Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Voice from the Middle Ground

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,08:49    On October 4th, Paul Nelson and Michael Ruse are/were scheduled to have a debate for discussing what it would take for them to switch sides. Here is a link to Paul Nelson's announcement where he said "Michael Ruse and I are going to have a sort of un-debate." I am making the easy prediction of a non-outcome to the un-debate where the spin-masters on both sides will claim victory. This is my overt attempt at preempting with my un-spin to provoke thinking about the polarization that this represents. Allow me some hyperbola to illustrate the point; one extreme view would be to ask for the equivalent of the random assembly of a 747 from a pile of junk another extreme view would be to ask for the equivalent of an Intelligent Designer saying "I am" accompanied by a pyrotechnical display of local shrubbery. In other words, the basic conflict is generally about randomness verses a designer. There is a lot of ground between these two extremes. What would it take to convince both sides that a middle ground hypothesis that presumes neither randomness nor a designer is not only plausible but likely? I have previously presented the concept that there is no such thing as randomness in a post titled The Magic of Intelligent Design. This post has appeared in Telic Thoughts and in After the Bar Closes. For a proposed design agency, I have offered the orchestrating properties of quantum effects generally outlined in the Penrose-Hameroff model called Orchestrated Objective Reduction or Orch OR for short. What would it take to convince either side that quantum effects are interconnected? How about seven decades of physicists performing experiments demonstrating non-local behavior and paradoxical behavior that can only be explained if nature is “entangled” at the quantum level? What would it take to convince either side that life is directly dependent on quantum effects? How about if respectable scientists at Berkeley lab reported something like… Early in 2007 a team of Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley researchers identified quantum mechanical effects as the key to the astonishing ability of photosynthesis to utilize nearly all the photons absorbed by the leaves of green plants. Now a different team has found new evidence that points to a closely packed pigment-protein complex of the photosystem as the key to those quantum mechanical effects. … How nature manages to pull off this stunt was a long-standing mystery until the spring of 2007, when a study led by Graham Fleming, Deputy Director of Berkeley Lab and a UC Berkeley chemistry professor, found the first direct evidence of what he calls a "remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence." Quantum-mechanical effects enable a plant's photosystem to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways from pigment molecules to reaction centers and choose the most efficient one. link …? What would it take to convince either side that evolution is under the control of interconnected quantum effects? What if it turned out the DNA search function is a quantum algorithm that requires quantum-like superposition? From Patel's Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code… Replication of DNA and synthesis of proteins are studied from the view-point of quantum database search. Identification of a base-pairing with a quantum query gives a natural (and first ever!) explanation of why living organisms have 4 nucleotide bases and 20 amino acids. It is amazing that these numbers arise as solutions to an optimisation problem. Components of the DNA structure which implement Grover’s algorithm are identified, and a physical scenario is presented for the execution of the quantum algorithm. It is proposed that enzymes play a crucial role in maintaining quantum coherence of the process. From Patel's Towards Understanding the Origin of Genetic Languages… The initial and final states of Grover’s algorithm are classical, but the execution in between is not. In order to be stable, the initial and final states have to be based on a relaxation towards equilibrium process. For the execution of the algorithm in between, the minimal physical requirement is a system that allows superposition of states, in particular a set of coupled wave modes. There is more support for the possibility of life's direct dependence on interconnected quantum effects for functions like cellular awareness (i.e. consciousness) as an artifact of quantum computation in microtubules. "Bio-quantum physics" appears to be an emerging science. While it is still speculative, that is not the point. The question is… What would it take to convince ID/Darwin extremists to agree on a scientific hypothesis that supports neither philosophical agenda? BTW, a quantum mechanical explanation can be thought of as a tool of an intelligent designer just as much as the result of a non-teleological universe that occurred “randomly” from multiple universes. However, these are metaphysical concerns, not scientific ones.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,08:56    Tp asks Quote The question is… What would it take to convince ID/Darwin extremists to agree on a scientific hypothesis that supports neither philosophical agenda? That's easy, tp. But you won't like the answer, since it caused you to run away from your other thread and start this one. What would it take? Evidence. Data. Got any? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:35    Hi Albatrossity2, Have I got "any"?  yes. Do I have "enough"? it depends I don't have enough to prove my case.  This isn't unusual.  Science doesn't "prove" anything. Do I have enough to justify something more than an automatic dismissal? That is root of the question.  If you are going to dismiss this with the same contempt as you would "GodDidIt" then the ID proponents are right, you are focused on protecting Status Quo thinking (scientism?).

