GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012
|
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,21:40) | Jerry, before I have to stick a fork into this overcooked forum then call it done, I wanted to let you know that (from what this forum was saying about you) I was impressed by your answers. Earlier on you were discussing quantum mechanics and right away this illustration for showing that relationship came to my mind:
https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF |
At cursory glance I would have to say that I don't really understand it, perhaps because I haven't studied the terms in details.
As example HOW is the behavior of matter a starting point (what behavior are we discussing..QM???.. rocks behave fine as rocks just sitting there doing nothing). |
QM is currently the best theory to explain the behavior of matter but it is inadequate for explaining what we need to know to begin answering the “big questions”. What is needed is theory similar to String Theory which also explains how consciousness works. Currently, this somewhat abstract but relevant video best explains the starting behavior that I have in mind:
Everything Is Energy - Carl Seeger
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | How does this turn into molecular intelligence? Sounds a little vague or arbitrary???? Just MHO but I certainly encourage thought and exploration into this kind of philosophy and I try to keep an open mind. |
I do not consider it philosophy. The best example here would be the field of Abiogenesis but here what is most important is how the starting behavior (of matter) produces the starting self-learning (intelligent) system (such as self-replicating RNA) which like a human zygote in time develops into us. The paradigm literally requires explaining the origin of life from the perspective of intelligence.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | The overwhelming evidence I need to accept ID is already here and all around us: look at the fossil record. Saltation has been evidenced in the fossil record ever since someone thought to compile and analyze a fossil record.
Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it.
Instead what we see is obvious saltation....the almost (relatively speaking, of course) sudden appearance of all kinds of new organisms with no evolutionary history leading up to this appearance and this is noted by several events in the record. |
Yes, molecular (or other) intelligence does not develop gradually. It has a curve like this:
Once again, the evidence ended up being best explained as having an “intelligent cause”.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | This bothers them. It bothered Darwin, it bothered Eldridge and Gould (a silly punk eek hypothesis to explain saltation was the result), but has anybody ever scratched their head and said, wait....we may be wrong about this??
Of course not because this is not science, it is a secular humanistic religion and you can show these people all the evidence you care to that would support an intelligent designer and they will laugh it off and redicule you because it violates their religious beliefs.
So, saltations are our beginning point in ID. How did they get there as if someone or something etherally began to scatter new life forms across planet earth?
We will never know because we were not there. But we don't need to hypothesize life morphing from hot ocean vents, birds spewing out dinoaurs or whales magically poofing out legs and crawling out on land to star in an Arnold Swartzenegger movie like the residents in here do every day to get a "theory" of evolution. The public will never buy it (as surveys already show most do not) and it will eventually go away to join the realms of phrenology, water witching and a flat earth.
So, let's cut to the chase of simplicity....What is so hard to envision about a designer creating tissue? There you have the simplicity. We do it every day somewhere in a lab...Ocaam's Razor says run with it>>>>> |
I agree, the current way of explaining the origin of species leaves much up to the imagination. Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process. The ID paradigm is more difficult to scientifically conceptualize. We see that in this forum by the number of “scientists” who cannot make sense of it, even where I do my best to explain. Ones like me who study intelligence have an easier time with it than those who only study “evolution”, such as evolutionary biologists. Their opinions are biased by their scientific world view which is also religious, and a tendency towards Atheism only increases this scientific bias.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | Quote | Personally, I do not see the “Creator” being intelligent as we are, does not have to be to “create” life. Something intelligent starts off its life knowing nothing at all, has to learn from scratch. Something all-knowing would simply exist. An always was, and always will be, sort of thing. |
If quantum mechanics is the Creator, then it is not human and there could be no IQ test to measure that intelligence from a human perspective. |
True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level. Each level requires different testing methods, but the four requirements remain the same for each.
I would not say the QM is our Creator. QM is inadequate for explaining such a concept.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | But it isn't true that life begins knowing nothing at all. Relating this to humans, DNA provides intelligence. A newborn baby knows little, but it is preprogrammed to cry for water and suckle a breast. Birds do not have to train to migrate where they need to be. Seeds receive no instructions to begin laying down roots...... |
In this case it is important to remember that a newborn is already 9 months old when born. There are also instinctual responses which were learned at the cellular and molecular level, that are at the same time being expressed. Our brain produces just one of the levels of intelligence that exists in our behavior.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | Quote | One area I did disagree with is there not being or needing a scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. Without it there is no way of knowing who is making more sense. In fact (although I still do not see a coherent theory from elsewhere) I used to be on the other side of the argument parroting “ID is not science” and the other slogans I picked up on the internet. That began to change after I realized that I had what I needed to clinch the theory. After following the evidence with it, I had to admit that it was an excellent scientific challenge. |
But we have to be careful about banterring this "theory" concept around or we will be as bad as the Darwinists are on this. |
I sure have to agree there. As you might have noticed I try my best not make the same mistakes that Charles Darwin did not foresee, such as what happens when the theory is misinterpreted in a way that suggests some were specially created in their present form, while all others devolved into something less than human. Without a scientific theory that can explain why that is not true the same can be inferred from ID.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | The scientific method dictates that we begin at the hypothesis level. That hypothesis is then subjected to empirical experimentation, if the hypothesis holds up and other scientists can reproduce those experiments, it goes to the theory level. |
Actually that is from the “layman’s definition” for a scientific theory. I wrote this to explain what I now know about it:
Quote | DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS
Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess. For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.
A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.
HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS
A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.
The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained. Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise. This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:
Source: Discovery Institute http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained. The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation. The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".
In science something either exists or it does not. The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”. Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.
The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other. As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.
Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable. For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument. The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).
