On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote
>> >> arithmetic >> , >> e >> lementary >> or otherwise, doesn't lead to complexity or to anything else. >> Dawkins like Darwin was interests in what matter can do (like produce >> life), and without matter > > > > > That idea has been refuted. > > Where? > > > Even without primary matter, arithmetic leads to both the material > complexity > How can you have material complexity if you don't have any material? > > and the non material one. Show me an example of material complexity but don't use any material (and that includes electrons) when you do so. > > > Your invocation to your God (Matter) not only explain nothing, > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > > how does it select the material computations among the non material one. > Easy, non material computations don't exist. Now I have a question for you, how do "non material computations" select the computations that produce correct answers from the infinite number of computations that do not? > > > How does it manage to make the non material computations non conscious? > I'm not sure what "it" is but undoubtedly "it" does "it" the same way" it "makes non-dragons non-dragons. Dragons are not conscious and neither are non material computations, in fact non material computations are not anything. > > > Invoking a God (personal or not) will never work in Science. > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. >> >> And Darwin showed how iteration with some random variation thrown in >> will produce complexity if the resources needed for reproduction are not >> infinite. Or to say exactly the same thing more simply, Evolution is just >> random mutation and natural selection. > > > > > How could we know the mutations are all random. Some are, some are not. > Bacteria already can augment the rate of mutations by the activity of some > genes. > Some genes may increase the rate of copying errors but those genes have no foresight, they just make the machinery crank out more mistakes; on rare occasions one of those mistakes might get lucky and make reproduction more likely, but it's still random. > > I think that even if evolution is, at some level, "just" random mutation > and natural selection, > Mutation is random but natural selection most certainly is not! And natural selection could not exist if the *PHYSICAL* resources that life needs were infinite, but they are not. > > there is an infinity of intermediate levels showing that higher level > programming can be playing some major role in evolution. > If there is an infinity of anything then it's not physical , and thus Natural Selection is impossible , and thus Evolution is impossible , and thus the spontaneous production of the complexity needed to produce intelligence is impossible. > > > sex is already such a thing. It accelerates the genetical dialog between > individuals, allowing an acceleration of the growing of diversity. > True, but sex is physical so I don't see how that helps your argument. Is the integer 42 male or female? > > > To say that Evolution is just random mutation and natural selection is > like saying that the program Deep Blue is just a bunch of Nands. > Yes, it is like saying that, and both statements are true. They're stated in a rather undramatic way perhaps, but are true nevertheless. John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