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:46    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 04 2007,09:35) Hi Albatrossity2, Have I got "any"?  yes. Do I have "enough"? it depends I don't have enough to prove my case.  This isn't unusual.  Science doesn't "prove" anything. Do I have enough to justify something more than an automatic dismissal? That is root of the question.  If you are going to dismiss this with the same contempt as you would "GodDidIt" then the ID proponents are right, you are focused on protecting Status Quo thinking (scientism?). I'm listening. And no one expects you to "prove" anything. There is, however, an expectation that you can provide evidence (not inference, not speculation, but actual data) to support your hypothesis. On the other thread you provided none. So I have to admit my expectations are not high here. But I'm listening, as are others. And please stow the insults about "scientism", whatever that is. Any scientist who was wedded to the status quo would be left in the dust almost immediately. You might appreciate (or not) this quote from CM Bowra - "Scientists are treacherous allies on committees, for they are apt to change their minds in response to arguments." -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:54    Quote The question is… What would it take to convince ID/Darwin extremists to agree on a scientific hypothesis that supports neither philosophical agenda? I think something similar could have been said of Mendelism, between 1900 and 1930. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:02    Quote If you are going to dismiss this with the same contempt as you would "GodDidIt" then the ID proponents are right, you are focused on protecting Status Quo thinking (scientism?). Ooops. Non sequitur. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:12    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 04 2007,08:49) [T]he basic conflict is generally about randomness verses a designer. Too many people get sidetracked by the word "randomness." It gives the wrong impression of what the theory of evolution (TOE) says. (Cf. the 'tornado in a junkyard' metaphor.) In reality, much of what happens according to the TOE is decidedly non-random. The TOE merely holds (among other things) that there is no intended outcome, no external agency that guides evolution toward some prespecified goal. Thus, I think it's more useful to say this conflict is about non-teleological versus teleological claims, or undirected versus directed outcomes.   Quote There is a lot of ground between these two extremes. What would it take to convince both sides that a middle ground hypothesis that presumes neither randomness nor a designer is not only plausible but likely? Adequate empirical evidence. E.g. TOE predicts X, ID predicts Y, your Third Choice (TC) predicts Z. Perform a study to determine which of X, Y, or Z is actually observed. If the results are Z & not-X & not-Y, that's evidence in support of TC. All I've seen so far is arguments for why TC could be true. Even if I accepted those arguments as valid, that would merely establish TC as a possibility. It wouldn't be a reason to accept it. Quote I have previously presented the concept that there is no such thing as randomness in a post titled The Magic of Intelligent Design. This post has appeared in Telic Thoughts and in After the Bar Closes. For a proposed design agency, I have offered the orchestrating properties of quantum effects generally outlined in the Penrose-Hameroff model called Orchestrated Objective Reduction or Orch OR for short. What would it take to convince either side that quantum effects are interconnected? That's already scientifically accepted.   Quote How about seven decades of physicists performing experiments demonstrating non-local behavior and paradoxical behavior that can only be explained if nature is “entangled” at the quantum level? Yes, this is why quantum effects are accepted at the quantum level. This doesn't establish the degree of interconnection required in your proposal. (Or in Penrose-Hameroff's, as best I can tell.)   Quote What would it take to convince either side that life is directly dependent on quantum effects? Given that life depends directly on chemistry, and quantum effects play an integral role in chemistry, this is already established as well.   Quote What would it take to convince either side that evolution is under the control of interconnected quantum effects? Adequate empirical evidence.   Quote What if it turned out the DNA search function is a quantum algorithm that requires quantum-like superposition? Even that were true, wouldn't support the claim the evolution is under the control of interconnected quantum effects.   Quote From Patel's Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code… Replication of DNA and synthesis of proteins are studied from the view-point of quantum database search. Identification of a base-pairing with a quantum query gives a natural (and first ever!) explanation of why living organisms have 4 nucleotide bases and 20 amino acids. It is amazing that these numbers arise as solutions to an optimisation problem. Components of the DNA structure which implement Grover’s algorithm are identified, and a physical scenario is presented for the execution of the quantum algorithm. It is proposed that enzymes play a crucial role in maintaining quantum coherence of the process. From Patel's Towards Understanding the Origin of Genetic Languages… The initial and final states of Grover’s algorithm are classical, but the execution in between is not. In order to be stable, the initial and final states have to be based on a relaxation towards equilibrium process. For the execution of the algorithm in between, the minimal physical requirement is a system that allows superposition of states, in particular a set of coupled wave modes. As we discussed on the previous thread, at least some of Patel's proposals for how DNA replication might involve quantum superposition effects are clearly incompatible with known biochemistry. As far as I can tell, the rest are purely speculative at best. Quote There is more support for the possibility of life's direct dependence on interconnected quantum effects for functions like cellular awareness (i.e. consciousness) as an artifact of quantum computation in microtubules. "Bio-quantum physics" appears to be an emerging science. While it is still speculative, that is not the point. The question is… What would it take to convince ID/Darwin extremists to agree on a scientific hypothesis that supports neither philosophical agenda? Actually, the fact that it's still speculative is exactly the point. Without data that supports the speculation, there's no reason to accept it. Especially not when we already have a theory that does a damn good job of explaining what we see (the TOE, of course). Quote BTW, a quantum mechanical explanation can be thought of as a tool of an intelligent designer just as much as the result of a non-teleological universe that occurred “randomly” from multiple universes. However, these are metaphysical concerns, not scientific ones. Agreed.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:45    Hi all, Here is what I responded to Nick Matze on Telic Thoughts... Quote Hi Nick, Thank you very much for your comment. For your information I have also posted this on After the Bar Closes. If you wanted to post this on Panda's Thumb (even if to belittle it) I would appreciate that. You see, this is my attempt at provoking thinking about the fundamentals of the ID/Darwin debate. If you are going to dismiss this with the same contempt as "GodDidIt" then the ID proponents are right. They would be wasting their time putting together mechanistic explanations backed up, partially, by scientific observations. It becomes apparent until you personally see the burning bush and witness a miracle; you aren't going to accept its possibility. And even then, you might reject it because it is outside of your status quo thinking. As you know, in 1905 a patent clerk was trying to make a big deal about an inconsistency in Mercury's orbit and a slight red shift in sunlight. This resulted in a special-relativity-in-the-gaps rationalization. BTW, for those who don't know, Einstein's special relativity was wrong. Of course we don't say that because of its importance. We say it was "incomplete". The god-in-the-gaps like argument was that there was no inertial reference frame. Later, Einstein corrected his mistake by embracing General Relativity which is based on an inertial reference frame presumption. General Relativity has been proven correct as much as anything can be scientifically "proven". Another example from the world of biology… In 1951 a pair of young loose-cannons slapped together a model of what they thought was the basis of genetics. Their DNA-in-the-gaps model was laughably wrong. They were chastised and told to quit working on it. Two years later the stubborn young scientists slapped together another model based on information they "liberated" from other scientists like Rosalind Franklin. This time they got lucky. Eventually their luck resulted in them receiving Nobel prizes. Rosalind wasn’t so lucky. She died before her contribution was adequately recognized. Nick, there is a role to play in protecting the Status Quo. But, is it possible the role might have evolved into Dr. Zaius’ dual title of “Minister of Science and Defender of the Faith”? Yes, there is a balance to be maintained and I will speak to the other side of the balance in responding to other comments. However, I suggest there is some truth to the complaints I am hearing from ID proponents. I will follow up with specific responses to your comments.  So far, I like what I am reading.  Thank You.

