qetzal
Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Hi TP,
You wrote:
| Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 16 2007,13:26) | Hi qetzal,
Please pardon me for threatening you with AfDave but the point was to put things into perspective. I'm just an engineer trying to make sense of things. That, and having some fun being a quasi-troll.
You wrote...
| Quote | I get the impression that you see this as partly a philosophical debate. Personally, I couldn't care less about the philosophy. I accept the ToE because it's supported by evidence and accurately predicts what we see. I reject ID because it isn't, and it doesn't.
If you show me that Orch OR accurately predicts things that conventional models don't, I'll be much more interested. Until then... |
It is the "until then..." where the philosophical battle takes place. What are the default presumptions? I am not challenging established ToE principles, neither is Mike Gene. |
OK, in retrospect, I realize my comment actually does relate to my philosophy. Let me clarify.
I don't care about the implications of ToE, ID, or your Third Choice (TC) vis-a-vis philosophies like materialism, naturalism, teleology, etc. My philosophical bias is for models that accurately predict empirical observations. Those models can be materialistic or non-materialisic, teleologic or non-teleologic. I don't much care about that, as long as they are accurate and predictive.
So, I don't reject ID because it implies the universe is teleologic. I reject it (in most forms) because it either makes no predictions or wrong predictions.
I'm highly skeptical of your proposals because I see little evidence to support them, and I don't see that they predict reality better than ToE and other, more conventional models. At least, not in those cases where I know the conventional models well enough to judge.
If, however, you showed me that your models (&/or Hameroff's, Penrose's, Patel's, etc.) predict observation in ways that other models can't, I will happily re-consider the validity of your models. The same goes for ID. (Of course, I'm looking for useful predictions. We can debate what that means, but typical ID claims like "Stuff is complex" and "Darwinism can't explain X" don't make the grade.)
| Quote | | What is your presumed answer for the GHZ states described in the opening post to this thread? |
What do you mean? To the extent that I understand it, I accept that quantum entanglement occurs under certain conditions. If GHZ accurately describes how that operates, I'm fine with it.
| Quote | | What is your presumed answer for the source of Gamma EEG waves? |
Well, I'm not a neurologist, so I don't have a presumed answer. Which doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly good explanation, just that I don't know it, and I'm not interested enough to look it up.
| Quote | | What is your presumed answer for how single-celled organisms can avoid obstacles, find food and engage in sex? |
OK, this is closer to my expertise. Let's take finding food. This is an example of chemotaxis - movement in response to a chemical gradient. Bacteria typically swim towards chemoattractants (incl. food), and away from chemorepellants (e.g. harmful compounds). They can do this by mixing two kinds of swimming: runs and tumbles. Runs are relatively long periods of roughly straight line movement. Tumbles are short periods where the cell randomly re-orients.
When bacteria move up an attractant gradient, they are seen to have longer runs and fewer tumbles. When they get 'off course' (i.e. if they're not moving up the gradient any more), they're more likely to tumble and change direction. Changing the duration of runs and the frequency of tumbles like this lets them take a so-called random walk approach towards the source of the attractant. As long as they're moving in the right direction, they tend to keep going. If they go in the wrong direction, they're more likely to stop and try a different direction.
Note - when they change direction, they don't automatically re-orient towards the source. Re-orientation is (apparently) random. If, by chance, they end up pointing in the right direction, they'll keep going. Otherwise, they'll soon change direction again.
Note also - once they reach the food source, they're at the maximum point of attractant concentration. Any direction they move is away from the gradient. So, they minimize the length of their runs, and tumble frequently. In this way, the just sort of mill about in the region of highest food concentration.
So, how do they control runs and tumbles? They have receptors on the surface that bind attractants (and repellants). Binding causes a conformational change in the receptor, which extends through the membrane to the inside of the cell. The altered receptor interacts with other proteins. This changes the level of phosphorylation on a protein called CheY. When CheY is phosphorylated, it binds to certain flagellar proteins. This causes the flagella to rotate clockwise. Because of the unsymmetrical shape of the flagella, CW rotation causes tumbling.
When CheY is un-phosphorylated, it doesn't bind the flagellar proteins. In that case, the flagella rotate counterclockwise. Again, because of flagellar shape, CCW rotation causes runs.
Here is a review that provides more detail (see first section).
Note that nothing in this whole scheme requires any quantum superposition of proteins, or quantum calculation by the cell's DNA or tubulin-like proteins. There's no need to invoke any ill-defined awareness in the cells, quantum interconnectedness, or retrocausation. If someone can show how those things increase the accuracy of the model, great. At present, however, they don't appear to be relevant.
| Quote | | I suggest that many have a philosophical bias towards explanations that presume solid matter is operating in a universe of Euclidean Geometry where time always marches forward like a frame by frame movie (i.e. “Materialism”). |
Perhaps, but I don't. My bias is against models that don't increase our explanatory power, and don't increase our ability to predict observations. As an aside, I think your definition of Materialism is rather different than the usual one.
| Quote | “Materialism” is a philosophical outlook. I think it is outdated considering what we know from quantum physics. The Many Worlds interpretation is a desperate attempt to hang on to the security blanket of presuming solid particles actually exist.
I am not suggesting God or even Intelligent Designer(s) should be presumed. A lot of people have complained that my philosophical leaning is “Naturalism” which, to some, is just as bad as “Materialism”.
We can’t escape our biases. We all have them. But I suggest in this case, you might be attempting to presume a biased position that you have no right to claim should be considered the default ("conventional models"). |
Well, hopefully I've at least clarified what my philosophical position is. I'm not saying it's objectively right, or that you should adopt it as well. However, I will say that it's more or less a default position for science.
| Quote | | I am an engineer putting together my model. You put together yours and we will compare them. Ok? |
Depends. A model for what? There's a model that I currently accept for how bacteria find food. (At least, that's one way they do it; there are undoubtedly others.) If you have an alternative, we can discuss how it they compare.
However, if you're looking for my proposed model of consciousness, I don't have one. That doesn't mean I have to accept yours or Hameroff's. I'm perfectly content with the fact that we don't have an adequate model for consciousness yet.
|
