Yea you're probably right about Occham's razor applying....
On Jul 21, 5:46 am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can't see how you can think that Occam's Razor doesn't apply here.
>
> The hypothesis that Natural Selection is a process of those unfit for
> survival not surviving, and those fit for survival surviving and
> passing on the characteristics that makes them fit for survival does
> not make the assumption that there is a sentient being (neither
> physical nor metaphysics), and there's also plenty of evidence to
> support that.
>
> The hypothesis that Natural Selection, or 'nature' itself is a
> sentient being relies on so many un-evidenced premises that it's
> difficult to count them, but here's a few:
>
> 1) Let's consider the hypothesis that 'nature' or 'natural selection'
> is a metaphysical sentient being:
>
> In order for this hypothesis to become 'on par' with the hypothesis
> above, you'll have to provide evidence for the following premises:
>
> - Firstly, that there exists a metaphysical realm in the first place.
> - Secondly, that a being that exists in the metaphysical realm has the
> ability to affect what happens in this realm.
> - Thirdly, that this metaphysical being has the goals which, so far,
> we have explained by a non-sentient natural selection.
>
> 2) Let's consider the hypothesis that 'nature' or 'natural selection'
> is a physical sentient being:
>
> In order for this hypothesis to become 'on par' with the hypothesis
> above, you'll have to provide evidence for the following premises:
>
> - Firstly, that there exist alternative models of sentience other than
> those composed of the neurological matter we know of so far, and in
> the neurological arrangements we know of so far.
> - Secondly, that this physical being is either 1) Able to cause the
> effects of natural selection' without being present, or 2) invisible
> and intangible (which would probably make it metaphysical, in which
> case, see above). Afterall, we can see evolution and natural selection
> occurring before our very eyes in labs and in nature, and in none of
> these instances is an external agent abound.
>
> As you can see, any hypothesis which considers natural selection or
> nature to be a sentient being has a lot more explaining to do than our
> current view of it, and by Occam's Razor, we can dismiss them.
>
> As for your hypothesis on sleep, yes, you are right. But all you have
> done is list some of the advantages of sleep that, when accumulated,
> and considered against the negative effects, cause that 'net positive
> outcome'. Simply by producing an exhaustive list of the individual
> positive outcomes does not remove the fact that there are SOME
> negative outcomes.
>
> On Jul 21, 1:14 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ok I'll bite.
>
> > We know that our brains are composed of matter which when arranged
> > into a neurology results in sentience a subspecies of which is
> > "caring". Now we know next to nothing about how that happens. If I
> > consider the ecology as an organism and natural selection as a process
> > in that organism how do I know that there is no "caring" going on at
> > that level?
>
> > I am aware that evidence must be given to conclude something exists
> > vice that it doesn't exist so I would never say that I conclude that
> > it does and I am also aware of Ocham's razor but I think in this
> > instance we know so little about the processes involved that we do not
> > have two competing models one with fewer assumptions rather we seem to
> > be absent even a coherent hypothesis. So how can you conclude
> > positively that nature as a whole in the ecological sense is not
> > sentient? What physical criteria is required that is absent? I realize
> > that nature does not equal natural selection but again natural
> > selection is at its root a physical interaction and we do not have a
> > good model of the relationship between physical interactions and
> > psychic states so how do you get there positively?
>
> > With respect to the advantages or disadvantages of sleep it seems that
> > the matter is open to experimental verification by comparing the death
> > rates in the two states in a range of species. I am unaware of any
> > such comparison and in the absence of it I am not sure that I agree
> > that sleep isn't a state that has enough "awareness" to detect a
> > threat and doesn't decrease the vulnerability.in other words I don't
> > think that it is silly "that being unconscious and unwary of your
> > surroundings is not disadvantageous" The reason is that it is an
> > effective mimic of the un-edible. It has a similiar effect to "playing
> > dead" and does not stimulate predator awareness. I will agree that
> > "you can sneak up on a sleeping person easier than an awake
> > person" ... at least I think you can - if you know they are there
> > beforehand. But sleeping may still be less dangerous because it
> > prevents the stirring that alerts the predator.... that is - of course
> > - unless you snore. (Now snoring there is something that should have
> > been bred out of us long ago.) Either way. The answer is empirical and
> > I don't think you have established the fact. This does not mean that
> > sleeping hasn't additional benefits and may have effect on the brain
> > that is useful. It is a separate question of the relative risk of
> > death for a sleeping and not sleeping organism. I am reminded of the
> > mothers who end up suffocating their children when trying to escape
> > the Nazi's because the children were stirring. Especially in the
> > young, those that have not yet passed on their genes the sleep that
> > they take seems to me to be an advantage. Less mischief. Less risk.
> > Decreases the risk profile therefore not silly.
>
> > On Jul 20, 1:55 am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > First of all, I never stated the sleep was an evolutionary
> > > disadvantage. To the contrary, I stated that it's net effect was to be
> > > beneficial to the organism, NOT to sta
>
> > > But that 'net effect' is the result of both positive and negative
> > > outcomes. Positive outcomes of sleep are reduced calorific
> > > consumption, increased mental and physical agility after sleep, etc.
> > > Negative outcomes are being temporary unconscious, and I'm sorry, but
> > > to take the view that being unconscious and unwary of your
> > > surroundings is not disadvantageous is just silly. Even if you are
> > > well hidden and sleep in the dark, you are still more vulnerable being
> > > well-hidden and asleep than you are when you are well-hidden and
> > > awake.
>
> > > And the reason I stated the Natural Selection doesn't have any
> > > inclinations and doesn't care if we live or die is because Natural
> > > Selection is not a 'thing', it is not a tangible agent of evolution.
> > > It does not a being that makes conscious decicions to add and remove
> > > characteristics. It is, rather, a natural process which results from
> > > death of the weak and survival of the strong. It doesn't have cares or
> > > wonts, it doesn't have preferences or conscious inclinations. I do
> > > know this. It is a fact.
>
> > > So I must stress this again. I am not taking the position that
> > > sleeping is of negative benefit to our survival. This simply isn't
> > > true, it has massive benefit. But it isn't 100% benefit. It has a
> > > massive NET benefit, and that net benefit is an accumulation of loads
> > > of positive benefits, minus a few negative benefits.
>
> > > Garrie
>
> > > On 20 July, 09:36, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > It seems like a ridiculous argument to me. With regard to "After all,
> > > > sleeping for 8 hours a day only makes us vulnerably for 1
> > > > third of our lives.."
>
> > > > First, it seems that by sleeping we stop moving around. To a nocturnal
> > > > predator we might be MORE vulnerable at night if we stayed awake and
> > > > thrashed around alerting them to our presence. But even with that, the
> > > > fact that we build fires and post guards and are "afraid of the
> > > > dark".... I am just not sure if we are more vulnerable at night. It
> > > > would be interesting to check experimentally whether species that
> > > > sleep are more vulnerable at night or whether their daytime activity
> > > > is the necessary risk they take to get food and they actually die in
> > > > greater numbers when awake. The little I remember of my childhood says
> > > > that I was "...tucked *safely* away in my bed". Also it would be
> > > > interesting to compare caloric consumption in sleep and out of it.
> > > > Both are "facts not in evidence" to me.
>
> > > > In any case it seems that tuning to nighttime or daytime environments
> > > > is very fundamental in evolution. See:" Is Evolution an Algorithmic
> > > > Process?" onwww.researchchannel.org. There is a distinct survival
> > > > BENEFIT in being either nocturnal or a daytime species. Given that
> > > > fact, it seems that sleeping is a good choice and as it is akin to
> > > > hiding, it is probable it provides a survival advantage.
>
> > > > But then we know it does don't we? By the circular logic of evolution:
> > > > If it has a survival benefit it survives implies that if it survived
> > > > it must have a survival benefit! ;)
>
> > > > As for this: "Natural selection has no inclination to remove the
> > > > characteristics which cause us great pain and discomfort. Natural
> > > > selection doesn't care if we live or die. " and while careful to not
> > > > be interpreted as asserting the opposite again I claim: Facts not in
> > > > evidence. You just don't know.
>
> > > > On Jul 19, 12:52 pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Jim,
>
> > > > > In evolutionary terms, the most important goal is to hand down your
> > > > > genes. The prerequisites to this goal are reproduction and survival.
> > > > > Therefore, there is NOTHING more important than survival in
> > > > > evolutionary terms.
>
> > > > > So no, I wouldn't say that sleep serves a purpose more important than
> > > > > survival. I would say that sleep serves the purpose of survival, in
> > > > > fact.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
