever turning around. You could not do this by accident. You can only do this, because the Earth is already a sphere.

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

Acme,

Nothing at all?

I don't think that makes any sense.

Correct; nothing at all. I know it doesn't make sense to you & that is why I keep giving examples on the chance one will click.

 

snip...

And once you start talking about life, it is not random chance that paints a Robin's breast the same color as his father's. What happened before, in the case of Robins is likely to happen again, and more than likely if you are in New Jersey and not in a busy city, you are liable to see some robins on a lawn here and there this spring. Happens like clockwork. Not a random chance kind of thing. Not at all. Its happened every year since I was old enough to know what a robin was, and I am now 60.

Incorrect. Genetic changes are the result of random mutations; that is blind chance. Since you have not observed all Robins at all times in all places your observations are merely anecdotal.

 

And as for our exchange, that is neither random chance, and one can point to what came before and what might come after. People have written to each other in English before, and the words we use are not by chance but rather with intentional meanings.

Incorrect again. That we were born at all is blind chance. That we were born in industrialized cultures, blind chance again. That I haven't dropped dead since I last posted, just another lucky stroke. (Or possibly an unlucky not-stroke from your perspective. )

 

If you would like to imagine a cosmos that spawns universes from time to time, that is your perogative. My take is that this is the first time, this particular universe has gotten to this particular point, where there is an Acme and a TAR talking about it thusly. But it is not as if no two people never had a similar exchange. Not because pure chance would dictate that random letters would form into sentences with meaning on a page, but because human beings have been expressing ideas about what they sense of the universe, to each other for scores of thousands of years.

Humans evolved by chance. Other human exchanges occurred by and of chance. While we do have choices they are utterly & completely under the rule of chance. The best laid plans of mice and people often go awry dontcha know.

 

That chance happening must have been involved in our biogenesis is rather likely, but

No ifs ands or buts about it.

 

snip...

 

I suppose to you, that queens of hearts are just something that happen randomly from time to time. Bolderdash, I say. Bolderdash.

I know you don't like it, but it's just the way it is. Nothing to get your loin clothe in a knot over.

 

 

snip...

 

Regards, TAR

None of your examples discount the role of chance, no matter how many you give or how often you give them.

Regards to you too, Acme

[tar]

Acme,

 

I know my opinion is just that, an opinion.

 

I know Mike Smith Cosmos and I have not "made our case".

 

But I do not think you are attempting to look at this from the "requirement" side of the coin.

 

Logically there must be a chain of mechanisms, of actual occurences that resulted in intentional beings, because there are such things as intentional beings, and no magic and no gods.

 

Random chance mutations of dna is only half of the equation. The other half is the environment that an organism winds up fitting. A Sulpher based life form on the bottom of the ocean and a carbon based organism in a fresh water lake have attributes that suit their particular environment. Random chance alone would say that an occasional oak leaf should have feathers and eat worms, and the same tree has a equal chance of surviving 4 miles under the ocean surface next to a volcanic vent.

 

Since the survivability of the Oak tree is dependent on its environment, and the survivability of the sulpher based lifeform next to the vent, is likewise dependent on its environment, random chance is not the only determiner. Location and enviroment and history, are very important. It does not sometimes, accidently rain cats and dogs, instead of raindrops.

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

Acme,

I know my opinion is just that, an opinion.

I know Mike Smith Cosmos and I have not "made our case".

Those are a fair statements not made without some humility and I appreciate them.

 

But I do not think you are attempting to look at this from the "requirement" side of the coin.

Logically there must be a chain of mechanisms, of actual occurences that resulted in intentional beings, because there are such things as intentional beings, and no magic and no gods.

A contraire. I understand both sides of the coin as well as the rilling. As an amateur mathematician/scientist I embrace and use chains of actual occurrences all the time; they are part & parcel of my investigations. Even so the initiators of those investigations are things I stumble onto. As to intentional beings, I can not suggest too often that you read Hofstadter. If for no other reason but to gain some insight into some of my arguments so you can try & fashion counters.

 

Random chance mutations of dna is only half of the equation. The other half is the environment that an organism winds up fitting.

It is the random mutations that allow organisms to adapt. The fitting organisms only fit because everything not-fitting has died.

 

Sulpher based life form on the bottom of the ocean and a carbon based organism in a fresh water lake have attributes that suit their particular environment. Random chance alone would say that an occasional oak leaf should have feathers and eat worms, and the same tree has a equal chance of surviving 4 miles under the ocean surface next to a volcanic vent.

