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

[Acme]

Acme,

 

...

 

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

Blah blah blah yada yada yada. You guys offer nothing but a bunch of handwaving and unsupported unscientific suppositions. Good luck with that.

[tar]

Hum, I was hoping to accidently say something correct in nature, just by randomly waving my hands and making sounds.

 

Here you are expecting some cleverness? Good luck with that. Intentionality is impossible according to you.

[physica]

 

 

Blah blah blah yada yada yada. You guys offer nothing but a bunch of handwaving and unsupported unscientific suppositions. Good luck with that.

completely agree.

 

 

 

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.

He's not defending the theory therefore he doesn't have to make a case until yours is put forwards hahaha. Make a structured case as opposed to just waffle. If you do not make a concrete case then this so called theory cannot be accepted. This is a basic premise of science. How can he make a case on your case if you haven't put forward a case. The only case that Tar's comment puts forward is that there certainly isn't cleverness everywhere in the universe.

Edited April 23, 2014 by physica

[tar]

Physica,

 

Let's make two assumptions, one that there is no evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, and one that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes.

 

Stipulated in the assumptions is that there is such a thing as nature, and that it has processes of some sort, which we have not shown yet to show evidence of cleverness or not.

 

Any example of, or definition of cleverness existing or not existing, in whole or in part in this instance or that of nature or its processes, would be at the very least, acknowledgement that there is such a thing as cleverness to be considered within reality. The existence of a single peice of evidence that there is such a thing as cleverness anywhere in nature and it processes, would negate the statement "there is no evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes", and this same one peice of evidence that there is such a thing as cleverness at all in reality, would prove that indeed there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, if one makes an additional assumption, that there is nothing other than nature and its processes, from which reality is constructed.

 

So of the two assumptions, one that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, and the other, that there is no evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, one is negated by the evidence and one is supported by the evidence.

 

It makes no difference whether we agree on how this cleverness came about, or if we even have a suitable guess as to how this cleverness came about. Or if this cleverness is spread about evenly or appears in clumps or individual examples or a plethora of examples. The question is whether or not there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes. Any cleverness would be an example of and evidence of cleverness. Any non cleverness would be an example of and evidence of there being something clever to judge against. Any judgement at all would also require a clever judge to do the judging. In all cases the evidence points toward accepting the assumption that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and it processes and rejecting the assumption that there is no evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes.

 

Just asking the question proves a clever judge to ask it. And many other clever judges to answer and pick between the assumptions. Left then in question is whether any of these many judges is unnatural, or can establish any existence that has come about for any unnatural reason. Since this is a science board, no unnatural explanations for cleverness will be accepted, leaving only natural explanations, and leaving standing only one of the assumptions, that is, that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes.

 

Regards, TAR

[tar]

Dear Mods.

 

I would like to make an out loud and formal complaint against the individual who gave me a neg rep on 254. I hate neg reps, and do not think I said anything deserving of such in 254. If there is a particular point someone would like to take issue with, where I have crossed a line of logic, or fact, or sensibility, I would accept that challenge, and correct myself if in error, or attempt to defend myself if I think I still have a point.

 

I do believe I even know who it was that gave me the neg rep, as there is a character shadowing Mike Smith Cosmos and I, in several discussions, that I believe is handing out neg reps to us both, which is angering both Mike and I, in that this character is acting in an abusive and condesending manner, for no apparent reason, other than to get Mike and my goat.

 

I take such attacks as personal attacks, and would like to return the favor to Physica, a place a neg rep on any post he makes on any topic in any subformum, just on general, spiteful principle. Except I have not done such, and will not do such.

 

Instead, I would like to challenge Physica to a duel, and fire deadly weapons at each other at 10 paces, so that he can be dead, and my honor restored...except that is illegal.

 

Perhaps a mod could speak with him, or he could just stop trolling Mike and I, or he can keep his hand off the neg rep button and answer our points with appropriate counter points.

Edited April 25, 2014 by tar

[physica]

can the mods please clarify to tar that I didn't give a negative rep to him on post 254 I was busy revising for exams yesterday. Stop making assumptions on my character, it derails the conversation and just gives the debate a childish tone. Tar I appreciate that your rep is fairly good. However, this doesn't mean you are invincible, others may also read what you say and dislike it.

 

 

 

Perhaps a mod could speak with him, or he could just stop trolling Mike and I, or he can keep his hand off the neg rep button and answer our points with appropriate counter points.

It's actually you that doesn't address the points made but again we are digressing into childish talk.

 

I believe you got negative rep from someone (I don't know who) in post 254 because of the actual post, looking at it I think it's justified. You use 478 words to give a vague message. It is well known that there is skill in delivering a message consistently and concisely. Judges sometimes apologise for not having enough time to write a shorter judicial opinion. Anyone who wants an example of this see the way I concisely hold someone's feet to the fire with zeno's paradox in the lingual theory of everything. You'll see that they never address it.

 

It is also general good practice for paragraphs and sentences to make sense by themselves. We always need all the writing to get the big picture but each sentence needs to make sense in order for the reader to follow your train of thought as they are not mind readers. It has to be noted that your post 254 was a reply to making a case for cleverness in nature.

 

 

 

Let's make two assumptions, one that there is no evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, and one that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes.

This adds nothing. There is no point for this sentence to be written. The whole debate is about whether there's cleverness or not.

 

You then waste another 182 words stating that if there is a single piece of evidence of cleverness in nature then we can't say that there is not cleverness in nature. This is a valid assumption, I'm actually on board with what you're saying or the first 246 words. However, there is a lot of waffle as 246 of your words could be summed up in 23 words without losing any nuances.

 

You then use another 232 words making the point that cleverness is needed in order to judge. Therefore there is evidence of cleverness. It's a bit depressing that we read through 478 words making a case for cleverness and we don't even see a definition of cleverness in it.

 

Also I think it's a real cheap shot to just label me as a troll and constantly make assumptions on my character. I take a long time over these posts, I sit down crunch numbers, copy your replies onto word and go through them section by section. Anyone who interested in an example of this, go to the last pages of the lingual theory of everything. I receive 9 replies totaling to 3,677 words and my point about Zeno's paradox pointing out that the theory of everything just didn't work wasn't addressed, instead loads of side stepping, character assumptions and waffle Just like what you've seen here. Tar have some compassion for other readers, how must they feel when they take time to structure a reply and in return they have to read through a load of waffle that vaguely mentions what people are talking about.

 

I'm sorry that this debate has taken a childish tone but when someone whines about you because they can't handle their waffle being criticised I feel that I have to set the record straight.

 

As for this debate, set forward a more concise case that actually has a definition of cleverness in it. You notice that I haven't stated my position on this topic yet I'm waiting to be convinced by either side. Don't take my replies personally (notice it's you who is constantly assuming character traits and not addressing specific points). If you take what I say on board you will develop your debating style from outright amateur/child to something that won't frustrate and irritate the average reader.

Edited April 25, 2014 by physica

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

While we have no control over how people push the Rep buttons, we do monitor to make sure no vendettas or agendas are being served using this system. Looking over the accounts in question, there is no pattern of vendetta, agenda or persecution. These negative points represent the perspectives of multiple users.

[Ophiolite]

I should certainly like to see a clear, concise definition of cleverness from all parties in the discussion. Indeed, I recommend no one join the discussion without either agreeing to a prior definition or offering one of their own.

 

For me cleverness is the conscious expression of problem solving or of creativity, generally through a novel, or systematic approach.

 

From this definition it clearly requires intent. As such, unless we grant the universe consciousness, the universe cannot itself be clever. Undoubtedly it can, and does, contain examples of cleverness, but that appears to be different from what Mike and Tar are asserting, or proposing.

[tar]

Physica,

 

I gave you, in that other thread, my feelings about Zeno's paradox, and my opinion about the ranking of logic and math and observation, and assumptions and proofs and the like, and indicated to you with fine examples, the fact that logic can be flawed and mathematical proofs can look to be correct, while they are not, and "prove" an untrue thing. The warrior can overtake the tortoise, so there is no need to solve have a theory solve the paradox, because there is none, in my estimation.

 

You kept at Mike and I, both with the same BC logic demand that neither Mike or I saw the import of.

You should put your own posts in that thread into your word processor and note how many times you repeated the same demands, which neither Mike or I were understanding or agreeing with. Mike responded to you, that he thought you were being rude, and if we were in person, he would like to teach you some manners.

 

To which you repeated your Zeno BC logic thing, which I had already discounted, and told us you were not being personal, but giving us both the "bossing" that we deserved.

 

I had written a message similar to Mike's to you, but decided to delete it, and figured, in a PM with Mike, that the best thing to do, was to not feed the Troll, and just not address you.

 

Then, on cue you show up on another of Mike's threads and continue your attack.

 

I am sorry that I blamed you for a neg rep that you did not give me, but since the several neg reps I got just recently, were all on replies to you, I made the assumption that they were from you.

 

Any points you tried to make in your posts, I have already countered and have side stepped none, and waffled not a bit.

 

My many word "proof" of there having to be evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, was an attempt to leave no doubt, and remove all objections.

 

As to Zeno, why do you bring him here, when your use of him failed on the Lingual theory of Everything thread?

 

So anyway, as to my proof of evidence of cleverness existing in nature and its processes, let's use Ophiolite's definition. If anybody, can plan a thing and create a thing, and show cleverness, then cleverness exists. If humans, and clever humans at that, are real, which I have no doubt they are, and are products, or biproducts, or emergent components of the universe, then they are examples of natural things that nature has procured, that are clever, have cleverness in them and about them, and are evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes.

 

I do not require a brain to conceive of this cleverness beforehand, as Mike has suggested might be something we would find required if we looked at the situation long enough, and I said as much at the start of this thread. So Mike and I do not think with one mind, and what one of us says does not automatically mean the other thinks it. And early on in this thread he acknowledged that cleverness might be the wrong word for what he was looking for, and it was me that brought cleverness back as something there is no doubt that the universe is capable of producing, as that we are clever, and of nature ourselves. This to me is obvious and plain, and does not in the least, force the requirement for an Anthropomorphic God, which I believe I have already, on many occasions suggested is something not required, impossible and which we have absolutely NO evidence of.

 

Regards, TAR

 

And Physica, I don't think you came anywhere close to giving me a bossing. No where even in the vicinity.

Edited April 26, 2014 by tar

[physica]

You brought the previous thread into this one. Now this thread is at risk of being high jacked. In order to prevent this happening anyone who’s interested in Mike’s, mine and Tar’s discussion on Zeno’s paradox please go to a lingual theory of everything page 26 post 520 onwards (last post on page 26). Tar and Mike receive such a bossing of a lifetime they constantly resort to every cheap tactic in the book and I point them out along the way. Of course they don’t contest them because deep down they know they are getting rinsed. I recommend it, it’s a real treat for the whole family, go there and make up your own mind so we can get back on topic here.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72758-a-lingual-theory-of-everything/page-26

 

As for the cleverness I'm sold of course there's cleverness in nature. However, I don't think the point of the thread. Correct if I'm wrong because my grasp on this thread isn't as strong. Is this thread more about intelligence in the design or process of nature? (omitting the decision of a god)

Edited April 26, 2014 by physica

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I should certainly like to see a clear, concise definition of cleverness from all parties in the discussion. Indeed, I recommend no one join the discussion without either agreeing to a prior definition or offering one of their own.

 

For me cleverness is the conscious expression of problem solving or of creativity, generally through a novel, or systematic approach.

 

From this definition it clearly requires intent. As such, unless we grant the universe consciousness, the universe cannot itself be clever. Undoubtedly it can, and does, contain examples of cleverness, but that appears to be different from what Mike and Tar are asserting, or proposing.

 

We did go through quite a lot of definitions in the early days of this thread. This because of inferences.

 

However we appear to have the loose description of cleverness, in the way that " if i come across a circuit or system inbuilt, in a piece of equipment , , I am likely to say to myself :- " that's a clever way of doing that "

 

But more formally we have addressed the issue of Entropy winding everything down in the universe, and for want of a better word I suggested Generation as a word for winding everything up in the universe.

 

And we established that three things gave a valuable [ and could be said CLEVER] way of doing things wre :

 

GRAVITY :: LIFE :: OPEN SYSTEMS .

 

So without any who,how,what ,why or anything else ,at this juncture, we can use " CLEVER " in either a formal or informal way.

 

It would be fitting to mention Arc's quote from Richard Feynman at this juncture :

 

quoted by Arc 26th/April /2014

 

Posted Yesterday, 06:02 AM

“I wanted very much to learn to draw, for a reason that I kept to myself: I wanted to convey an emotion I have about the beauty of the world. It's difficult to describe because it's an emotion. It's analogous to the feeling one has in religion that has to do with a god that controls everything in the whole universe: there's a generality aspect that you feel when you think about how things that appear so different and behave so differently are all run "behind the scenes" by the same organization, the same physical laws. It's an appreciation of the mathematical beauty of nature, of how she works inside; a realization that the phenomena we see result from the complexity of the inner workings between atoms; a feeling of how dramatic and wonderful it is. It's a feeling of awe — of scientific awe — which I felt could be communicated through a drawing to someone who had also had this emotion. It could remind him, for a moment, of this feeling about the glories of the universe.”

― Richard P. Feynman, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

 

mike

Edited April 26, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Physica,

 

I am NOT arguing for intelligent design.

You came no where close to winning the Zeno argument. The tortoise can be overtaken by the warrior, despite the fool proof logic that states otherwise. I did not bring the other thread into this one, you did, twice, and now thrice by advertising your wonderful bossing here again.

I would like you to, Mike would like you to, drop the stupid Zeno thing, and stop pretending you have brought something wonderful to the discussion. You have no point. You have no purpose, you are adding nothing to the discussion over there, of Mike's Linqual Theory of everything, and adding even less to this discussion of the thing that looks like cleverness in nature, by bringing your percieved brilliant defeat of Tar and Mike, to this thread. You have not defeated us in the least, raised no points of any value or purpose in either this discussion or that one, related to Zeno or the percieved bossing. You can drop those two considerations, Zeno, and the perceived bossing. You are incorrect, on both counts and those discussions and the continuation of those discussions are required only by you, to be continued, not my me or Mike. That is why we have both asked you to stop with the Zeno crap, stop with "I am wonderful and Mike and Tar are spanked babies" crap, and either talk about the issues raised in the threads, or go away.

 

And what is really really really stupid about this, is here I am addressing you, yet again, receiving the same crap back, getting my ire raised again, and responding to you again, addressing you again, doing exactly what you want me to be doing, when I had advised Mike, that our best course of action was to just ignore you, and not address you.

 

So, one last time. Give us your opinion on what the nature of this thing that looks like cleverness in the universe is all about. How it came about, and how we could measure it, predict its activity in the future, and understand its emergence in the past. You have already acknowledged it must exist for us to exist. The thread title is already proved to be true. The objection to the title is only in its "smell" of being a vindication of "clockmaker" arguments. And Mike may have some small tendencies in this direction, and has left open that possibility, but does not require that be the case, and merely says "lets look at this cleverness issue" to see what it means to us, and to science, and to nature. What is it composed of, if there is no watchmaker, and can we measure and talk about the thing, witness and be the thing, in a friendly fashion, explore the thing and embrace the thing, study the thing and so on, from an adult, scientific, fact only, logic only, math only, observation only, real and meaningful point of view? I say we can do this, and need no bossing from you Physica to accoomplish the feat. In fact your "bossing" is a detraction from the topics at hand in each of Mike's threads, that you have invaded.

 

So, one final time. Engage in the discussions, on topic, stop defending yourself, and defend your points, and not by saying yet again that you are vindicated, because TAR is waffling. I AM NOT waffling, you are just PISSING ME OFF, and it IS NOT because I think you have won and I am scattered by your wonderfulness. Its because I want to DEFEAT you because you are a troll, or are acting like a troll.

 

No, wait, not one final time, because I know human nature, I know you already, you will want to vindicate yourself and depreciate me once again. I will just say I have already given you your last chance, as far as I am concerned, and you cannot redeem yourself in my eyes. You have already lost that particular battle, that particular achievement, of gaining TAR's approval, is NOT within your grasp. You are now banned from TAR's conversational circle of 1, with no hope of gaining reentry.

And I don't care which of my recent neg reps have come from you, but if it was only one, I still take it as a slap in the face, and rather than slap you back again and again, as seems to be your want, I will just shun you, from here on out.

 

Disregards, TAR

And I will simply turn the other cheek upon any further attacks from the troll.

Edited April 26, 2014 by tar

[physica]

Tar

 

I didn't say you were arguing for intelligent design. Please stop using cheap tactics to rubbish my name. You've brought our previous debate onto this thread, you've made assumptions about me giving you negative rep all the time (this was wrong) you attack me without going into any specifics and you label me a troll and you bring your grievances of losing a previous debate (off topic). Stating that I cannot redeem myself in your eyes and that you want to defeat me because I'm a troll. Not very open minded, I suggest you take a step back and reflect on your actions as your emotions are clearly getting the better of you, I remember the first reply you ever sent to me included statements like taking sides. This reminds me of a petulant child. Actually look at the definition of troll.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

 

The definition of troll is someone who insights argument by posting inflammatory off topic posts. Now lets look at the history of this thread. I ask you to state a case of cleverness. You do so but then immediately after you post an inflammatory post speculating about my giving neg rep even though I didn't. Even when a mod states that this is wrong you say you don't care. Then I try and bring the topic back pointing out that I'm sold on your point of cleverness, to avoid derailing if anyone is interested they can read the other topic, I believe I completely bossed on the lingual theory of everything but I do make the point that people should read it and judge for themselves. You then rant about my character on this thread again (again off topic). If you look back on this thread my posts about the lingual theory of everything is a response to you rubbishing my name on this thread because you can't handle being held to account when you waffle, use cheap tactics (which is like in every post) and side step.

 

See the funny thing Tar is that by definition you're the troll here hahahahah. Don't worry son when you develop wisdom above a child you'll look back at this and thank me for this education.

 

Now lets get back on topic and stop whining when you lose a previous debate. If you still have issues with that debate post them on that debate.

 

Mike as opposed to previous debates I like your approach. Looking at Entropy I suggest that this is a good example probabilities dished out by the universe. Entropy is an interesting perspective here but could you elaborate. statistical thermodynamics makes the point that it is more likely that a system will become more disordered. I'm guessing that this is what you mean by winding down. What do you mean by winding up. If this is means that the system is becoming more ordered this is very statistically unlikely.

Edited April 26, 2014 by physica

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

I see way too many personal comments in the last several posts. If we can't stay focused on the ideas, perhaps it's time to close the thread?

 

We do NOT attack people here at SFN. Read your rules. No more Wild West, please.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Although barely begun , the early figures show a bell curve type of distribution .

 

 

Keeping things like " LIFE, GRAVITY, AND OPEN - SYSTEMS , on the left of the central peak "

And things like " THERMO-DYNAMICS, SPREADING OF UNUSABLE ENERGY, CLOSED SYSTEMS , " on the right of the central peak .

 

Although there is quite a bit of work there needed to prove the issue , SIGNS are good !

 

Here we have a spread from the idea of " GENERATION on the left to ENTROPY on the right.

 

Already a clear indication of " CLEVERNESS " being a feature of nature , however it has come about !

 

 

 

Although I am sure Richard Feynman had a better picture in mind than a bell curve , but it is a start ..

 

"I wanted very much to learn to draw, for a reason that I kept to myself: I wanted to convey an emotion I have about the beauty of the world. It's difficult to describe because it's an emotion. .......there's a generality aspect that you feel when you think about how things that appear so different and behave so differently are all run "behind the scenes" by the same organization, the same physical laws. ...... a feeling of how dramatic and wonderful it is. It's a feeling of awe of scientific awe which I felt could be communicated through a drawing to someone who had also had this emotion. It could remind him, for a moment, of this feeling about the glories of the universe. ". - Richard P. Feynman,

Book. 'Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! '

 

Ps . For the Bell Curve then it is a Quote from , this thread page # 133

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81894-is-there-evidence-of-cleverness-in-nature-and-its-processes/page-7#entry794561

 

Richard Feynman page # 261

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81894-is-there-evidence-of-cleverness-in-nature-and-its-processes/page-14#entry803539

 

Mike

Edited April 29, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

 

We did go through quite a lot of definitions in the early days of this thread. This because of inferences.

 

However we appear to have the loose description of cleverness, in the way that " if i come across a circuit or system inbuilt, in a piece of equipment , , I am likely to say to myself :- " that's a clever way of doing that "

 

But more formally we have addressed the issue of Entropy winding everything down in the universe, and for want of a better word I suggested Generation as a word for winding everything up in the universe.

 

And we established that three things gave a valuable [ and could be said CLEVER] way of doing things wre :

 

GRAVITY :: LIFE :: OPEN SYSTEMS .

 

So without any who,how,what ,why or anything else ,at this juncture, we can use " CLEVER " in either a formal or informal way.

 

It would be fitting to mention Arc's quote from Richard Feynman at this juncture :

 

quoted by Arc 26th/April /2014

 

mike

Frankly Mike, I am appalled. You have confirmed what I feared, but could not quite bring myself to believe. This 14 page thread has been an argument over the difference between cleverness as a reasonably well defined concept, relating to the application of intelligence and cleverness as a metaphorical description of an interesting, or complex facet of nature. Your entire argument appears to be an attempt to conflate these two radically different uses. That is an easy error to make, but requires a surprising level of obtuseness to maintain over fourteen pages.

 

I doubt anyone would seriously contest your proposal that cleverness, as a metaphorical description, does not exist in nature. Of course it does. But this is a science forum - something you routinely appear to overlook. As such we might expect that when we are talking about cleverness it is in its well defined sense. Your underlying argument, whether you realise it or not, is an appeal to scientists and those with a scientific inclination to abandon precision and embrace touchy-feely interpretations of reality. It really won't do.

[tar]

Ophiolite,

 

I see your point. And I am guilty of the same conflation as Mike. And he can explain himself in this regard, but one does not have to abandon precision to embrace touchy-feely interpretations of reality. Not if the touchy-feely interpretations are true, or "could be" true, and still operate with the precision and certitude that an honest scientist would demand.

 

I was reading today about a Japanese Scientist who is studying jellyfish. He has found a microscopic jellyfish that regenerates itself 10 times in a two year period. He thinks the darn thing could live forever. The article suggests such notions as "has the jellyfish found the fountian of youth?".

 

If anyone has ever been stung by a jellyfish, touchy feely wise, we that have been stung could probably easily relegate the little pests to washing up on the sand, being stranded there, and dry up and die. But at the same time we can appreciate the beauty of the little thing, its symetry, its motion through the water, and its victory of grabbing form and structure and keeping it, and passing it on, or maintaining it, in a universe, that otherwise is tending toward entropy. We might "learn" something from the little guys (and or gals, and or its, I really don't precisely know the sex of lack thereof of a jellyfish). But if we were to learn something about regeneration, and longevity from a jellyfish, that would mean the thing knows something, or has "figured out" something, "accidently", that we don't know, that us "mimicking" might provide for some of us that follow the jelly fish's lead, some extended period of existence, as the human form that we are. I don't know exactly how the jelly fish accomplishes this regeneration. Just that, according to this other human being, it does accomplish it. It is capable of this clever feat. It is not metaphor, it is actual. So conflation of the two concepts, the well defined human application of the term, and the somewhat ambiguous, touchy-feely credit we give the jellyfish to have accomplished life, even more cleverly than us in the rejuvenation regard, does not ask the scientist to discard precision and adherence to logic and math, and facts and evidence. Not in the least. In fact we know that only by studying the little guys are we to learn it's secrets. After we find out how it does what it does, we might apply any workable aspects of it's plan, to our plan...through scientific discovery and mimickry.

 

At some point in this thread, I think it was this thread, I mentioned that I thought we did a lot of our thinking outside our brains. Let the world show us what to think, so to speak. In this way, "our" cleverness is not a separate, different concept or usage of the well defined term "cleverness", than the cleverness the "stupid, accidental, non-conscious human" world shows evidence of. It is instead a happy and actual noticing that the universe we are in and of, has some very real and powerful and meaningful capabilities, and our cleverness, how ever one defines it, had to have been a result, of some previous clever arrangements, and therefor we are part and parcel of the world that has spawned us, and that we as a species have grabbed our form and structure from it.

 

So I will admit to your point, Ophiolite, that Mike and I are conflating the cleverness that we exhibit as brilliant, logical, mathematical scientists, able to study and remember the world, predict its activity and create new arrangements of matter and energy that are useful, with the cleverness of nature that makes galaxies and Suns, and Earths, and oceans and jellyfish, and allows us to metabolise and heal and grow and stuff, but the one being actual and the other being metaphoric, is not really the case. There are actual facts, relating the two usages of the term. And there IS evidence of cleverness in nature. Both because we are clever AND natural, and because we are natural AND clever.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited April 29, 2014 by tar

[Acme]

For the record, I am the scum that negatively marked Mike & TAR's last posts, as well as the TAR post that launched his hissy fit. This has all been a bunch of damn nonsense from the git-go, and while much of that fault lays with the originator(s), it strikes me as an error on the part of the staff to have not ended it. The idea that we need to allow/promote mistaken ideas -to put it too kindly- in order to show correct reasoning is misguided in my humble opinion, and as often as not is what perpetuates and enforces said mistaken ideas as genuinely clever.

[physica]

Sorry haven't been on the scene for a while, loads of work to do at the moment. Mike you need to elaborate on your distribution. What it is saying is that it is just as likely to become more ordered as it is likely to become disordered. This flies straight in the face of accepted science. There is a consistent rule to this. If you say the contrary to or dismiss well established and accepted science, logic of concept (such as a paradox) you have to be very particular and detailed about where it falls down. I'm not saying you are but it is reasonable to describe it as arrogant if you dismiss a well established concept without going into great detail about where it falls down.

 

Also you haven't given the parameters for this bell curve. Lets say we want to find the probability of a particle in a gas having a particular speed. We'd use a definite integral under certain parameters but if we heat up the gas the distribution will shift giving a completely different distribution curve. To put it into context if you sketched this in a second year degree physics exam you'd fail because it doesn't say much at all.

 

I've looked at the comments after the post and other people also have an issue with it. You shouldn't re post something if you haven't addressed the concerns. These threads are very long... I think it's because there's a couple of people here who waffle a hell of a lot and go round in circles.

Edited April 29, 2014 by physica

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Frankly Mike,......

 

I doubt anyone would seriously contest your proposal that cleverness, as a metaphorical description, does not exist in nature. Of course it does. But this is a science forum - something you routinely appear to overlook. As such we might expect that when we are talking about cleverness it is in its well defined sense. Your underlying argument, whether you realise it or not, is an appeal to scientists and those with a scientific inclination to abandon precision and embrace touchy-feely interpretations of reality. It really won't do.

 

My summary of the distribution curve and comments, was not intended as a conclusion. But rather an interim summary, as there has been a certain amount of de-railment in recent times, and I was attempting to get things back on the specific track of :-

 

" Trying to prove that ENTROPY does NOT have it , ALL its own way. " in other words I do Not believe the universe is going down some slippery slope of heading for more and more disorder, with energy becoming totally unavailable as time goes on . "

 

But there is a counter GENERATION for want of a better word . " Going the other way " based to some extent on GRAVITY being responsible for pulling matter together in Stars and thus making Energy available " moving things toward Order and complexity by LIFE and other means " and not working in this closed system structure but being an OPEN SYSTEM "

 

Now if we choose to call this clever, I do not think even you disagree with the term.

 

Now, what may be proving a stumbling block for some, so as to call things fluffy, etc is that there are Two Types of Machinery going on here, and in nature generally.

 

[----------------------------------------IMPORTANT -------------------------------------------------]

 

[A] There is the BOTTOM UP system.. Particles upon particles, forces upon forces, fields upon fields, All neatly described by forulae, maths rigid science, deterministic science, ( all of which I have been grounded in as we all have, and come to love and rely, predict , calculate ON. Great But that is not all there is by any means, In fact it might even only be the foundation, yet in the minority. All you have is the LEGO BRICKS. You Do Not have all the building by any means Just Sub structure.

 

There is a whole system of TOP DOWN going on not based on rigid science but on other probability, based, random based, statistical based MOLD based [where the mold is the currently existing [thing at the time] . Trial and error based, adaption based , selection based. Our world is not like it is because of JUST the atoms, its based on dust , sand , Water, life, , plants, gases from plants, animals,algae Bacteria .wind, clouds.

True the atoms and chemistry is there plodding along at a micro level, but there is Top Down , Statistics going on in Stars. The whole thing is growing into some form of order, all-be-it sometimes Complex in nature. This Top down could be viewed as airy fairy , or fluffy ,touchy-feely , but I think it is BIG BUSINESS working together with the bottom up rigid Science.

 

mike

Edited April 29, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

My summary of the distribution curve and comments, was not intended as a conclusion. ...

mike

I'm with Ophiolite and his appallment. That you persist in the pretense that a conclusion is possible, let alone that the premise is sensible, is depressing. Good grief.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I'm with Ophiolite and his appallment. That you persist in the pretense that a conclusion is possible, let alone that the premise is sensible, is depressing. Good grief.

where is the entropy here . What maths formulae can you write down for thiswhere is the next dandelion plant going to grow based on a single seed from this plant

describe the cloud without words or pictures

 

These are all top down phenomenon , yet they are typical examples of nature, and natures top down ways . But isn't she beautiful yet unpredictable .

 

Could it be, that with all our great learning we are loosing the ability to still appreciate the wonder and sheer complexity of what is around us. And to achieve this complexity a major achievement is fulfilled before our very eyes, by whatever system is present to hold back and reverse the deterioration of order in the universe.

 

Mike

Edited April 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Acme,

 

I don't think you are scum at all, there were some neg reps that counted more than 1 and you were my next choice, but your reasons were justified. I understood your reasons. I know you. You have been part of the discussion. That I can readily handle because I can do something about it. Either fight or switch. But that is water under the bridge.

 

The task at hand is for me to figure out why honest thoughts I have that appear logical and required to me are viewed as problematic to others. I think Mike is having the same issue. He has a thought, like the solition thing, observes these waves on open water and thinks about the implications. What the heck is wrong with that? Why is that appalling? I don't know what I am missing here. I feel like I am standing on the corner drinking a glass of milk innocently, and everybody is looking at me wierd, like I am suspicious because the only cow in town has gone missing, or something.

 

I know I jump to conclusions on very little evidence, but when there is a whole lot of evidence pointing to a universe that seems to be as capable as capability gets, its perplexing to me, why people would say its impossible for the universe to "know" what it is doing. In a view from 30,000 ft, the place looks pretty well put together, even without the roads and fields, buildings and other works of man. The beauty and structure and fitness of nature is a given. No one denies it. Many, including me, know there can not be an antropomorphic god pulling the strings. Eminations from superior beings is not my drift. But that leaves only a few possibilities. Ideas like its all an illusion and so on, I have ruled out. We are all on some eternal journey of some sort, might hold some water, logically, except for the fact that we are people, and people die. So the reality of the situation must, in my estimation, lie somewhere in the middle, between being eternal, and being non-existant. To that we all have a claim on the universe and reality, and can figure our part in it as full members. As tiny and fleeting as our part in it may be, it is still "everything" to us. And what we can not achieve ourselves we can make possible for our children to achieve, and leave the place at least as nice as we found it, if not maybe a little nicer, for the next generation to enjoy.

 

Science and technology play and incredibly important role in my ability, and all human's ability to predict and modify the world for human benefit. Fairies and Gods and Angels and such are the metaphors we use to describe the actual place and our position in it. But its not as if the place doesn't look and feel clever. Consider just the fact, that as clever as any one of us figures we are, there are 8 or 9 billion other such instances of cleverness, extant on the planet presently. That is a pretty clever Earth to consider already, with just the humans on it. Not even considering the flowers and the bears and the jellyfish and trees.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 29, 2014 by tar

[Acme]

stuff redacted ...

 

Mike

Acme,

stuff redacted ...

 

Regards, TAR2

That you both persist in the face of multiple well reasoned and patient rebuttals from numerous respondents is evidence indeed that y'all don't understand. There is nothing I can do about that and so I won't try. Stick a fork in me.

[physica]

where is the entropy here . What maths formulae can you write down for this

This statement is so arrogant. You clearly haven't looked into entropy before posting this. Did you think that a flower will stump entropy? Were you confident that 100s of scientists never looked at a flower the way you did and wondered if it defied the laws of thermodynamics??? A 2 second google search will tell you the following.

 

Entropy and life has been looked into since 1910. Life like plants keep their entropy low by exporting it. Because of this we look for increases in entropy when we look for any signs of life. Because biological processes usually happen at constant pressures and temperatures we use Gibbs free energy (this is taught a school).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

 

Seriously obtain a basic education in entropy before trying to use it in debates.

 

 

I know I jump to conclusions on very little evidence, but when there is a whole lot of evidence pointing to a universe that seems to be as capable as capability gets, its perplexing to me, why people would say its impossible for the universe to "know" what it is doing. In a view from 30,000 ft, the place looks pretty well put together, even without the roads and fields, buildings and other works of man.

 

 

If it's perplexing to you I suggest you start reading the physics behind it in order to understand why people are saying it. It's very arrogant to point out that their statements are perplexing when showing little aptitude in physics and shower no desire to learn it but instead insist that you've got a logical take on it.

 

 

 

He has a thought, like the solition thing, observes these waves on open water and thinks about the implications. What the heck is wrong with that? Why is that appalling? I don't know what I am missing here. I feel like I am standing on the corner drinking a glass of milk innocently, and everybody is looking at me wierd, like I am suspicious because the only cow in town has gone missing, or something.

It's ok to look at stuff and think about the implications. However, one has to be careful with the way you do it. History has shown us again and again that looking at stuff and thinking about it leads to wrong conclusions. People looked at their surroundings and thought that the earth was flat, they saw the sun rise and thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Through mathematical reasoning and science, providing testable hypothesizes and testing them we found out that the previous people who looked at stuff and thought about the implications were wrong.

 

I took a step back from clinical to go back to university to study physics. I did this because I like looking at stuff and thinking about the implications. I went back to study because I wasn't arrogant enough to think that my brain could work it out without mathematical guidance. I am not arrogant enough to think that if I lived in BC times that my brain is so amazing that I would be able to just look at the sun and work out that we orbit it as opposed to it orbiting us.

 

However, this thread is the opposite, there's a lot of: oh well it's really complex which amazes me so I reckon, or :I saw some waves and I thought this. The scientific concepts used are so poorly understood that a 2 second google search would stop them posting what they have posted.

 

Now you're clearly interested otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time on these threads so you have two choices, continue bumbling around with arrogant statements that really just display lack of understanding and frustrating the rest of the people on this thread or spending some of your time learning maths and physics...... or at least the physics that you intend to use in debates.

Edited April 30, 2014 by physica