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,11:02    I replied to TP at Telic Thoughts:   Quote   Quote As you know, in 1905 a patent clerk was trying to make a big deal about an inconsistency in Mercury's orbit and a slight red shift in sunlight. This resulted in a special-relativity-in-the-gaps rationalization. No. Gravitational redshift and the precession of Mercury's orbit are explained by general relativity, not special relativity.   Quote The god-in-the-gaps like argument was that there was no inertial reference frame. No. Special relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, recognizes inertial reference frames and holds that the laws of physics are identical in all of them. TP, if you don't even understand well-established physics such as special relativity, why should we pay attention to your boosterism of quantum woo such as Patel's? -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,12:13    Hi Keith, From a paper titled Einstein’s Ether: Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether? link "In (1905) Einstein constructed a relativity theory that was based on the assertion that the ether was superfluous. In 1908 Minkowski formulated the theory of the “absolute world”. The nineteenth century ether no longer existed. A new kind of ether (space-time) came into being. One could keep on maintaining the ether, and at the same time strip it of the notion of absolute rest. Einstein seemed to agree, and after 1916 he returned to the ether. In 1920 he combined Minkowski’s absolute world concept and Mach’s ideas on rotational movements…" The Twin Paradox was a paradox for special relativity because the problem's solution was inconsistant depending on which twin's reference frame was used. If everything was relative and there was no "ether" (inertial frame of reference) then this was a problem. Minkowskian geometry explained it was a simple geometry situation where the shortest distance between two points is NOT a straight line. Note: this is copied and pasted from Telic Thoughts

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,12:46    My reply to TP at Telic Thoughts:   Quote TP, I think the problem is that you're confusing the concepts of absolute vs. inertial reference frames. Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference, but it most definitely does not say that there are no inertial frames, as you claimed. In fact, special relativity recognizes an infinite number of inertial frames and holds that the laws of physics are identical in all of them. The so-called "Twin Paradox" is actually not a paradox at all. A true paradox is self-contradictory. The Twin Paradox is counterintuitive, to be sure, but it does not contradict itself. And contrary to your assertion, it can be fully explained in terms of special relativity. Again, TP, I urge you to take some time to learn basic physics. It will pay off in the long run, and it will make you less susceptible to woo-mongers like Patel. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,13:13    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 04 2007,08:49) On October 4th, Paul Nelson and Michael Ruse are/were scheduled to have a debate for discussing what it would take for them to switch sides. Here is a link to Paul Nelson's announcement where he said "Michael Ruse and I are going to have a sort of un-debate." I am making the easy prediction of a non-outcome to the un-debate where the spin-masters on both sides will claim victory. This is my overt attempt at preempting with my un-spin to provoke thinking about the polarization that this represents. Allow me some hyperbola to illustrate the point; one extreme view would be to ask for the equivalent of the random assembly of a 747 from a pile of junk another extreme view would be to ask for the equivalent of an Intelligent Designer saying "I am" accompanied by a pyrotechnical display of local shrubbery. In other words, the basic conflict is generally about randomness verses a designer. There is a lot of ground between these two extremes. What would it take to convince both sides that a middle ground hypothesis that presumes neither randomness nor a designer is not only plausible but likely? I have previously presented the concept that there is no such thing as randomness in a post titled The Magic of Intelligent Design. This post has appeared in Telic Thoughts and in After the Bar Closes. For a proposed design agency, I have offered the orchestrating properties of quantum effects generally outlined in the Penrose-Hameroff model called Orchestrated Objective Reduction or Orch OR for short. What would it take to convince either side that quantum effects are interconnected? How about seven decades of physicists performing experiments demonstrating non-local behavior and paradoxical behavior that can only be explained if nature is “entangled” at the quantum level? What would it take to convince either side that life is directly dependent on quantum effects? How about if respectable scientists at Berkeley lab reported something like… Early in 2007 a team of Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley researchers identified quantum mechanical effects as the key to the astonishing ability of photosynthesis to utilize nearly all the photons absorbed by the leaves of green plants. Now a different team has found new evidence that points to a closely packed pigment-protein complex of the photosystem as the key to those quantum mechanical effects. … How nature manages to pull off this stunt was a long-standing mystery until the spring of 2007, when a study led by Graham Fleming, Deputy Director of Berkeley Lab and a UC Berkeley chemistry professor, found the first direct evidence of what he calls a "remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence." Quantum-mechanical effects enable a plant's photosystem to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways from pigment molecules to reaction centers and choose the most efficient one. link …? What would it take to convince either side that evolution is under the control of interconnected quantum effects? What if it turned out the DNA search function