No; that's not the way it works. Remember your chains. Sudden extreme changes as you suggest are disadvantages and won't survive. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that your extreme examples would actually occur, but I don't think they are realistic.)

 

Since the survivability of the Oak tree is dependent on its environment, and the survivability of the sulpher based lifeform next to the vent, is likewise dependent on its environment, random chance is not the only determiner. Location and enviroment and history, are very important. It does not sometimes, accidently rain cats and dogs, instead of raindrops.

 

Regards, TAR

Again this is a misrepresentation of adaptation. Extremophiles did not evolve in extreme environments, they moved into them because they could following some mutation(s) that occurred elsewhere. Dinosaurs were supremely adapted to their environment for millions of years until a chance asteroid rained down instead of raindrops.

 

As luck would have it it's time for me to prepare dinner, so I will have to put off further discussion for at least a few hours.

 

Adieu,

Acme

Edited April 10, 2014 by Acme

[tar]

Acme,

 

So still you think I hold beliefs counter to Hofstadler? From your description of Strange Loops, and my quick Wiki reads on him, I see no contradictions forming between my take and his. While you suggest there is something I will discover or be led to understand in reading Strange Loops, that will support your arguments, and defeat mine.

 

I was trying to engage the "loop" idea, with my hypothetical example of launching a projectile that way, that would, because you exist on the Earth, which is already a ball, with certain geometry and gravity, that would make it not only possible, but predictable, that the projectile would come around, and hit you in the back of the head.

 

The existance of the ball, already, with the geometry and the gravity, establishes a more than random chance situation. A situation that already has some unique characteristics about it. Some other than random, unpredictable components.

 

You and I both can count on the Earth continuing to turn to where day will turn to night and night will turn to day, as the position on the Earth where we stand is facing the Sun or not. There is some very much NOT random subtance to this particular situation we are in. That we should fit it, is a given. That we should fit it, because of random chance, is a silly thought.

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

Acme,

 

So still you think I hold beliefs counter to Hofstadler? From your description of Strange Loops, and my quick Wiki reads on him, I see no contradictions forming between my take and his. While you suggest there is something I will discover or be led to understand in reading Strange Loops, that will support your arguments, and defeat mine.

Heaven forbid anyone should lead you to discover something. Mia culpa.

 

I was trying to engage the "loop" idea, with my hypothetical example of launching a projectile that way, that would, because you exist on the Earth, which is already a ball, with certain geometry and gravity, that would make it not only possible, but predictable, that the projectile would come around, and hit you in the back of the head.

Your loop is not strange.

 

The existance of the ball, already, with the geometry and the gravity, establishes a more than random chance situation. A situation that already has some unique characteristics about it. Some other than random, unpredictable components.

 

You and I both can count on the Earth continuing to turn to where day will turn to night and night will turn to day, as the position on the Earth where we stand is facing the Sun or not. There is some very much NOT random subtance to this particular situation we are in. That we should fit it, is a given. That we should fit it, because of random chance, is a silly thought.

 

Regards, TAR

Again, I know you don't like the thought, but it is not silly; it's the way things are. Since whether we by chance survive another dawn, and since 'counting on' is an 'I" thing, then your situation is indeed not assured.

Sdrager, Acme

 

PS I had more that I expected to write with all that, but the grandkids unexpectedly wanted waffles for breakfast and now I have lost the thoughts. Que sera sera.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Acme

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

hi.

 

 

Does anybody know how I can get out of here?

 

 

By chance! I appear to have lost my way !

 

 

There appears to have been a chap called Hhofstade lived here !

 

 

He has long since left , but he did leave a clue !

 

 

Mike

Edited April 12, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike,

 

Strange looking island you've got there. Does not quite look like NJ.

 

As for finding your way out, I would try the method I used to find my way home one time I got lost in the woods when I wandered too far off the path, and could not find my way back to it. My strategy was, to go down hill. I figured I would eventually find a stream which I could follow, like a path, to a larger stream, then a river, and eventually civilization of some sort. Thought the only place in the country this would not work was death valley or some place out west that was below sea level. i did wind up finding a swamp, which I followed around, looking for its outlet and it turned out to be a swamp I was familiar with, so I was found.

 

(but I know you are not really lost, so you won't need to follow this brilliant strategy)

 

Acme,

 

So, launching something out in front of you, and having it disapear from view, and wind up hitting you in the back of the head is not "strange"?

