On Sunday, September 30, 2012 1:43:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>  
>
>>  > 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
>>
>
> The difference is Evolution doesn't understand the concept of one step 
> backward 2 steps forward for one thing, I went into considerable more 
> detail about this in my last post and also gave you 4 more reasons how and 
> why intelligent design is different from random mutation and natural 
> selection.  
>

That is not what I am asking. You are describing ways that they are 
different, not explaining how it is possible for these differences to arise.
 

>  
>
>> > given your assumption that the latter evolved from the former. 
>>
>
> The environment is far far too complex to hard wire in all the rules about 
> the best way for an organism to survive, there are just too many of them.
>

Blue-green algae survives all over the world since the Pre-Cambrian Era. 
Survival is not complex. Acquire nutrients. Reproduce. The end.
 

> But Evolution found that if it could wire together just a few cells it 
> could start to use a few inductive rules;
>

This is pure metaphor. Evolution doesn't 'find' anything. You are falsely 
attributing intention and analysis to an unconscious process. You are going 
back and forth between elevating evolution and nature to Godlike status and 
diminishing it to idiocy.
 

> being inductive it didn't always cause the organism to do the right thing 
> for survival but it succeeded more that it failed and that was a huge 
> advance. Later more cells got wired together and you started to get 
> something you could call a brain and more complex inductive rules could be 
> taken advantage of, and animals that were really good at this got their 
> genes passed onto the next generation. Sill later Evolution found a way for 
> these brains to use statistics and rules of thumb and eventually even 
> deduction. When brains got to this point Evolution was no longer the only 
> way that complex objects could get built, there was a much better and 
> faster way.     
>

Evolution = The right things in the right places don't die. Nothing else. 
 

>  
>
>> > you are stating that post biological processes are *very* different 
>> from everything else in the universe, 
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> > and therefore very special
>>
>
> Yes. 
>
> > 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*. 
>>
>
> I don't know if biology exists anyplace other than on the earth, if it 
> doesn't then 3 billion years ago something happened  on earth that was 
> different from anything else in the entire cosmos. I don't know if 
> intelligence and culture exists anywhere other than the earth but if it 
> doesn't then less that a million years ago something happened to a biped on 
> this planet that was different from anything else in biology here or 
> anywhere else. And in the last 50 years its become increasingly clear that 
> biology will not be the only source of teleology and reason for much longer.
>

I don't see that the fantasy of non-biological teleology has become any 
more realized than it was 50 years ago. Some may find our simulations 
slightly more endearing but I am not impressed that they differ in any way 
other than cosmetics and more extensive application of non-teleological 
processing. There is still no reason to believe that this very unusual 
thing that happened on Earth can be leapfrogged by theoretical assumptions.
 

>
> > You haven't explained anything.
>>
>
> In just my last post I did a better job at explaining something than I've 
> ever seen you do.
>

Congratulations, you have a very high opinion of yourself.
 

>
> > Your ability to think and reason is nothing other than nature's poor 
>> design. 
>>
>
> Yes, if I was designed better I could reason better. Before long computers 
> will be designed better. 
>

By natural people who were designed by natural selection. 


> > I'm not the one saying that biological systems have qualities that 
>> inorganic systems cannot, you are.
>>
>
> I'm saying they do not, I'm not saying they cannot.
>

We agree then. I only say that there may very well be an important reason 
why they do not which cannot be accessed by existing theory.
 

>
> > But you are saying that the experiences of the more interesting 
>> organisms can easily be produced in the pre-evolutionary stupidity of 
>> chemistry or physics.
>>
>
> Yes, if you put those inorganic parts together in the right way you could 
> make some very interesting things but Evolution never figured out how to do 
> it because of the flaws 
>

"Evolution never figured out" is like "brick wall never dreamed of"

inherent in the process which I explained in considerable detail in my last 
> post. Human designers don't have those limitations 
>

You aren't seeing my point that if human designers are nothing but evolved 
systems, then they must have the same limitations as evolution itself, 
unless you can explain why they wouldn't.
 

> and will find the job if not easy at least far easier, and they operate at 
> a enormously faster time scale than Evolution does. 
>  
>
>>  > 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. 
>>
>
> I can't make any sense out of that, I don't know what you're trying to 
> say, I hope it's not that consciousness has a position.  
>

I am saying that there is no reason for biology to exist in your worldview. 
Just because every form of life we have ever seen arises only in a context 
of liquid water and organic sugars, lipids, and proteins means nothing to 
you and you have no explanation why we aren't just intelligent rocks other 
than that must be how evolution happened to have done it first on Earth. I 
don't know that it's not the case, but I don't think that we can dismiss 
the correlation between sentience, life, and organic autopoiesis.
 

>
> > 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
>>
>
> Einstein's intuition about physics was usually (but not always) correct , 
> your intuition about consciousness is obviously wrong, as obviously wrong 
> as X is not Y and X is not not Y. 
>

X and Y are theoretical abstractions within the concrete reality of human 
consciousness. 

Craig 


>   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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/hTt91PJ7GO4J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to