is a quantum algorithm that requires quantum-like superposition? From Patel's Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code… Replication of DNA and synthesis of proteins are studied from the view-point of quantum database search. Identification of a base-pairing with a quantum query gives a natural (and first ever!) explanation of why living organisms have 4 nucleotide bases and 20 amino acids. It is amazing that these numbers arise as solutions to an optimisation problem. Components of the DNA structure which implement Grover’s algorithm are identified, and a physical scenario is presented for the execution of the quantum algorithm. It is proposed that enzymes play a crucial role in maintaining quantum coherence of the process. From Patel's Towards Understanding the Origin of Genetic Languages… The initial and final states of Grover’s algorithm are classical, but the execution in between is not. In order to be stable, the initial and final states have to be based on a relaxation towards equilibrium process. For the execution of the algorithm in between, the minimal physical requirement is a system that allows superposition of states, in particular a set of coupled wave modes. There is more support for the possibility of life's direct dependence on interconnected quantum effects for functions like cellular awareness (i.e. consciousness) as an artifact of quantum computation in microtubules. "Bio-quantum physics" appears to be an emerging science. While it is still speculative, that is not the point. The question is… What would it take to convince ID/Darwin extremists to agree on a scientific hypothesis that supports neither philosophical agenda? BTW, a quantum mechanical explanation can be thought of as a tool of an intelligent designer just as much as the result of a non-teleological universe that occurred “randomly” from multiple universes. However, these are metaphysical concerns, not scientific ones. Over the past few weeks I've come to appreciate TP's posts. Not for their content, specifically, but for their soporific effect. They're more effective in inducing sleep than barbiturates, and they're not habit-forming. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,13:23    Looks like maybe TP is right after all! WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY: OBSERVED PHENOMENA IN SCIURUS CAROLINENESIS Hat-tip: The World's Fair. (Please excuse my irreverance. I couldn't help myself!)

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,13:37    Quote In other words, the basic conflict is generally about randomness verses a designer. There is a lot of ground between these two extremes. What would it take to convince both sides that a middle ground hypothesis that presumes neither randomness nor a designer is not only plausible but likely? I have previously presented the concept that there is no such thing as randomness in a post titled The Magic of Intelligent Design. This post has appeared in Telic Thoughts and in After the Bar Closes. For a proposed design agency, I have offered the orchestrating properties of quantum effects generally outlined in the Penrose-Hameroff model called Orchestrated Objective Reduction or Orch OR for short. What would it take to convince either side that quantum effects are interconnected? How about seven decades of physicists performing experiments demonstrating non-local behavior and paradoxical behavior that can only be explained if nature is “entangled” at the quantum level? But but but... Um, random and designer are only from the stupid side... You can't use those words!!!one11 They are a patghetic attempt to frame the debate inaccurately. Teleologic/non-teleologic is more accurate. Anyway, that aside. And like I said before. Great. Evolution essentially happens by selection. This is a fact not a theory. The theory is the mechanics of it. A middle ground that claims that speciation is not the result of selection would be wrong. Not middle. The quantum effect may indeed be a force motivating one of the forces working on selection but, as with Newton's gravity, Darwin's "Natural Selection" or even the modern synthesis, they work. If you can discover another force, do you think it will overturn selection? Hardly, the only possibility it has is to be a force acting on selection. I found that easier to write as  a declarative statement but as always, I quite probably misunderstood your position or scrambled the facts in some silly way. I am happy to be wrong. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,16:06    Hi All, I will continue my running gun battle with Keiths in a moment, but first let me catch up... Albatrossity2 wrote...   Quote You might appreciate (or not) this quote from CM Bowra - "Scientists are treacherous allies on committees, for they are apt to change their minds in response to arguments." Engineers are like that too.  They tend to go with what works.  Provide a mechanistic explanation that makes sense (i.e. a model) and they will run with it.  I have plenty of experience with PhD types providing lists of why a proposed design won't work.  However, when they refuse to offer an alternative we have to go with the best we got.  The funny part is when the project is successfully completed, the PhD types still maintain they were right and provide plenty or reasons why. Penrose's quantum interpretation (OR) makes sense and answers all of the quantum observations like GHZ states. The Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model is a fall out of this.  Consciousness has to be tied to interconnected quantum effects.  Consciousness can't be purely algorithmic. Dr. Hameroff takes this a provides a detailed model of how this could work.  I understand it well enough to go with its basic concept.  Do you have an alternative model? qetzal wrote...   Quote In reality, much of what happens according to the TOE is decidedly non-random. The TOE merely holds (among other things) that there is no intended outcome, no external agency that guides evolution toward some prespecified goal. Thus, I think it's more useful to say this conflict is about non-teleological versus teleological claims, or undirected versus directed outcomes. BWE wrote...   