The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

The Huffington Post is not a scientific journal. Neither are blogs.
Please refer to legitimate peer reviewed research. No one here is going to accept opinion fluff pieces.

In case you didn't notice Shapiro's blog posts have links, many to research papers.

Shapiro's book "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century" has over a thousand references http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/ExtraRefs.MolecularMechanismsNaturalGeneticEngineering.shtml

Again you've failed to answer my questions. It's usually clear after asking the 3 times a person isn't going to answer them.
You are incapable of answering them, hence your theory is unconvincing.

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

Or more simply, says one scientist, “Intelligence is the ability to solve problems.”

Does a river have intelligence by flowing through the path of least resistance?

smacl

mickrock wrote: »

If an organism can figure something out and thus solve a problem it must have some level of awareness, however basic and primitive that awareness might be.

A computer or calculator has no awareness and so can't be called intelligent. Its apparent intelligence comes from the hardware designers and from the people who wrote the software.

You really need to give us your definitions of intelligence and awareness here, as you seem to have moved from “Intelligence is the ability to solve problems” to “Intelligence is the ability of an organism to solve problems”. I would suggest a computer program that stores state information and acts on the basis of new input and stored state is neither more nor less aware and intelligent than our slime mold. If you think this is not the case, I'd be interested in your logic as to why not.

smacl

Samaris wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro Actually, he looks pretty legit*, although I admit his ideas are unusual.

Yep, plenty of references on Google Scholar and Research Gate. He's certainly not alone in classifying colonies of bacteria as 'intelligent', e.g. the "Second Brain" in Our Gastrointestinal Systems" Again, this comes down to your definition of intelligent, and whether you're using words like intelligence and awareness as metaphors.

Samaris

smacl wrote: »

Yep, plenty of references on Google Scholar and Research Gate. He's certainly not alone in classifying colonies of bacteria as 'intelligent', e.g. the "Second Brain" in Our Gastrointestinal Systems" Again, this comes down to your definition of intelligent, and whether you're using words like intelligence and awareness as metaphors.

I think the English language might need some new definitions that way, yeah. It's a ..clumsy way of phrasing it and it gives people the wrong idea. It's certainly not the same notions as ID anyway!

mickrock

smacl wrote: »

You really need to give us your definitions of intelligence and awareness here, as you seem to have moved from “Intelligence is the ability to solve problems” to “Intelligence is the ability of an organism to solve problems”. I would suggest a computer program that stores state information and acts on the basis of new input and stored state is neither more nor less aware and intelligent than our slime mold. If you think this is not the case, I'd be interested in your logic as to why not.

The slime mold is inherently intelligent because of its problem-solving skills, whereas a computer has apparent intelligence because ultimately the intelligence of the software programmer is what enables the computer to solve problems.

How can a computer be as aware as a slime mold? Where do you draw the line? Can a computer be as aware as a mouse, a dolphin or a human? There's no evidence that hardware+software= awareness.

mickrock

Delirium wrote: »

Does a river have intelligence by flowing through the path of least resistance?

This is a thread about biology and evolution, so that question doesn't really apply.

However, some see the universe as a living, intelligent, integrated whole, so even the most basic components of matter (which would normally be considered dead and mindless) have a very primitive embedded intelligence (e.g. they "know" how to bond with other elements).

So, in this sense, a river could be said to have a very basic intelligence.

smacl

mickrock wrote: »

The slime mold is inherently intelligent because of its problem-solving skills, whereas a computer has apparent intelligence because ultimately the intelligence of the software programmer is what enables the computer to solve problems.

How can a computer be as aware as a slime mold? Where do you draw the line? Can a computer be as aware as a mouse, a dolphin or a human? There's no evidence that hardware+software= awareness.

Define awareness, specifically in such away as slime mold is aware and a computer program that accurately models that slime mold is not. Also still waiting on your definition of intelligence as it applies to slime model but not a computer program.

mickrock

smacl wrote: »

Define awareness, specifically in such away as slime mold is aware and a computer program that accurately models that slime mold is not.

I think most would agree that a slime mold has a certain degree of awareness and a computer program has no awareness, so it's up to you to show how the latter could possibly achieve any level of awareness. (Let's use the Wikipedia definition of awareness: the ability to directly know and perceive, to feel, or to be cognizant of events. More broadly, it is the state of being conscious of something.)

smacl wrote: »

Also still waiting on your definition of intelligence as it applies to slime model but not a computer program.

I think I've differentiated between the real intelligence of a slime mold and the apparent or pseudo intelligence of a computer program.

smacl

mickrock wrote: »

I think most would agree that a slime mold has a certain degree of awareness and a computer program has no awareness, so it's up to you to show how the latter could possibly achieve any level of awareness. (Let's use the Wikipedia definition of awareness: the ability to directly know and perceive, to feel, or to be cognizant of events. More broadly, it is the state of being conscious of something.)

I doubt many people would think that any organism as simple as slime mold knows, feels, or perceives anything, nor for that matter is it cognisant of events. All it does is react to its current immediate environment in quite specific and well defined ways based on its current state. What is interesting about it this is that it as it is part of its own environment, this leads to some interesting behaviour that we see as problem solving. If you write a program to model cellular automata in a constrained environment you get similar results.

I think I've differentiated between the real intelligence of a slime mold and the apparent or pseudo intelligence of a computer program.

No you haven't, the only distinction you've provided is one is naturally occurring and organic where the other is a construct. You need very specific criteria which define intelligence and awareness in the context for your argument to have any merit.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

How does it do this?
How do you know that it's "purposeful"?
And where is the evidence for this happening?

In the following video Denis Noble gives three examples (with references) of what Shapiro calls Natural Genetic Engineering, where organisms reorganise their genomes in response to stress.

From 23:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3WenGjyokg

I think anyone who believes these mechanisms came about by a blind, dumb process is misguided.

Samaris

Okay, it's starting to make more sense now - "in response to stress". So there is an outside force already affecting the organism and calling out responses. Same way as our white blood cells respond to the "stress" imposed by an illness and start to react. That is a reaction, not the forethought that was being implied before.

And the process works out just as well under that scenario, the ones that can adapt do, the ones that cannot, perish. The survivors passed on the ability to rearranged the genome to fit certain specific scenarios that either have already been encountered or are similar enough that the same traits may enable survival this time. When you get too hot, you sweat to deal with the issue. This does not make your sweat glands intelligent, (nor your white blood cells).


No arguments that it is amazing though.

mickrock

Samaris wrote: »

So there is an outside force already affecting the organism and calling out responses.

But the response to the stress involves a rapid engineering solution by the reprogramming of the genome in a very targeted manner, and engineering requires intelligence.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

In the following video Denis Noble gives three examples (with references) of what Shapiro calls Natural Genetic Engineering, where organisms reorganise their genomes in response to stress.

From 23:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3WenGjyokg

I think anyone who believes these mechanisms came about by a blind, dumb process is misguided.

No, posting random videos does not answer my questions either. It's just spam.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

[...] engineering requires intelligence.

So, that river finding the path of least resistance is intelligent after all?

smacl

mickrock wrote: »

I think anyone who believes these mechanisms came about by a blind, dumb process is misguided.

Fascinating lecture, thanks for posting, but it doesn't appear to bear any relationship whatsoever to the points you're making with respect to intelligence or awareness. The fact that our understanding of the mechanisms involved in evolution are themselves constantly changing and evolving is nothing new. This is the case for any scientific endeavour, where things previously believed to be true get modified or even replaced on an ongoing basis with new insight and observation. Your point above is a non sequitur.

Samaris

mickrock wrote: »

But the response to the stress involves a rapid engineering solution by the reprogramming of the genome in a very targeted manner, and engineering requires intelligence.

robindch wrote: »

So, that river finding the path of least resistance is intelligent after all?

It doesn't, no. Your sweat glands aren't intelligent for reacting to outside stimulus, nor are your leukocytes, nor is a river*. Actually, given the term "engineering", the river is a good example there.

They respond in a fascinating way that would not be possible with larger organisms, but the basic processes are the same. I will absolutely agree that it's extraordinary, but it remains an extraordinary natural process.

Y'know, and a bit off-topic, but one thing that religion "allows" for when talking about this sort of thing is wonder and mystery. Anyone else just find wonder and mystery in natural processes in the same way? How the world works is incredible, fascinating and often beautiful, but I have the same sense of wonder looking at it as a vast interconnected system where things have settled into natural balances as I think religious people have looking at it and seeing the work of their God.


*I'm agreeing there robin, despite the quote, just didn't want to skip your having already made that point!

smacl

Samaris wrote: »

Anyone else just find wonder and mystery in natural processes in the same way?

Very much so. I'd also imagine it is what lies behind the curiosity that is a major driving force for scientific development.

Samaris

smacl wrote: »

Very much so. I'd also imagine it is what lies behind the curiosity that is a major driving force for scientific development.

I suppose it's a major driving force behind the development of religion as well, which is, at base, a system for explaining natural things that happen (and often why really awful things are happening right now). Two different approaches, but both based on "why is this?" Lightning being associated with various gods is an obvious one, and sun gods. Didn't Jehovah start off as a sun god, tracking back through the influences on Judaism?

smacl

Samaris wrote: »

I suppose it's a major driving force behind the development of religion as well, which is, at base, a system for explaining natural things that happen (and often why really awful things are happening right now). Two different approaches, but both based on "why is this?" Lightning being associated with various gods is an obvious one, and sun gods. Didn't Jehovah start off as a sun god, tracking back through the influences on Judaism?

True to a large extent in times long past, where religion was originally rooted in observation, imagination and the desire to explain how things might work. Science still has all that, where mainstream religion has shifted to the polar opposite position embodying dogma, demanding faith, and prohibiting questioning or criticism of fundamental truths. Not that the latter doesn't also happen with established science to an extent too, but the change, refinement and revision is ongoing nonetheless. Noble's dig a Dawkins at the end of the last video being an entertaining example of this.

Samaris

One thing about the Catholic church specifically is that it does tend to be fairly relaxed about science and not freaking out when observational evidence counters an allegorical story. Pope Benedict was more hardline again, but the current one is fairly pro-science.

robindch

Samaris wrote: »

Y'know, and a bit off-topic, but one thing that religion "allows" for when talking about this sort of thing is wonder and mystery. Anyone else just find wonder and mystery in natural processes in the same way? How the world works is incredible, fascinating and often beautiful, but I have the same sense of wonder looking at it as a vast interconnected system where things have settled into natural balances as I think religious people have looking at it and seeing the work of their God.

That's a sense of awe which is a normal and wonderful thing. Many and perhaps all religions have co-opted this into support for their own deity, but there's no need to do that and the sense is just as inspiring without needing to speculate that it's all intentional.

Richard Feynman covered similar ground in this well-known piece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

Professor Moriarty

Samaris wrote: »

One thing about the Catholic church specifically is that it does tend to be fairly relaxed about science and not freaking out when observational evidence counters an allegorical story. Pope Benedict was more hardline again, but the current one is fairly pro-science.

Try telling that to Galileo.

robindch

Samaris wrote: »

One thing about the Catholic church specifically is that it does tend to be fairly relaxed about science and not freaking out when observational evidence counters an allegorical story.

Or, as Jerry Coyne pointed out in the rather wonderful video below (from around 24:00 onwards), when a religion finds that a scientific fact contradicts a religious fact, the religious fact becomes a religious metaphor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO3sLevsRJU

Samaris

I still prefer that to the old "burn them at the stake" approach! Galileo's going back a bit though, and that was heading into the last gasp of the real control that the Catholic Church had of scientific progress. There were still plenty that were cautious about publishing their findings (such as Darwin), but there wasn't nearly as much risk in doing so. And in the modern day, I'd be a lot more comfortable publishing data that went against my church as a Catholic than as various other sects or religions.

Still don't agree with the Church, but it's one area in which I have to go "okay, there's far madder sects than you lot out there". Individual followers can still pick up all sorts of nonsense and justify it by the Catholic Church, but in general, they won't get a lot of official back-up from the Church in certain areas, especially direct Creationism and the notion that it doesn't matter what we do to the Earth, only God can destroy or change it (which is patent nonsense).

Could always swing again. Pope Francis is a Jesuit and they've always tended to be one of the more pragmatic orders. Pope Benedict was more hardline traditionalist.

J C

Samaris wrote: »

I still prefer that to the old "burn them at the stake" approach! Galileo's going back a bit though, and that was heading into the last gasp of the real control that the Catholic Church had of scientific progress. There were still plenty that were cautious about publishing their findings (such as Darwin), but there wasn't nearly as much risk in doing so. And in the modern day, I'd be a lot more comfortable publishing data that went against my church as a Catholic than as various other sects or religions.

Indeed ... it has actually come full circle ... and now you can publish vitually anything without incurring the wrath of the RCC ... but if you were to publish a scientific paper that questioned Evolutionist orthodoxy today ... the punishment (and the silencing of both the paper and its author within the science community) would be as sure and as swift as any medieval heresy tribunal would have done!!:)

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Indeed ... it has actually come full circle ... and now you can publish vitually anything without incurring the wrath of the RCC ... but if you were to publish a scientific paper that questioned Evolutionist orthodoxy today ... the punishment (and the silencing of both the paper and its author) would as sure and as swift as any medieval heresy tribunal would have done!!:)

What is the punishment? Care to.link to someone who has received "punishment" ?

Avatar MIA

J C wrote: »

Indeed ... it has actually come full circle ... and now you can publish vitually anything without incurring the wrath of the RCC ... but if you were to publish a scientific paper that questioned Evolutionist orthodoxy today ... the punishment (and the silencing of both the paper and its author) would as sure and as swift as any medieval heresy tribunal would have done!!:)

That's because the RCC has pretty much lost its moral authority. And the other christian church's are too small to be of significance.

And if someone refuted evolution they'd pretty much get the same response if they refuted a round(oval) earth.

J C

Avatar MIA wrote: »

That's because the RCC has pretty much lost its moral authority. And the other christian church's are too small to be of significance.

The tribunals weren't exclusively RCC phenomena ... many churches tried and convicted 'heretics'.
I think the churches have actually 'wised up' and have become more tolerant of diversity ... something that, ironically, those who claim to be 'liberal' don't seem to be doing!!

Avatar MIA wrote: »

And if someone refuted evolution they'd pretty much get the same response if they refuted a round(oval) earth.

They'd actually get roughly the same treatment as a medieval 'heliocentrist' would get !!!
... like I have said, the wheel has come full circle ... and the arrogant and pompous are now largely found amongst the pseudo-liberal establishment ... and not the church hierarchies!!

PopePalpatine

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What is the punishment? Care to.link to someone who has received "punishment" ?

Creationists get so severely humiliated. . .that as a result they are too ashamed to show their faces in public. . .and end up dying of hunger rather than venture out to buy food!! Those eeeeeviiiiiiiiil evolutionists have the blood of millions on their hands!1!!!!!11 :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: