On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:48:39 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote: > > >> I don't understand the question because I'm not clear on what "these >>> differences" refers to. >>> >> >> > The differences between evolutionary nature (teleonomy) and rational >> design (teleology) that we are talking about. >> > > For God's sake! (Note: poetic license in use, I don't believe in God) I > wrote a detailed post last month explaining how and why things that evolved > are different from things that are designed by something that is smart and > why Evolution is inferior to design at producing complex objects. > Apparently you didn't see it so I repeated it just a few days ago. If > something I said was unclear I will try to expand on the topic, or if you > disagree with part of it I am prepared to debate you, but don't just keep > asking the same damn question over and over again and pretend you never saw > my answer. >
I don't know what answer you are talking about but I am sure that nothing I have read from you so far has addressed this very specific and clear question of how can reason be completely different from evolution if reason itself is a consequence of nothing but evolution. You say that they are different but you explain nothing of how it is possible for evolution to become so different from itself. > > > Any meta-molecular system is going to be complex compared to a molecular >> system, > > > That's what "meta" means, and a very big thing is larger than a big > thing. > > > > The inorganic geology of the Earth as a whole is much more complex than >> a single cell >> > > Bullshit!! Geology may be large but if we're talking complexity it's > finger painting compared to the smallest cell. > http://mepag.nasa.gov/science/2_Complex_Surface_Geology/2_Complex_Surface_Geology_clip_image004.jpg http://stockpix.com/images/9799.jpg It depends on what level of description you are looking at. Anything that an organism does to the Earth would change the Earth in complex ways. If you look at the entire history of the Earth as a single event and had to account for every substance and interaction on every layer of the planet including the layers of the atmosphere, there is really no basis for a sweeping edict on complexity. Everything is complex at some level of description. > > Darwin wasn't trying to explain awareness itself. >> > > That was part of Darwin's genius, picking the right problem to work on. He > knew that explaining awareness was out of reach in his day as it is in ours > so he didn't waste his time trying, > Or it could be that Darwin was interested in a particular field of natural science and didn't bear any particular bigotry against all other forms of understanding. > he also knew that explaining the origin of life was out of reach although > it's starting to become so in our day. Darwin figured that the problem of > how a self reproducing organism could diversify into a bewildering number > of species, one of which had a very large brain and opposable thumbs, might > be within reach for a man of sufficient talent in his day. And He was right. > What does Darwin being right about evolution have to do with you being right about biology being unnecessary? > > > > There is no bridge however from evolution of biological forms and >> functions to the origin of experience, >> > > I might not know exactly how that bridge operates but I know that such a > bridge between experience and intelligence MUST exist because otherwise > experience could not have evolved on this planet; and it has, at least once > for certain, and probably billions of times. > You assume that experience could have evolved from non-experience, but I understand why evolution has to arise from experience to begin with. Nothing can evolve from non-experience. > > > It [Evolution] offers no hint of why complex intelligence should be >> living organisms and not mineral-based mechanisms. >> > > If you'd read the post that I sent TWICE in the month of September you'd > know that Darwin's theory does explain why that is, but the post was rather > long and it did contain a few big words and so you didn't read it and > prefer to keep asking the same questions over and over. > There is no point in debating someone who keeps using the tactic of claiming that they answered questions elsewhere. I don't do that so I don't pay attention to others when they do that. If you don't want to answer the question, then don't. > > > > Before long one generation of computers will design the next more >> advanced generation, and the process will accelerate exponentially. >> >> > Maybe. My guess is that in 50 years, someone will still be saying the >> same thing. >> > > Somebody will be saying that in 50 years no doubt about it, but the > someone won't be biological. > If there is something non-biological that is being made to say it, they still won't know that they are saying it, or indeed what it means to say anything. > > > If tools couldn't do something that people can't then there would be no >>> point in them making tools. And water vapor can't smash your house but >>> water vapor can make a tornado and a tornado can. >>> >> >> > But water vapor can't make tools no matter how fast it's moving or for >> how long. We can choose to make tools which extend the power of our >> intentions >> > > There are reasons that water vapor makes tornadoes and there are reasons > that humans make tools. > There are reasons that human experience makes human cells and mineral experiences make inorganic molecules. > > >> Biology doesn't have any cosmic purpose for existing, but there are >>> reasons. >>> >> >> > Are there? > > > Yes. > > > Like what? >> > > I've answered this before: Chemistry, a planet with liquid water, a energy > source like the sun, and lots of time. > That doesn't explain the role of biology in human consciousness as opposed to complex mineral configurations - like the ones you insist will replace human beings in 50 years or less. Maybe you are younger than I am and have not lived through the decades of empty promises from AI research that I have. If you recall, 2001 A Space Odyssey was, at the time, intended to be an accurate timeframe for the types of technologies featured in the movie. Arthur C. Clarke was not some goofball futurist, he was involved in aerospace development and wrote non-fiction extensively on "describing the technical details and societal implications of rocketry and space flight" for many years. The predictions made in the movie were not supposed to be fantastic, but measured and realistic. Now, 11 years after the fictional date of the movie, we are no closer to HAL or real space colonization than we were then. If anything we have regressed since that era of rapid innovation. There is no purpose in any of that because intelligence is in the purpose > conferring business not chemistry or water or energy or time. So there is > no purpose to biology but there are reasons. > Where do the reasons come from and why do they favor the intelligence of wet bloody organisms over dry flaky inorganisms? 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/-/Y9qY6Z_P4PUJ. 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.