Quote Teleologic/non-teleologic is more accurate. Is the Earth "directed" to revolve around the sun?  General Relativity suggests that time is just another dimension in space/time geometry.  There is no reason that the future couldn't effect the past for similar reasons that the sun can effect the Earth. "Teleological" becomes a metaphysical semantic game until you start talking about a designer.  To illustrate this, I talk about how the purpose of the universe is to be consistent with itself.  Skeptic pointed out this is a metaphysical statement.  I agree with him. Besides, I have heard just about as many ID critics say this is about "God" as I have heard ID proponents talk about belief in randomness. Are you ready to agree there is no such thing as randomness (or at least that it is a metaphysical presumption)? To Jim - glad I can help with your insomnia To BWE - Other than arguing against randomness, what I am saying isn't in direct conflict with the ToE.  I am suggesting an enhancement that might explain why living organisms like Vernanimalcula guizhouena are more complex than expected. While I hesitate to speak for MikeGene, I think it is safe to say he has a similar position.  Front Loading is an enhancement, not a challenge.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,16:43    Quote Consciousness has to be tied to interconnected quantum effects.  Consciousness can't be purely algorithmic. This has not been demonstrated. And that's the trouble I'm having with your ideas. I see no justification for positing that quantum effects are important, to either evolution or consciousness. I just don't see what is so desperately in need of explanation that justifies a radical departure from the traditional modes of investigation of these phenomena. Even if we had a GUT of physics, evolutionary biologists and neuroscientists would still have plenty of work to do. I guess, in short, (and apologies: I know your dislike of labels) I sense in your treatment of these concepts what Dennett calls "greedy reductionism." IOW, just because there's a quantum reality that underlies our ordinary classical-scale existence, it doesn't mean that it's useful to try and explain every phenomenon in quantum terms. I'd like you to rein in your theorizing, and tell me what it is a theory like this would even be called upon to explain. And don't just say "consciousness," unless you can demonstrate the bit I quoted from your post at the top, there. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,17:14    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Oct. 04 2007,16:43) ... I guess, in short, (and apologies: I know your dislike of labels) I sense in your treatment of these concepts what Dennett calls "greedy reductionism." IOW, just because there's a quantum reality that underlies our ordinary classical-scale existence, it doesn't mean that it's useful to try and explain every phenomenon in quantum terms. I'd like you to rein in your theorizing, and tell me what it is a theory like this would even be called upon to explain. And don't just say "consciousness," unless you can demonstrate the bit I quoted from your post at the top, there. I'm with C.J. on this one. WTF can you do with your model? Not that it isn't a fun topic- on the contrary, I'm trying to figure out how to test the quantum time-pull effect on my body and some 12 year old scotch I have at home as I type this- but why hook up with the ID crowd to talk about it? What's the deal with that? Quote (TP @ *,*) To BWE - Other than arguing against randomness, what I am saying isn't in direct conflict with the ToE.  I am suggesting an enhancement that might explain why living organisms like Vernanimalcula guizhouena are more complex than expected. I think I missed the reference. Do you mean organisms living today that are similar to Vernanimalcula guizhouena? At any rate, what was expected? Until someone figured out the fluid dynamics equations or fractal models or whatever they are that dictate the prescribed nature of the universe, doesn't it make sense to work backwards from data?  In any equation based model, even if it were perfect, the model required tuning to be accurate. The inputs need to be manipulated until they match the real-world data. If you don't have enough data, your model has a low degree of accuracy and vice-versa. No? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,17:42    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 04 2007,16:06) ...I have plenty of experience with PhD types providing lists of why a proposed design won't work. We're not saying it won't work, we're asking why no one is using it to produce any work (new data). If you, Penrose, Hameroff, et al. thought that this hypothesis would work, you'd be producing data with it.   Quote However, when they refuse to offer an alternative we have to go with the best we got. TP, you're delusional. You're not going with it, and no one else is either.   Quote The funny part is when the project is successfully completed, the PhD types still maintain they were right and provide plenty or reasons why. Um...we're the ones asking why you and those who love this hypothesis have yet to start a project, much less complete one successfully. We're the doers, and you're just a talker.   Quote The Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model is a fall out of this.  Consciousness has to be tied to interconnected quantum effects.  Consciousness can't be purely algorithmic. How would you know? You can't tell the difference between a paper that contains new data and one that doesn't.   Quote Dr. Hameroff takes this a provides a detailed model of how this could work. Then why hasn't he tested it by manipulating microtubules?   Quote I understand it well enough to go with its basic concept.  Do you have an alternative model? LTP + a lot of stuff we don't understand yet. Folks (including me) are testing predictions.   Quote ...I am suggesting an enhancement that might explain why living organisms like Vernanimalcula guizhouena are more complex than expected. But does it make any predictions?   