How strange do you need to have a loop, to call it strange? I have not read the book but I did not like the title. If the loops are that strange, they are probably not real. If they are real, then they can't be that strange, because they would be perfectly normal and natural to be what they were.

 

So how strange do you figure a loop needs to be, to be a strange one?

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

...Acme,

 

So, launching something out in front of you, and having it disapear from view, and wind up hitting you in the back of the head is not "strange"?

How strange do you need to have a loop, to call it strange? I have not read the book but I did not like the title. If the loops are that strange, they are probably not real. If they are real, then they can't be that strange, because they would be perfectly normal and natural to be what they were.

 

So how strange do you figure a loop needs to be, to be a strange one?

 

Regards, TAR

You're just going to have to read the book for yourself.

[tar]

Acme,

 

Ok, I will have to read it for myself, to know what you are talking about, but for the purposes of the thread topic, if I were to stipulate that your understanding of Hofstadler would be similar to mine, were I to read him, do you think I would think there was evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, after I read Hofstadler and understood his arguments?

 

Regards, TAR

Acme,

 

I was thinking about your blind chance requirement, earlier today. The fact that there is even a term such as blind chance, implies that there is something that is not blind chance, that one could judge blind chance against. Something not blind, or purposeful. If it is a requirement, sans God, that all must proceed and exist and emerge by accident, with no intent or memory, but there is, within our view and consciousness, intent and memory, and purposeful things, then the universe must have accidently come up with structures and entities and emergent stuff, that is NOT accidental, with which and against which, we can judge accidental, blind chance occurences.

 

If you will, the universe accidentally chanced upon suns and planets and seas and mountains, crystals and snowflakes, light and energy, carbon atoms and carbon based life, birds and fish and mammals, humans and scientists, poets and kings. But now that these things have emerged, it is no accident that they should continue to exist. They rather continue to exist, quite purposefully. To be what they are, in direct opposition to accidently being something else.

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

Acme,

 

Ok, I will have to read it for myself, to know what you are talking about, but for the purposes of the thread topic, if I were to stipulate that your understanding of Hofstadler would be similar to mine, were I to read him, do you think I would think there was evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, after I read Hofstadler and understood his arguments?

 

Regards, TAR

I think you would not think there is cleverness. This because cleverness and the other terms substituted here for it are all human concepts and what makes humans human is their "I-ness". It is the strange-loopiness of "I-ness" that Hofstadter explores and delineates.

 

Acme,

 

I was thinking about your blind chance requirement, earlier today. The fact that there is even a term such as blind chance, implies that there is something that is not blind chance, that one could judge blind chance against. Something not blind, or purposeful. If it is a requirement, sans God, that all must proceed and exist and emerge by accident, with no intent or memory, but there is, within our view and consciousness, intent and memory, and purposeful things, then the universe must have accidently come up with structures and entities and emergent stuff, that is NOT accidental, with which and against which, we can judge accidental, blind chance occurences.

I should not have added "blind" to chance; it is redundant.

 

If you will, the universe accidentally chanced upon suns and planets and seas and mountains, crystals and snowflakes, light and energy, carbon atoms and carbon based life, birds and fish and mammals, humans and scientists, poets and kings. But now that these things have emerged, it is no accident that they should continue to exist. They rather continue to exist, quite purposefully. To be what they are, in direct opposition to accidently being something else.

 

Regards, TAR

I think it is just as by chance that things cease to exist as come to exist. In our day-to-day lives we simply ignore the role of chance in things not going as we expect, because otherwise we would be so fixated on doom we would not get anything done. In fact we see such fixations among people manifest in such maladies as hypochondria, depression, and other such psychological disorders that interfere in day-to-day existence.

[tar]

Acme,

 

Well, I have been musing on the topic of I-ness for most of my life. I have made some of my own determinations as to what must be the case. Thing is, one of the most obvious things to me, is that whatever a single one of us is capable of, the universe has to be capable of, because a single one of us is in and of the universe. If a single one of us is clever and there is no magic and no god, then the universe is a clever arrangement, able to spawn, at the very least life as it exists on Earth, and has existed for many eons.

 

I do not see any need or purpose or value or reason to discount the capability of the universe, as if it is subordinate to us, sub human, not as good as us, when it is so obvious in terms of complexity and size, and duration, that the universe is way way way our superior in every single way you can think of or imagine.

 

That the I-ness is a result of a particular focus, a particular place and time that a human mind exists, at this one point, this one position that our body/brain/heart groups takes up, is evident. Our senses and our memories, and our motor skills allow us to learn about the Earth and its environs, and move about and manipulate the place to our advantage. We don't do these things accidently and randomly, we do them quite intentionally, and we see others around us of similar constructions, doing similar things as us,. for similar reasons. There is some chance involved, but its mostly conscious, willfull behavior. I know for instance in the case of TAR, he has been excercising willful behaviour, and moving purposefully around the place for the last 60 years.

 

If that I-ness that I know, and that I know others know, and you know, and am rather certain others before us have known, seems "strange" to you, I am rather surprised. It is the ONLY way a human can sense the place, and know that the universe exists, and he/she is in and of the place. From this perspective, this point of view, this position, this observation point that is a human I.

 

To suggest that reality does not have everything to do reality is rather goofy. Therefore, if you are going to say anything in human language about the universe, it is going to be from a human perspective. There is no human I know, or ever knew about, or can imagine, that could observe the world in some different fashion, from some different perspective, than a human one. If they could observe the place from a different perspective than a human one, they would not be human. I-ness is a requirement to know the rest of the universe. Not loopily strange at all. Plain as day. Everybody knows I-ness. Everybody knows the universe, from here and now.

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

Acme,

 

Well, I have been musing on the topic of I-ness for most of my life. I have made some of my own determinations as to what must be the case. snip...

Regards, TAR

Yes well, it's obvious you have your own ideas. You might consider those ideas are mistaken if not incomplete. Consider that all you have written about how the Universe is this way or that way is knowledge you have acquired from the experiments/enquiries of others, i.e. you didn't yourself discover the nature of crystals or the heart or any of such references you rely on. Just read the book before you criticize it based only on what you think Hofstadter knows.

[tar]

Acme,

 

I often consider my ideas mistaken, but what is correct on one level can be questionable on another, and vice-a-versa.

 

You talk about strange loops, and Escher, and paradoxes as if I have not considered them. I am 60 years old, of above average intelligence, have engaged in classes and conversations with very well educated and incredibily intelligent folk, and read a few books, here and there.

 

I stepped outside a few moments ago to see if I could catch the eclipse of the moon. Don't know if I was early or late, or even if the missing portion was due to cloud or Earth, but my thought was, that millions of others could potentially experience the same event. It was really happening, and the happening tied me to it and anybody else witnessing it to it, and thus tied everybody witnessing it together. Like I could look at rendering of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation and you could look at it, and we both would be experiencing the same thing, and be tied to the same reality.

 

What ever you might consider I-ness is unseperable from the universe we share. Part of our "thinking" happens outside our brains. Our brains are formed of the world, and reacting to the world, with every sensed frequency and pattern and form.

 

Sure, one will always find themselves back where they started. Self reference is the only reference a self has. It is only as strange as you wish to consider it to be.

 

Is my thinking incorrect and incomplete? Has to be. Is my experience of the world actual and wonderful. Has to be.

 

Is cleverness evident in nature and its processes? What other choice is there? How could it be otherwise?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited April 15, 2014 by tar

[Acme]

Acme,

I often consider my ideas mistaken, but what is correct on one level can be questionable on another, and vice-a-versa.

 

You talk about strange loops, and Escher, and paradoxes as if I have not considered them. I am 60 years old, of above average intelligence, have engaged in classes and conversations with very well educated and incredibily intelligent folk, and read a few books, here and there.

Hofstadter's 'Strange Loops' are not simply loops that are strange. You will understand that (I hope) when you read the book. If I thought your considerations were consistent with Doug's I wouldn't keep harping on the subject and simply say 'that's what Hofstadter thinks.'

 

I stepped outside a few moments ago to see if I could catch the eclipse of the moon. Don't know if I was early or late, or even if the missing portion was due to cloud or Earth, but my thought was, that millions of others could potentially experience the same event. It was really happening, and the happening tied me to it and anybody else witnessing it to it, and thus tied everybody witnessing it together. Like I could look at rendering of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation and you could look at it, and we both would be experiencing the same thing, and be tied to the same reality.

I spent more than an hour watching and photographing the eclipse after 4 days of planning for it. Despite a few unlucky chance events such as clouds and a stuck shutter, I grokked the togetherness.

 

What ever you might consider I-ness is unseperable from the universe we share. Part of our "thinking" happens outside our brains. Our brains are formed of the world, and reacting to the world, with every sensed frequency and pattern and form.

That's certainly a descriptive passage, but hardly explanatory.

 

Sure, one will always find themselves back where they started. Self reference is the only reference a self has. It is only as strange as you wish to consider it to be.

Again; descriptive but not explanatory.

 

Is my thinking incorrect and incomplete? Has to be. Is my experience of the world actual and wonderful. Has to be.

Yes to the first part, no to the second. For example, for many schizophrenics their experience of the world is neither actual nor wonderful.

 

Is cleverness evident in nature and its processes? What other choice is there? How could it be otherwise?

 

Regards, TAR

No; cleverness is not evident. At least not universally any more than your actual and wonderful world is universally evident. As I have said numerous times, 'it' is [could be] by chance. Chance is not an anathema to wonder.

[tar]

Acme,

 

I suppose that is important to note. that chance is not an anathema to wonder.

 

I think I tend to be a little defensive on this board, as thoughts of God are an anathema to a well bred scientist, and being "friendly" with the universe is sometimes conflated with "religious" type thoughts. I have in general the feeling that I am on the same side as the universe. I suppose its possible for someone to feel they are on the other side, but what sense does that make? How can you be "other than" the universe. Not that I don't have enemies, and fears, and things I dislike...but I do, on the whole, feel pretty good about the place, and don't like people degrading it down to some random nothing of thing, when it is the exact opposite.

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

Acme,

 

I suppose that is important to note. that chance is not an anathema to wonder.

It certainly is to me.

 

I think I tend to be a little defensive on this board, as thoughts of God are an anathema to a well bred scientist, and being "friendly" with the universe is sometimes conflated with "religious" type thoughts. I have in general the feeling that I am on the same side as the universe. I suppose its possible for someone to feel they are on the other side, but what sense does that make? How can you be "other than" the universe. Not that I don't have enemies, and fears, and things I dislike...but I do, on the whole, feel pretty good about the place, and don't like people degrading it down to some random nothing of thing, when it is the exact opposite.

 

Regards, TAR

As already noted and approved above, my reducing the Universe to randomness is no degradation. All the more amazing what we witness when realizing it is born of chance.

I think it was this thread that I earlier quoted from the Deteriorata, and now paraphrasing, that whether you know it or not, you are a fluke of the Universe and it is laughing behind your back. The Deteriorata of course is a lampoon of the Desiderata and knowing what the Desiderata says is paramount in understanding the humor in the lampooning.

 

...You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. ...

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderata

 

As they say in show business, leave them laughing.

 

...Be assured that a walk through the seas of most souls would scarcely get your feet wet. Fall not in love, therefore, it will stick to your face. ...

source: http://www.joke-archives.com/poetry/deteriorata.html

[tar]

Acme,

 

OK, so sort of a cosmic banter.

 

I am a lousy banterer.

 

If you think the universe is clever, call it clever.

 

If you think it is a fool, call it a fool.

 

But don't pretend you have it right and Mike and I have it wrong.

 

That is unbecoming of a fellow piece of the universe. If we have become clever by accident, so be it. It is still cleverness that the universe shows. That some cosmic constant "could have been" this or that by chance, and its just by chance that it is what it is, is silly talk. If it could have been some other number, it would be, and its not. So where is the chance in that? This is the universe we have, and we have no other options. Having just one option, leaves absolutely nothing to chance.

 

Either there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes or there is not.

 

I say there is. Its obvious that there is. And its silly talk to say there is not. As if you know what cleverness is, and it is certainly not this universe that shows any sign of it. Really?

 

Cleverness is as clever does and this universe goes by some very specific constant rules, has been doing clever stuff for 13.8 billion years, and has spawned galaxies, planets and Suns, and a wide assortment of clever arrangements of matter and energy, including snowflakes, mitochondria, beehives and battleships.

 

Regards, TAR

Don't know what this has to do with, but consider this. In 600 billion years, nobody will remember or care what happened here today. Probably in 200 years or 100 nobody will remember or care. But for now, and here, there is more than one entity that cares, and that is what matters, and its THAT that proves that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes. Because there is some here and there is some now, and it had to have come about naturally, because anything not natural would be supernatural or impossible, or magic, or require a non-existant god, or an imaginary force or entity.

[Acme]

Acme,

OK, so sort of a cosmic banter.

I am a lousy banterer.

If you think the universe is clever, call it clever.

If you think it is a fool, call it a fool.

But don't pretend you have it right and Mike and I have it wrong.

I'm not pretending; you & Mike have it wrong.

 

...

Either there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes or there is not.

There is not.

 

I say there is.

As you have already conceded, you have not made your case.

 

Its obvious that there is.

No it is not obvious.

 

And its silly talk to say there is not.

No, it is not silly.

 

As if you know what cleverness is, and it is certainly not this universe that shows any sign of it. Really?

Cleverness is well defined & I much earlier gave evidence of it. It's called a dictionary. Yes Really.

 

Cleverness is as clever does and this universe goes by some very specific constant rules, has been doing clever stuff for 13.8 billion years, and has spawned galaxies, planets and Suns, and a wide assortment of clever arrangements of matter and energy, including snowflakes, mitochondria, beehives and battleships.

 

Regards, TAR

Repeating your assertion over and over ad nauseum does not make it so. Again, you have failed to make your case with these examples.

 

Don't know what this has to do with, but consider this. In 600 billion years, nobody will remember or care what happened here today. Probably in 200 years or 100 nobody will remember or care. But for now, and here, there is more than one entity that cares, and that is what matters, and its THAT that proves that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes. Because there is some here and there is some now, and it had to have come about naturally, because anything not natural would be supernatural or impossible, or magic, or require a non-existant god, or an imaginary force or entity.

You are correct; it has nothing to do with it.

[tar]

Acme,

 

OK, well let's then take a different tack.

 

Consider memory. If something has memory, if it retains a form or pattern or frequency, if it "copies" something else, is this "clever" or not? Is this accidental or not?

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

Acme,

 

OK, well let's then take a different tack.

 

Consider memory. If something has memory, if it retains a form or pattern or frequency, if it "copies" something else, is this "clever" or not? Is this accidental or not?

 

Regards, TAR

Memory is a mental faculty and the term does not properly apply to non-mental phenomena. Applying the term to non-mental phenomena such as materials or computers is a bastardization just as with entropy being used to refer to order.

 

Patterns in nature are not clever. The impression that they are clever is an epiphenomenon arising from your remembered collection of human behavior attributed with cleverness. And yes, your collection is accidental.

[tar]

Acme,

 

Mental is a natural thing.

 

Considering places where nature has a memory, is not basterizing the term. It is looking for those things about nature, that wound up with us mental creatures emerging from it. As in whatever a crystal is doing when it grows has something to do with how a mitochondria can replicate itself.

 

If a sound, a frequency fed through a horn to a needle placed on a revolving disc of vinyl is imprinted on the vinyl, the vinyl is holding a memory of the sound. An analog representation of the vibrations of the air that were cause by the rubbing together of grasshopper legs or human vocal chords, or the vibration of piano wire, that caused the sound.

 

If you, in your mind are holding an analog memory of a vibration, if you "remember" how something sounded, or looked, or felt, if you have "symbolized" the thing, and have one thing standing for another, how is this something that you are doing in some unbasterised, unnatural way, that saying the vinyl record having memory, would be a bastardisation of.

 

Since when is "mental" to be held different and distinct, as a different and superior, magical and unnatural condition, that humans have accidently aquired that no other place or peice of the universe is allowed to exhibit even a glimmer of?

 

The whole challege put to Mike, and taken up as well by me and a few others, is to come up with a measure for the thing or things that pull the universe together and like gravity, and life, and a non closed system, do not adhere exactly to the equations of entropy, that are something more than just accidents but are emergent entities with some presence and with some characteristics that belong to them specially and set up possibilities that at least can be considered regular and intentional, and about, one can wonder, and consider with a little awe and to which one can assign a little credit for uniqueness and capability and special characteristics that are all the entitie's own. As if not accidental, but intentionally and purposefully arranged. To fit, to survive or what ever the purpose. If some microbe, freezedried for 10 years finds itself with the right amount of moisture and warmth, the thing comes to life. Accidental? No, I think it was the intention of that microbe to do just that.

 

 

Mike and I may not have made our case. Mike may not have come up with the measure we can use yet. But that does not mean you have made your case. Your case is actually already contradicted by there actually being cleverness in the universe. You could not possibly prove there is no cleverness in the universe, naturally occurring, without using a clever argument, in which case you you then have made Mike and my case, by exhibiting such naturally come upon cleverness.

 

Regards, TAR