All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”. When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory. As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.
Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”. This made for a useful debate as to what science is. But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine. Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record. One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.
For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”. Otherwise it is “useless”. There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory. But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.
The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place. For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions
The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause. We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”
To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause. When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together. In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.
In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories. This can make it appear that a new one is not needed. It will then be ignored. To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it. But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously. When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong. Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.
An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another. Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.
https://sites.google.com/site.......rks.doc
|
I had university level help understanding the above. Do not even bother with what is being spread in forums like this one and by science educators who also believe that a hypothesis somehow graduates to theory. You can wait forever and the hypothesis that ice is more dense than liquid water will always be a hypothesis, even where it is changed and ice is less dense than water. Theory would explain why ice floats in liquid water. A hypothesis does not care why something happens it’s simply either true or false depending on the outcome of an experiment.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | What experimental evidence do we have that man morphed from an ape-like critter, that whales crawled out of the oceans to form land mammals.....that birds, indeed gave rise to dinosaurs? NONE.
And there is no way any of this could ever be falsified, therefore, there is no such thing in reality as a "theory of evolution" except in the minds of some. |
Where the “layman’s definition” for a theory is used, I would have to agree that you are correct. Problem here though, is the layman’s definition is simply wrong, and leads to problems like this. After adding Popper philosophy all theories can be said to not be a theory. It’s just another science stopper.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | The truth is, there is also NO general theory of ID that has been through the scientific method to show itself a theory...certainly not one that sums up the overall concept. |
That is only true where the layman’s definition is used. In reality, there already is a testable scientific theory that meets all requirements of the scientific method, the one I am already having success with for my computer models.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | Quote | The theory made me more accepting of Genesis but not religiously, I now see it as an ancient scientific theory that for its day was not that bad at all. Sure better than Greek and Roman mythology. It did not make a church goer though. My wife (a Catholic) goes with friends and/or her mother to the church she was brought up in, while I worked on projects that reconcile science and religion. After starting work on the theory that became my Sunday mission. With my having been brought up a Methodist I was in training to be a religious leader, as opposed to a follower, then when I was older finally graduated. By that time I was glad I didn’t have to go to Sunday School anymore, in part because of the teachings making little scientific sense. I still saw myself as a religious leader but from the science side of the divide that needs reconciling. I’m also still just as doubtful about ritual saving a person’s soul. It’s often used as a way to feel better for another week of being cruel to others, an excuse to do it again. If we keep coming back again (with no memory since intelligence is forced to learn from scratch each time) then it’s possible that we do in fact make our own hell where we in a sense suffer by experiencing the pain we knowingly caused to others, or the effects of change that hurts those who follow. |
Religion...for religion's sake....sucks. I keep it simple.... |
I’m glad you said that! No problem here, taking that advice.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | 1) Can I find anything in science that suggests there is something else of intelligence out there? Yes, I can. 2) Can I find a spiritual side of me? Yup, there is something inside of me that is non-mind. 3) Can I find a higher power? Absolutely.....Anyone can....that higher power may be a higher you.....or a majestic megaverse where QM controls all--or something else.
It then can all then come together and we can attempt to ascertain the qualities of that 'other' dimension of life we all interact with..... |
I agree. That’s what I seek to better understand. It’s “just science” but at the same time is spiritual, a religious search for how we were created, our purpose in life, etc..
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | Lighting candles, counting beads, holy water and prayer cloths are constructs of man. And Genesis is exactly what it is....history written by man who understood little about the universe around him from a scientific perspective.... |
Yes, all have to be careful not to lose sight of what is most important for us to learn from all that is in a sense common with all religions, or else we end up on a path that leads away from our Creator.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | Some seem to think that Moses should have begun with a quantum singularity in the blackhole of another universe, described the big bang with it's inflationary theory and ended with Boltzmann's math on particle thermodynamics....it's laughable........ |
It is funny that some demand that of religion.
Insight does not require all be immediately scientifically revealed. Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | Quote | But before I go on all night about my personal religious views: Thanks to the theory I can now say that you are making more sense than your adversaries are. Without intelligence being part of the genetic mechanism there is almost no chance at all that living things could exist. That helps explain why CSI and such also exists, even though the odds of it are nearly zero. But as I earlier mentioned our Creator does not need to be intelligent, just the part of us that connects us to the Creator must be. Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined. But it now seems more scientifically possible than ever, thanks to the insight I gained from following the evidence where it leads, from the Theory of Intelligent Design.
All in all I still have to say I was impressed by your above reply, and later answers. So keep up the good work Jerry! |
Thanks...but I would disagree with this: "Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined." |
Good catch! I should have included the phrasing “at this time the theory I am working on cannot determine”.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | It can be determined through physics experiments that energy will act as a wave or a particle (wave or solid) depending upon whether there is, or is not an intelligent observer in the system. |
There is now another much simpler explanation for that happening in the QM experiment (where that concept came from): The 1 quanta of energy from the photon all went into the detector instead of out the slit. It might be as simple as the photon detector (observer) being the path of least resistance. The photon cannot go both directions at the same time.
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23) | Yet, we experience both in the real world....We need waves to come from energy when we turn on a light switch and we need our laptop to be a solid when we pick it up to use it.....
What intelligent observer is CAUSING this? What intelligent observer is causing the reality around us to be, indeed, real?
Find this, and you will have found God. |
What you are now describing is like in the Everything Is Energy video I linked to, but with the source of consciousness added to the equation. Once that is better understood we can begin to answer the really big questions. The scientific theory I’m working on is another necessary step in that direction, but of course we still have a long journey of discovery ahead of us before we can claim to have “found God” by following the scientific evidence, where it leads.
-------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|