Quote While I hesitate to speak for MikeGene, I think it is safe to say he has a similar position.  Front Loading is an enhancement, not a challenge. Science is about predicting more than explaining. Einstein was famous because he offered testable predictions. Do you have any? If not, you and the cowardly Mike Gene are avoiding science, not doing it.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,17:46    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 04 2007,16:06) Engineers are like that too.  They tend to go with what works.  Provide a mechanistic explanation that makes sense (i.e. a model) and they will run with it.  I have plenty of experience with PhD types providing lists of why a proposed design won't work.  However, when they refuse to offer an alternative we have to go with the best we got.  The funny part is when the project is successfully completed, the PhD types still maintain they were right and provide plenty or reasons why. Yes, and note what the engineers did - they performed an empirical test by putting the design into practice, thus providing evidence to support their hypothesis that the design was sound. As you rightly point out, we can't always trust that our theories accurately reflect reality. That's why we insist that theories be supported with evidence. Quote Penrose's quantum interpretation (OR) makes sense and answers all of the quantum observations like GHZ states. But you've just illustrated so clearly, we can't always trust our theories even when they're supported by lots of evidence. Yet you want us to accept Penrose's theory based on no evidence. Can't you see the disconnect there? Quote The Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model is a fall out of this.  Consciousness has to be tied to interconnected quantum effects.  Consciousness can't be purely algorithmic. Why? How do you know? You sound suspiciously like those PhDs who insist things must be a certain way. Quote Dr. Hameroff takes this a provides a detailed model of how this could work.  I understand it well enough to go with its basic concept.  Do you have an alternative model? Hameroff's model focuses on how microtubules and microtubule networks might engage in quantum computing. I'm not qualified to evaluate the quantum aspects, but even if they're plausible, how does Hameroff support the claim that they lead to consciousness? As far as I can tell, it's just an appeal to apparent mysticism. Quantum effects seem mystical, consciousness seems mystical, one must cause the other. Not a very compelling argument. Please note - I don't reject Hameroff's ideas out of hand. I admit they seem a bit wacky to me, but it's too far out of my area of expertise. I just refuse to accept his ideas in the absense of adequate supporting evidence. Quote There is no reason that the future couldn't effect the past for similar reasons that the sun can effect the Earth. In other words, you're arguing it's possible. But not everything that's possible is real. Quote Are you ready to agree there is no such thing as randomness (or at least that it is a metaphysical presumption)? You're missing the point. We're not arguing whether randomness exists per se. We're saying that evolution isn't random. The TOE is not equivalent to randomness a la the tornado in a junkyard. Not by any stretch. In fact, perhaps you should take heart in this. You originally asked: Quote What would it take to convince both sides that a middle ground hypothesis that presumes neither randomness nor a designer is not only plausible but likely? The answer is that TOE is a middle ground hypothesis. It doesn't invoke a designer, yet it doesn't claim that organisms arose by anything akin to "random assembly of a 747 from a pile of junk" either. Dilemma solved! Of course, it was solved even before you asked the question, but I suppose your asking now could have retrocaused the solution in the past. ;-) Quote To BWE - Other than arguing against randomness, what I am saying isn't in direct conflict with the ToE.  I am suggesting an enhancement that might explain why living organisms like Vernanimalcula guizhouena are more complex than expected. On what basis is V. guizhouena more complex than expected? Are you trying to suggest that it's 'too complex' to have evolved 'naturally' in the available time period? Do you have any evidence to support that, or is it based merely on personal incredulity? Quote While I hesitate to speak for MikeGene, I think it is safe to say he has a similar position.  Front Loading is an enhancement, not a challenge. That's not correct. Front loading is directly contradictory to the TOE as we know it.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,19:24    Captain's Log, star date 2006.1004, We are on assignment in the Alpha quadrant to study planet cluster 623. I have ordered the navigator to make it appear the planet cluster is moving in a circular pattern relative to the ship.  Side note, I find it interesting that when the navigator does this it looks like the entire universe is spinning at the same rate, fascinating. I have ordered Ensign Keiths to my ready-room. Here he is now (wearing a red shirt, of course). Ensign, we are sending down several survey teams to various planets in this cluster.  This operation will occur over two years, ship time.  The first year we will be dropping off teams the second year we will be picking them up. However, it won't appear to be a year for you.  Since, as you know,   "...there is no absolute frame of reference..." and "...that the laws of physics are identical in all..." local frames of reference.  Based on the ship's frame of reference, you will be constantly traveling at warp 0.9.  At nine tenths the speed of light time will go slower…. err… um…  or does it go faster?  Hmmm, let's do the math... ds^2 = dt^2 - (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)        = (1 year)^2 - (0.9 light-years)^2        = 1.0 - 0.81        = 0.19 ds = 0.436 years Ah yes, that’s it.  Less than half a year.  Therefore, we will provision your shuttle to last you and your team half a year.  We will be back before you know it. Ensign Keiths? Do you have something to say?

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,19:49    Hi C.J.O'Brien, You wrote... [quote]I guess, in short, (and apologies: I know your dislike of labels) I sense in your treatment of these concepts what Dennett calls "greedy reductionism." IOW, just because there's a quantum reality that underlies our ordinary classical-scale existence, it doesn't mean that it's useful to try and explain every phenomenon in quantum terms. I'd like you to rein in your theorizing, and tell me what it is a theory like this would even be called upon to explain. And don't just say "consciousness," unless you can demonstrate the bit I quoted from your post at the top, there.[quote] I suggest the opposite of what you are talking about is compartmentalizing.  One of the things Penrose did was to merge General Relativity with quantum physics.  A complete model needs to explain both realities.  Consciousness plays into this too.  It is part of the measurement problem for quantum mechanics.  Penrose didn't ignore this inconvienient observation.  He offered a mathematical proof against Strong AI.  Here is Planet math's analysis of it. I understand there was a time that geologists and scientists studying the sun were ignoring each other.  The geologists felt the earth was old, the scientists felt the sun was young (this was before E=mc^2).  Neither saw a need to deal with the other discipline's problem.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,20:06    Hi BWE, You wrote...     Quote I'm with C.J. on this one. WTF can you do with your model? Not that it isn't a fun topic- on the contrary, I'm trying to figure out how to test the quantum time-pull effect on my body and some 12 year old scotch I have at home as I type this- but why hook up with the ID crowd to talk about it? What's the deal with that? My reaction to this is asking WTF did we need special and general relativity for?  We were getting along fine with Newtonian physics. I suggest a deeper understanding of fundamentals will always come in handy.  To start with.  If Hameroff is correct, the human brain is over 10^8 times more powerful than previously thought. As for my interest in attaching this to ID.  First of all, curiosity.  I like understanding people who think different than myself.  I am learning things about ID proponents by throwing this hypothesis out there. I am also more concerned about what will happen when the paradigm shift happens.  I am concerned that if we continue the polarization, the majority will lose patience and we risk a repeat of 391 AD where "reality" was created by political decree (emperor Theodosius I) reinforced by the destruction to contrary scientific thought in places like the Serapeum of Alexandria (Library of Alexandria). My answer is to provoke thought on both sides. Besides, I think the Third Choice hypothesis has a good chance of being correct.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,20:43    Hi JAM, You wrote... Quote LTP + a lot of stuff we don't understand yet. Folks (including me) are testing predictions. Good, and I wish you good fortune. Quote Science is about predicting more than explaining. Einstein was famous because he offered testable predictions. And Penrose has offered testable prediction based in E=h/t.  His FELIX experiments tests the predicted decoherence time of a small mirror. Penrose/Hameroff model implies that once AI starts using quantum computation the results will be "surprisingly" human-like. And, oh yea, the prediction that neural networks will “…present non-local properties not explainable by classical models." Here is the link to that experiment you have assured me has nothing to do with microtubules even though the authors mention Penrose-Hameroff by name.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,20:56    Hi qetzal, You wrote...   Quote In other words, you're arguing it's possible. But not everything that's possible is real. This is probably a philosophical difference.  I have a strong sense that, in this universe, if it can happen it does happen.  I think Penrose has a similar philosophy. Hawking and Penrose figured out Black Holes could happen.  They presumed Black Holes existed long before evidence was found. Did you know natural occuring laser light was found on Mars? link I think the trick to physics is trying to figure out what isn't possible under what conditions.  It may be the trick to biology too. You wrote... Quote That's not correct. Front loading is directly contradictory to the TOE as we know it. You might want to talk to MikeGene about his opinion on that. Here is my comment on Vernanimalcula guizhouena.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,22:19    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 04 2007,20:56) Hi qetzal, You wrote...         Quote In other words, you're arguing it's possible. But not everything that's possible is real. This is probably a philosophical difference.  I have a strong sense that, in this universe, if it can happen it does happen.  I think Penrose has a similar philosophy. Well, if that's your view, I can see why evidence is mostly irrelevant to you. But do you really believe that? If it's merely possible that microtubules perform quantum computations, then they do?   Quote Hawking and Penrose figured out Black Holes could happen.  They presumed Black Holes existed long before evidence was found. Not so. They figured out that, based on our best understanding of physics, black holes must form under certain conditions. I trust you see the difference?   Quote Did you know natural occuring laser light was found on Mars? link Yes, and....?   Quote I think the trick to physics is trying to figure out what isn't possible under what conditions.  It may be the trick to biology too. I guess that's not entirely unreasonable, at least as a way to distinguish what's possible from what's not. It's still necessary to generate evidence, to distinguish what's merely possible from what's actually true. Keep in mind that our ability to determine what's really impossible is no better than the quality of our current theories. And we already apparently agree that it's unwise to assume those are infallible.   Quote You wrote...       Quote That's not correct. Front loading is directly contradictory to the TOE as we know it. You might want to talk to MikeGene about his opinion on that. Here is my comment on Vernanimalcula guizhouena. Yes, I saw it. I didn't respond at the time, but I will now. You wrote:   Quote Alright, I will admit the Vernanimalcula guizhouena probably had to hand out "I am deaf" cards to any verbalizing organisms running around, but all and all, for it's time the Vernanimalcula guizhouena were intellectual giants. That time was 600 MILLION YEARS AGO! As a champion of a Third Choice I will point out the challenge of this for the other two choices. First of all, what evolutionary pressures would there be to cause such a complex creature to evolve? How much complexity is needed to eat microbes? How complicated do early organisms have to get before it is admitted they just might be more complicated than expected? Do you realize that the first life probably arose almost 4 BILLION years ago? (Believe it or not, there are fossils of these cells.) That leaves ~ 3 billion years to go from the first cells to V. guizhouena, versus only 600 million to go from V. guizhouena to H. sapiens. I think that puts things in more perspective. Evolutionary pressures that might lead to V. guizhouena are easy to imagine. If you're the biggest organism around, it's rather hard for all the littler things to eat you. The ability to sense light could also have lots of value. Helps you find where all the photosynthesizers are hanging out, in case you need a snack, for example. And of course, the raw material for developing light sensors had been around for a few billion years. How hard would it be for a photon-absorbing photosynthetic pigment to get co-opted for use as a photon-absorbing sensory pigment? Seems entirely plausible to me. You seem to be applying very different standards here. For Penrose & Hameroff, mere plausibility is all you require. Is there a reason why you set the bar so much higher for poor old V. guizhouena?

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,22:19    Quote I suggest the opposite of what you are talking about is compartmentalizing.  One of the things Penrose did was to merge General Relativity with quantum physics.  A complete model needs to explain both realities.  Consciousness plays into this too.  It is part of the measurement problem for quantum mechanics.  Penrose didn't ignore this inconvienient observation.  He offered a mathematical proof against Strong AI.  Here is Planet math's analysis of it. Hmm, I must have missed his paper where he beat out the rest of these. What was the point of the space-time calculation? What does keiths dispute that's clarified by this exercise?   Quote And Penrose has offered testable prediction based in E=h/t.  His FELIX experiments tests the predicted decoherence time of a small mirror. Penrose/Hameroff model implies that once AI starts using quantum computation the results will be "surprisingly" human-like. And, oh yea, the prediction that neural networks will “…present non-local properties not explainable by classical models." Here is the link to that experiment you have assured me has nothing to do with microtubules even though the authors mention Penrose-Hameroff by name. Until you get past the abstract and tell us what the experimental setup and data was, you can BS us until you're blue in the face.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,22:53    Hi qetzal, You wrote... Quote Do you realize that the first life probably arose almost 4 BILLION years ago? (Believe it or not, there are fossils of these cells.) That leaves ~ 3 billion years to go from the first cells to V. guizhouena, versus only 600 million to go from V. guizhouena to H. sapiens. I think that puts things in more perspective. And life using quantum effects for photosynthesis occurring midway between them. Going from V. guizhouena to humans seems trivial compared to going from basic chemicals to V. guizhouena, even at 5 times the duration. I also find life's start on early Earth interesting.  As an engineer I tend to think that evidence of life at 4 bya means life started much earlier.  As it is, Earth was pretty hostile that early.  Added to that, the possible existence of nanobes means we might have a whole new outlook on the Origin of Life... From Nanobacteria and Nanobes- Are They Alive? Nanobes are thought to exist everywhere! Nanobe structures have been found within organisms as well as rocks. While their existence is relatively new knowledge, some speculate that nanobes may even outnumber bacteria by an order of magnitude! Nanobes may also exist on other planets! Martian meteorites such as ALH84001 (more info) have been speculated to contain trace fossils of nanobacteria. The softball-sized igneous meteorite shows microscopic worm-like and "ovid" nanofossils. Quote You seem to be applying very different standards here. For Penrose & Hameroff, mere plausibility is all you require. Is there a reason why you set the bar so much higher for poor old V. guizhouena? Another unusual philosophy of mine.  I don't mine embracing multiple concepts simultaneously.  I think it is quite possible that V. guizhouena could have happened without help from interconnected quantum effects. It is all a matter of percentages.  What is the percentage chance that life on Earth came from a meteor?  I use to put that pretty low.  It is getting a little higher.  My percentage chance for Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR is around 50%. I am generally more interested in provoking thought than trying to make converts.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,23:03    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 04 2007,20:56) You wrote...       Quote That's not correct. Front loading is directly contradictory to the TOE as we know it. You might want to talk to MikeGene about his opinion on that. OK, I read a bit more of Mike Gene's stuff, and I tentatively retract my objection, at least as regards his version of front loading.  To be honest, I'm still not clear what the essence of his version is. But in its loosest form, it appears to be simply that evolution of new traits is partly constrained (and therefore partly determined) by previously existing traits. That is indeed entirely compatible with the current TOE. New traits don't evolve out of nothing. They arise by modification of what's already there. If that's all Mike Gene's version of front loading says, I have no problem with it. I'm not sure how it's an extension, but I confess there's a lot there I didn't try to go through. I do note, however, that he repeatedly refers to a designer. If a designer is detectably involved in his version of front loading, then my objection stands - that's incompatible with the current TOE.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,23:06    Hi Creeky Belly, You asked...     Quote What was the point of the space-time calculation? What does keiths dispute that's clarified by this exercise? Keiths was questioning my understanding of Special and General Relativity. I offered my understanding with a story that may have helped explain at least some of my understanding. The situation I described makes sense from a Special Relativity point of view.  But Keiths knows that in this situation the poor survey team is going to starve long before the ship arrives to pick them up. Keiths knows this because General Relativity indicates there is an absolute inertial frame  of reference. Keiths offered a Scientific American article on it.  I must admit, I am surprised by the number of articles trying to defend Special Relativity when it is obvious that Special Relativity is, at best, incomplete. Right or wrong, I understand what I am saying and can defend it.  So far, Keiths isn't interested in trying to explain his answers in his own words.

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,23:15    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 04 2007,19:24) Ensign Keiths? Do you have something to say? My reply (cross-posted from Telic Thoughts):     Quote TP, I don't have the time or the inclination to walk you through an explanation of how special relativity resolves the so-called "Twin Paradox", but I did hunt down a Scientific American article on the the Web that explains it, so that you can convince yourself on your own time. You can find it here. This paragraph from the article explains why general relativity is not needed to resolve the paradox, contrary to your claim: Quote The paradox lies in the question "Why is the traveling brother younger?" Special relativity tells us that an observed clock, traveling at a high speed past an observer, appears to run more slowly. (Many of us solved this problem in sophomore physics, to demonstrate one effect of the absolute nature of the speed of light.) Since relativity says that there is no absolute motion, wouldn't the brother traveling to the star also see his brother's clock on the earth move more slowly? If this were the case, wouldn't they both be the same age? This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox. Of course, this conclusion is based on yet another mistake, since we don't need general relativity to handle accelerations. The paradox can be unraveled by special relativity alone, and the accelerations incurred by the traveler are incidental. An explanation follows. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard