On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:56:07 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You are contradicting yourself. 1) Nothing special about biology 2)
>> Evolution is utterly helpless to create 'complex things' until it stumbled
>> on biology. Please explain.
> If you'd been paying attention you'd know that I already explained this on
> September 2, I repeat it now for your benefit:
(Said John Clark after searching through every post he's made for the last
> There are great differences between evolutionary designs and rational
> design, rational designs are, well, rational, but
> evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and
> stupid tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it
> couldn't even come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360
> degrees! Rational designers had less difficulty coming up with the wheel.
> The only advantage Evolution had is that until it managed to invent brains
> it was the only way complex objects could get built.
You are just reasserting the same contradiction. It's not enough to assert
that evolutionary designs (teleonomy) and rational designs (teleology) are
different, I am asking you to explain how it is possible for them to be
different, given your assumption that the latter evolved from the former.
Again - you are stating that post biological processes are *very* different
from everything else in the universe, and therefore very special, but then
denying that there is any relevant difference between biology (the sole
source of teleology and reason) and *everything else in the entire cosmos*.
You haven't explained anything.
> I can think of a few reasons for natures poor design, the last one is the
> most important:
Your ability to think and reason is nothing other than nature's poor
design. I'm not the one saying that biological systems have qualities that
inorganic systems cannot, you are.
> I ask again. If biology is nothing special. WHY NOT SKIP THE BIOLOGY?
> I don't understand who you're asking this question to, nature?
Chemistry exists and under the right conditions (among them the
> availability of liquid water, a energy source and lots and lots of time) a
> very simple reproductive organism can form; and once that happens Evolution
> can take over and produce far more interesting organisms. And if you don't
> like that fact then complain to the laws of physics not to me.
But you are saying that the experiences of the more interesting organisms
can easily be produced in the pre-evolutionary stupidity of chemistry or
> > I am saying why not have cells produce crystal minerals in the ocean,
>> like coral, which use calcium and sodium ions to signal?
> Because Evolution never figured out how to do that, Evolution never
> figured out how to do a great many things, it never even figured out how to
> make a macroscopic wheel or an animal that could breathe fire.
Then you admit that it would make more sense for human consciousness as you
conceive of it to be hosted in a skull or knee cap rather than a brain. It
just so happens that we showed up in brains. It just so happens that not
one mutation of one species has ever successfully done that. Just random.
> > But we are evolution.
> I've noticed that when you get into a tight corner you tend to say things
> like X is Y as you did above that sound profound until you think about them
> for about .2 seconds.
I haven't ever felt in a tight corner talking to you, because nothing that
you are saying is new to me. Saying that we are evolution isn't supposed to
be profound, it's an ordinary observation of fact. Maybe that's what you
feel in the first .1 seconds before your prejudice and denial kick in.
> > Why go through this elaborate stage of speciation for a billion years.
> Because as I've said many times, for a billion years the elaborate stage
> of speciation was the only way complex things could get made. That is no
> longer true.
At any time during those billion years, any other molecule could have
developed some similar properties - yet it didn't, but still there is no
difference between biological precursors and random debris in the universe.
> > the computers will happily allow themselves to be turned off, just like
>> all other machines.
> If the computer is smarter and more complex than you then your predictions
> about what the machine will and will not happily do are going to be
> terrible, just terrible. If you think predicting the weather is hard try
> predicting a mind thousands of times as powerful as your own.
I work in a department of people who do nothing all day but prove that you
are wrong. Even with layers upon layers of fault tolerance, redundancy,
maintenance, updates, upgrades, and nightly reboots, all electronic devices
under heavy use require constant human intervention to keep them running.
If you think that is going to get better instead of worse, then I think
it's out of religious faith rather than any rational or logical
expectation. My prediction: The higher the technology, the more humans you
will have standing around to prop it up 24/7.
> >A smart computer is no match for a stupid human with an axe.
> A thought like that makes you feel good doesn't it, pity its Bullshit.
If it weren't true, you would tell me why rather than just tossing around
> > I'm explaining specifically that there is no automatic connection
>> between a 'goal structure' and the invention of the subjective affect of
> You're not explaining anything you're just telling us what your intuition
> is saying and intuition isn't worth squat.
No, that's what you are doing. You are the one who takes the unsupported
leap from function to qualia, in spite of all evidence to the contrary
(blindsight, anosognosia, synesthesia, brain lateralization, etc)
> And it's not your fault, nobody's intuition is any good in this area
> because there was no Evolutionary advantage in being good at self analysis
> and the philosophy of consciousness; hell our intuition is so screwy most
> people insist "free will" actually means something even after being shown
> it is logically inconsistent. So to have any hope of knowing what's going
> on we must abandon intuition and turn to reason.
Reason is nothing but a kind of intuition. There can be logic without
reason or intuition, and there can be intuition without logic without
reason, but there cannot be reason without intuition.
Einstein would have agreed with me: "
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has
forgotten the gift.”
That quote is from this video, which I highly recommend:
How is your eyesight in your right eye? From what this psychiatrist says,
it seems that your thinking is entirely dominated by your left brain, which
is fantastic at screening out anything that contradicts the subject of it's
focus and has no problem flatly denying everything else.
> John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at