Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A community of hairless apes
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2011 - 05:02pm PT
|
re: the bullshit is real
Sure, in a sense, theological bullshit is real, if the theist believes it and acts on it, lives his or her life in its terms. But only in a sense, given language what it is.
Last night watched the Star Trek episode, "The Apple" where the inhabitants of a faraway planet thought Vaal - God Vaal - was real. They all lived their lives to please Vaal, generation after generation, for 10,000 years. Till the Enterprise destroyed Vaal, which the story revealed was only a machine.
.....
Jeez, let's try to be civilized... I haven't been throwing any aspersions at you.
Hey, I'm the provocateur here, otherwise the bad cop, so let me:
ML, you're a poor rep... of and/or for science... seeming to (want to?) misrepresent it at every opportunity. Suggest you start over from the beginning. A metaphor from the climbing community comes to mind: poser.
aspersion: a calumnious or defamatory expression or reflection
yes, that is what it is, your many descriptions of science or its achievements or intentions
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A community of hairless apes
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2011 - 05:28pm PT
|
Actually...
...entropization (the making of entropy) is often best thought of as either a great unwinding or a great falling down. And out of the energy released during this "great falling down" you get energy that is available to be used as energy input to create complexities, e.g., complexities in systems (whether its via evolution and natural selection or design by intelligent beings such as ourselves or the romulins or vulcans).
J Bronowski liked to call it... the (natural) "buildup of stratified stabilities".
.....
re: entropy and Jehovah Witnesses
30 years ago, I had Jehovah Witnesses come to my door to tell me how evolution was wrong - as it contradicted entropy (the increase of entropy) or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I just might've been convinced by their smooth propaganda if I hadn't just studied the relevant subjects in my engineering physics courses and extracurriculars. Been running on the right side of history of science ever since, thank the forces of fate.
Anyways, it's the 21st c now and the illiteracy and bs continue. (Which is "real" for those who believe in it.)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2011 - 05:38pm PT
|
MikeL: "My idea of entropy is simply that left alone, systems lose their energy (and organization)."
entropy is a well defined quantity in thermodynamics and in statistical mechanics. You have not shown what the entropy of "organization" is in the systems you have proposed "give you problems."
It is not enough to use some word in some manner, in this case, to provide a basis for your criticism of evolution using thermodynamics, you must correctly apply thermodynamics.
You haven't. It isn't just about "your idea" it is something precise.
MikeL: All that that it argues is that mutations produce variants, and some variants are better suited to a changed environment.
I don't think it says that at all, all it says is that inherited attributes are the result of an individual's ability to procreate, and that over the long run, these attributes will tend to be selected to maximize that likelihood.
It has nothing to say about complexity at all. It has nothing to say about what is better suited unless your wording is imprecise.
MikeL: "the theory of evolution argues that a variant of a species is rewarded with more resources environmentally (munificence)."
Evolutionary "reward" is a very strange concept, and is not one that I am at all familiar with. There is not reward, at all, in evolution, it is not directed towards reward, it is not directed.
Basically, the long term change of species is the result of relatively slow (with respect to generational lifetimes) response to environmental forces that could be selected for within the range of the genetic variations of that species.
It is completely possible that a species cannot adapt to environmental change, and so it become extinct.
In the cases that some genetic attribute increases the chances that an individual will procreate successfully, while others fail to procreate, the species may change over time, adapting to the changing environmental conditions.
But there isn't a "genetic strategy" to "survive" by becoming more complex...
if success is derived from total biomass, the single cell life of the planet is the most successful... they even determine the environment.
They are the result of the exact same evolutionary principles that we are...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A community of hairless apes
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2011 - 06:31pm PT
|
Lovegas, I was just playing with the post and its wording. For the record, I like woodcraft, too.
As you know, it does help when critiquing "science" in conversations to distinguish its many aspects or sides or forms.
People will often just say "science" when what they really have in mind is more specific: e.g., (1) the scientific method; (2) the study of nature (using the scientific method); (3) the school course; (4) the science community or science institution; (5) the product of this study or method: either knowledge or technology; (6) an applied science (e.g., an engineering discipline like mechanical engineering or chemical engineering); (7) science education, etc.. These are all different of course and a lot of argument or misunderstanding could be avoided if these many different "sides" of "science" weren't so often lumped together and/or confused.
The worse (for me) is when people fail to take into their thinking (or decision-making) that "science" is but a tool - in one of its expressions or sides - and then procede to condemn it because it can't do something. (e.g., it can't give anthropy the meaning it seeks to its existence, esp in full, and esp on a one-to-one with the Abrahamic religion)
People know not to condemn a hammer because it can't saw. And they know not to condemn a camalot because it can't set a pin. People get the fact that things like these tools have an intended purpose or reason for being and it makes sense to judge them accordingly, respecting this purpose or reason.
Those who don't EXPECT science - either as the science tool or as the science community - to fulfill their needs for either (a) meaning or (b) morality are NOT LET DOWN to a point of criticizing it (esp time and again as some are inclined to do) when these needs are felt and/or not fulfilled. I think in part that's what I had in mind in that post after reading that page's contents.
.....
...so thoroughly studied, planned, and gridded... I hear you. This concerns me, too. Sometimes those in "the whitecoats" don't know when to stop; they analyze "to a fault." So this just proves (a) there is art in it and (b) some don't perform it even half as well as others.
.....
I hear you. Sometimes though...
"...you wash the dishes in a machine and while you wash them..."
you go climb. ;)
.....
I do not believe we have a better life than our forbearers. We may have a more comfortable life, but comfort can be a detriment... And longevity can be overrated.
In many respects, couldn't agree more.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2011 - 07:30pm PT
|
MikeL: Our particular species is today in a postion to create its environment, and it has been for some time. That capability demands amendments to the theory if we want to continue to use it to frame conversations about Mankind's evolutionary trajectory.
Baudrillard and Lovegasoline come back to mind. The environment we live in is a reflection of Man's thinking, his values, beliefs, norms of behavior, technologies, etc. To what extent should we continue argue that environment choses more suitable variants of Mankind? Ethics, art, culture, religion, even scientific theories themselves constitute the topology of our environment. They are our environment to a great extent.
This is more anthropocentric overestimating our stature on the planet. We have grown in numbers and been industrialized for an incredibly short period of time. As part of that we are devastating foodstocks, habitats and species at a remarkable rate. I would say the planet hasn't had much time to marshal a response yet, but I have no doubt whatsoever that a significant balancing correction is in the offing and it won't be pretty.
I would put the odds of humanity surviving such a correction as modern, 'civilized' societies with operable infrastructures and sustainable supply chains in more than a few isolated pockets at under 60% over the course of this century. Absent such an event it is clear human evolution hasn't skipped a beat and environmental pressures are the same driver they always were.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2011 - 07:43pm PT
|
del cross: If this could be shown to be true, if it were more than just one of many similar conjectures, it would put to rest much of this discussion. We might even be able to answer that question about fish.
The expression of behavior I've talked about stretches from single cell bacteria up through humans. The only real question is at what point up the tree of life do organisms switch from operating solely on instinctive behavior encoded in their DNA (rote) and 'make the leap' to conscious reasoning. So, I'd say fish "do it" - just not in that self-reflective, 'free-will' sort of way.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2011 - 08:54pm PT
|
Largo has been repeating himself on this subject for the entire thread and he's not winning a lot of converts to his viewpoint.
the only real way to get any converts on any of this per subjective experinece is for people to put in the work experientially, and that's not the interest of this group on the whole.
But Ed insists that no one is braking out any real content per 1st person experience but soon as I get over this jet lag I'll bust a move meaning I'll actually present an idea not a dashed off bunch of drivel from the airport.
JL
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2011 - 10:07pm PT
|
Every major philosophical stance represented on this thread is contained in this one painting - at least for me
Very refreshing, Jan. Art may succeed where a thousand words fail.
|
|
MikeL
climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2011 - 01:13am PT
|
I won't talk about evolution again on this thread. I don't mean to hijack the topic. I'll quit with these to clarify that my position is held by others who believe in evolution (as I do).
"This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution);
"Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" [have become] obsolete.[6]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution);
". . . recent organisms, such as mammals, appear to be much more complex than older organisms, such as bacteria. However, there are theoretical and empirical problems with this claim. From a theoretical perspective, it appears that there is no reason to expect evolution to result in any largest-scale trends, although small-scale trends, limited in time and space, are expected (Gould, 1997). From an empirical perspective, it is difficult to measure complexity and, when it has been measured, the evidence does not support a largest-scale trend (McShea, 1996)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_progress);
"Organisms adapt to their local environment. As long as the local environment is stable, we can expect to observe small-scale trends, as organisms become increasingly adapted to the local environment. Gould (1997) argues that there are no global (largest-scale) trends in evolution, because traits that are advantageous for some local environment are detrimental for some other local environment. . . . it seems uncontroversial that mammals are more complex than bacteria. Gould (1997) agrees, but claims that this apparent largest-scale trend is a statistical artifact. . . . Gould (1997) argues that there is no selective pressure for higher levels of complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_progress);
I never questioned the fact of evolution. I simply had some questions about how it works.
"... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."
 Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
" . . . the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs."
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
-------------------
I can see that it bothers many people that I have problems with the practice of science and its effects, especially since they know that I have been academic faculty member for many years (5 institutions now). I appear to be some kind of traitor in many people's minds. I'm truly sorry if it offends you. It's not my intention.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2011 - 01:14am PT
|
Thanks jgill, I'm glad somebody got it. Meanwhile, reflecting upon the dichotmy of MikeL's contribution on how humans create their own environment vs. healeyje's view that we don't create our environment and are headed for a disaster when the natural environment, our true environment, strikes back, I return to the web page that loves gasoline mentioned - http://awp.diaart.org/km/
As an anthropologist I found it fascinating that of the 18 countries' peoples given the choice of most and least favorite art, 15 preferred scenes of nature and only 3 preferred human oriented or abstract art. I also found that looking to the outliers provides plenty of room for sociological speculation.
Alone among the countries, the Ukraine favored a natural scene with no humans at all, a reaction to Chernobyl perhaps, and an awareness of the dangers healeyje speaks of?
On the other outlier, only people in Holland chose an abstract geometric painting as their favorite. Is this the future as the Dutch are ahead of many societies in social services and the rationalization thereof (legalization of euthanasia for the old for example)? Or did they just have too much Renoir directed at them when they were young? Hard to say.
Revealingly to me at least, Germans did not choose a natural scene but rather a scene of a decidedly French looking painter gazing through the doorway of a beautiful stone building, painting the scene. I perceive this reveals the acknowledgement by the Germans that as efficient, affluent, and well organized as their society is, they dream about living like the French who are inferior in that regard but enjoy life so much more. Hence the dream of so many Germans to have a summer cottage or retirement house in France.
The Italians interestingly, chose geometric shapes next to a lake and natural scene. Perhaps this is the most balanced view of all - the desire to integrate the man made scientific - industrial world back with nature as opposed to mere escapism and nostalgia?
Once again, I think MikeL and healeyje are both right and the real challenge is to integrate both.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2011 - 01:20am PT
|
And in the category of people creating their own environment and evolutionary progress, Anthropologists feel that in humans the most important selective force the past 100,000 years has almost certainly been the preference for marrying first cousins in over 1/3 of the world's societies. