Split from Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology

[Le Repteux]

Hi everybody,

 

The topic was about the process of evolution being a scientific method, but the real questioning was about the theory of evolution being a scientific method. I find the topic interesting as it is, so I risk a question about it even if it is a bit off topic, and you tell me if I should start a new one. Evolution is a trial and error process, and to me, scientific method too, otherwise, we would not be natural, because we would be able to predict any future, thus to predict our own evolution, and to drive it the way we want. If, like me, you think that we are not, why are we making a fundamental difference between the scientific evolution process and any other evolution process, like the mind evolution process of each individual for instance, or the social evolution process?

Edited October 26, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

I wouldn't really describe the scientific method as trial and error. That suggests a kind of random, stumbling around in the dark approach.

 

The scientific method, to me, seems far more directed than that: based on theories and data gathered so far, where do we go next. Sometimes theories have to be discarded and sometimes there are chance discoveries, but most of the time it is a steady plod accumulating more evidence and making incremental changes to theories.

[Le Repteux]

You are Strange , you seem to think that you know where you are going! But how could it be? If we are the product of mutations and natural selection, how could we predict our own evolution? A hundred years ago, who could tell what was going to happen to us? Do you think that it will be different a hundred years from now? Considering that this kind of social future is unpredictable, could the scientific method be a kind of a lure? Why are we able to attribute a random process to evolution of species and not to our intellectual evolution? Isn't this dichotomy a bit subjective and anthropocentric?

Edited October 26, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

If we are the product of mutations and natural selection, how could we predict our own evolution?

 

Evolution is, inherently, unpredictable (apart from some general principles). But I'm not even sure why you ask the question.

 

 

Why are we able to attribute a random process to evolution of species and not to our intellectual evolution?

 

I don't really know what you are talking about now. I thought you were trying to compare the scientific method to evolution. But maybe I was mistaken. I'm not sure what "intellectual evolution" is (other than changes in the brain as a consequence of evolution, I suppose).

[Le Repteux]

Evolution is, inherently, unpredictable (apart from some general principles). But I'm not even sure why you ask the question.

Observations are about motion, but when a motion is too slow, we call it an evolution. I think that if we had a way to link different kinds of evolution, it might help us to better understand motion.

 

I don't really know what you are talking about now. I thought you were trying to compare the scientific method to evolution. But maybe I was mistaken. I'm not sure what "intellectual evolution" is (other than changes in the brain as a consequence of evolution, I suppose).

Sorry, I mislead you a bit. No, intellectual evolution is not about biologics, it is about ideas, and social evolution too. These two happen too slowly for us to be able to observe them: we know that our ideas change when we remember our own past, and we know that societies change when we study history, but without memory, we would not know. Without a physical way to explain these changes, we get caught in the same loop as with biological evolution: intelligent design. But if we add a random process to any kind of evolution, there is no more loop, which means that the link between any kind of physical change could be the random process happening between two different scales of motion.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

Observations are about motion, but when a motion is too slow, we call it an evolution.

 

I don't follow that. Evolution (in the context of this thread) is a process that occurs in populations of organisms. What does "motion" have to do with it? (Do you mean "change" rather than "motion"?)

 

No, intellectual evolution is not about biologics, it is about ideas, and social evolution too. These two happen too slowly for us to be able to observe them

 

Not always. There can be major social changes brought very rapidly about by scientific or technological changes (paradigm shifts), by disease, war, natural disaster, etc.

[Le Repteux]

I don't follow that. Evolution (in the context of this thread) is a process that occurs in populations of organisms. What does "motion" have to do with it? (Do you mean "change" rather than "motion"?)

To me, any change is about motion. The process of change in an organism is made of the changes that happen to molecules, and these have to move to execute a change or to keep it alive.

 

Not always. There can be major social changes brought very rapidly about by scientific or technological changes (paradigm shifts), by disease, war, natural disaster, etc.

Perception of motion is about change, and perception of evolution too. To perceive a body's motion, we have to remember its precedent position, and the delay of that perception depends of the time it takes for the information to get to our mind. A body that moves too fast cannot be perceived, but a body that moves too slow neither, unless we take note of its position and come back later, which is a kind of long term memory. It takes memory to observe a change, and the longer the change, the longer the memory has to be. The memory of a specie is registered in its genes, a long time memory, and to change these informations, it takes a random process. How could our own memory change without a random process to change its informations? How could we change our mind about anything without a random process to help us?

[Strange]

How could our own memory change without a random process to change its informations?

 

I don't see why you think that is random. We can, usually, remember what happened not some random thing that didn't happen.

[Le Repteux]

We do remember random phenomenon if they were useful to us, no? And we also remember accidents to avoid to reproduce the same behavior, no? Then what if our mind could produce a random behavior that, by chance, could be useful to us? Wouldn't it be the same process as the mutation/selection one? And wouldn't we remember that behavior?

Edited October 27, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Ten oz]

We do remember random phenomenon if they were useful to us, no? And we also remember accidents to avoid to reproduce the same behavior, no? Then what if our mind could produce a random behavior that, by chance, could be useful to us? Wouldn't it be the same process as the mutation/selection one? And wouldn't we remember that behavior?

Mutation is a process of DNA. It is something an animal is born with and not something that develops from life experience. As a matter of chance some animals are born with a mutation that provides then with an advantage or protects them from an environmental change. It is possible for a human to be born with a mutation that makes their mind process information differently than other humans. However the population of humans is currently so large and still growing that short of sometype of apocolytic event I doubt any individual mutation could be of such benifit that it would procreate through the whole species.

[Strange]

We do remember random phenomenon if they were useful to us, no?

No. When I think back to this morning, I don't remember random things like dancing elephants and singing bananas, I remember walking the dog and going to work.

 

Wouldn't it be the same process as the mutation/selection one?

 

Evolution is the change in proportion of alleles in a population. Mutation produces some of that diversity. What on earth has this got to do with memory?

[Le Repteux]

Mutation is a process of DNA. It is something an animal is born with and not something that develops from life experience. As a matter of chance some animals are born with a mutation that provides then with an advantage or protects them from an environmental change. It is possible for a human to be born with a mutation that makes their mind process information differently than other humans. However the population of humans is currently so large and still growing that, short of some type of apocalyptic event, I doubt any individual mutation could be of such benefit that it would procreate through the whole species.

I am proposing a random process able to change our ideas Ten, not our DNA, and I add that this process would affect any brain.

No. When I think back to this morning, I don't remember random things like dancing elephants and singing bananas, I remember walking the dog and going to work.

If you had seen something new going to work, don't you think that you would have remembered it? Don't you remember happy things that happened to you by chance?

 

Evolution is the change in proportion of alleles in a population. Mutation produces some of that diversity. What on earth has this got to do with memory?

Don't you agree that, for the species, their genetic code constitute a kind of memory?

Edited October 27, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

I am proposing a random process able to change our ideas Ten, not our DNA, and I add that this process would affect any brain.

 

Then maybe you should start a thread on that, rather than derailing this one.

 

If you had seen something new going to work, don't you think that you would have remembered it?

 

Maybe you need to explain what you think the word "random" means (in the thread you start on how memories are "random").

 

 

Don't you agree that, for the species, their genetic code constitute a kind of memory?

 

I suppose you could make an analogy like that. But it is so inaccurate as to be useless.

[Endy0816]

Humans can posses prior knowledge that evolution lacks and evolution never assumes the way we do.

 

Very different processes each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

[Le Repteux]

Humans can posses prior knowledge that evolution lacks and evolution never assumes the way we do.

 

Very different processes each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Knowledge is only memory from success, as it is for genes, but I admit that the two mutation processes cannot be exactly the same, and the two selection processes neither. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the analogy makes sense.

Then maybe you should start a thread on that, rather than derailing this one.

I sure will do if Johnesteixeira or anybody complains. Are you complaining? As I said, as it is written, the signification of the topic fits exactly my needs.

 

Maybe you need to explain what you think the word "random" means (in the thread you start on how memories are "random").

I started with attributing some kind of randomness to different evolutionary processes, but not to memory since, by definition, memories should not change.

 

I suppose you could make an analogy like that. But it is so inaccurate as to be useless.

 

Memory is about what does not change with time, no? In our mind, some things change and some don't. The ones that do not change are called memories, and the ones that change are called imagination. With the evolutionary analogy, I am trying to link memories with imagination: how change is related to continuity.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

I sure will do if Johnesteixeira or anybody complains. Are you complaining? As I said, as it is written, the signification of the topic fits exactly my needs.

 

I will let the moderators decide. As the original question was whether evolutionary theory is scientific; i.e. if the study of evolution uses the scientific method, I fail to see the relevance of your comments.

 

Memory is about what does not change with time, no?

 

Memories change with time. We are able to remember things that didn't happen, change things that did or forget them completely.

[Ten oz]

I am proposing a random process able to change our ideas Ten, not our DNA, and I add that this process would affect any brain.

Isn't the overriding driver for our brains and its abilities mutations in DNA? random processes that change ideas is not the difference between my brain and my pet house cat's brain.

 

If you had seen something new going to work, don't you think that you would have remembered it? Don't you remember happy things that happened to you by chance?

You see new things everyday but don't necessarily notice them. I live in a large city. Everytime I walk outside my condo I see new faces, cars, bike, dogs on leashes, cats in windows, birds, bugs, etc, etc, etc. I don't remember them all simply because they are new. I also don't remember every particulary nice day (weather) or friend smile of people on the street. ultimately how can I ever truly know how much I have remember, forgotten, or never noticed?

 

Don't you agree that, for the species, their genetic code constitute a kind of memory?

Genetic code is a record but not a type of memory.

[Endy0816]

You can also remember your failures. In contrast every single one of your ancestors was a success at passing along their genetic material.

[Le Repteux]

You can also remember your failures. In contrast every single one of your ancestors was a success at passing along their genetic material.

Exact: we remember our failures and genetic code is not supposed to. For us, an essay that hurts has almost the same meaning than one that succeeds, but its only because we can try again another way around later, which is almost the same way mutations work, except that many mutations can happen at the same time for a specie, whereas we can only execute one idea at a time. This is one of the main differences between mutations and intuitions, another is the rate at which they happen: do you see more differences?

Edited October 27, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Le Repteux]

Isn't the overriding driver for our brains and its abilities mutations in DNA? random processes that change ideas is not the difference between my brain and my pet house cat's brain.

I think that animals' minds might also be subjected to random processes, but in a different way than us.

 

You see new things everyday but don't necessarily notice them. I live in a large city. Everytime I walk outside my condo I see new faces, cars, bike, dogs on leashes, cats in windows, birds, bugs, etc, etc, etc. I don't remember them all simply because they are new. I also don't remember every particulary nice day (weather) or friend smile of people on the street. ultimately how can I ever truly know how much I have remember, forgotten, or never noticed?

We notice things that can be important to us, but we never notice what we know since we already know how to deal with it.

 

Genetic code is a record but not a type of memory.

Our memory is also a kind of record, no?

I will let the moderators decide. As the original question was whether evolutionary theory is scientific; i.e. if the study of evolution uses the scientific method, I fail to see the relevance of your comments.

The link with the scientific method is the essay and error process. If we could demonstrate that our brain uses this process to make any improvement to its ideas, it would mean that scientific method uses it too.

 

Memories change with time. We are able to remember things that didn't happen, change things that did or forget them completely.

Memory becomes less precise with time, and we can add to it imaginary facts, but its duty is to keep still as long as it can, because this is the only way we can improve our knowledge. To help it, we have invented writing, and lately, computers. Nevertheless, we still have to cope with imaginary stuff on the net, and with the degradation of information with time.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

Memory becomes less precise with time

 

Not just less precise, it can become plain wrong, counterfactual.

[Ten oz]

 

Our memory is also a kind of record, no?

Memory, as it relates to humans, is a very subjective thing. We don't necessary remember things as they are. Memory is a cognitive process where information is encoded and stored along with or in the form of emotional stimulations. Memories have concious reasons and can produce an endless steam of collateral memories. One action can result in a hundred memories. A record is a one to one transaction. A river erodes away dirt and leaves a record of the process in the form of a canyon. No cognitive process. No motivations, purpose, fear, curiosity, or etc.

[For Prose]

Don't you agree that, for the species, their genetic code constitute a kind of memory?

 

Actually, you may be mistaking genetic code with something else. Genetic code refers to codons which encode amino acids. For example, AUG is the start codon. All organisms obey the same rules applied to this code even if there are variations in the end product.

 

Don't be alarmed. Many people and virtually all mainstream media use this term improperly.

[Le Repteux]

Yes, the same kind of coding is able to reproduce different organisms, but it can also reproduce quite precisely a particular specie. The memory of one individual also contain different ideas which are remembered the same way, but it can also focus on one of them for a certain time.

Memory, as it relates to humans, is a very subjective thing. We don't necessary remember things as they are. Memory is a cognitive process where information is encoded and stored along with or in the form of emotional stimulations. Memories have conscious reasons and can produce an endless steam of collateral memories. One action can result in a hundred memories. A record is a one to one transaction. A river erodes away dirt and leaves a record of the process in the form of a canyon. No cognitive process. No motivations, purpose, fear, curiosity, or etc.

A river is not meant to survive the same way we are, but nevertheless, it does what it needs to do to bring its water down the slope. A memory has to serve a purpose: ours is meant for us to survive facing things that don't change, and we have our imagination to help us survive facing things that change. With the analogy of the random process, I try to understand the way mind faces change with ideas that are not meant to do so.

[Strange]

As memory is very obviously not random (we remember things that actually happen and are more likely to rememebr things that have an emotional impact) can you explain, either:

 

1. What you think the word "random" means?

 

2. In what way you think memory is governed by unpredictable chance events?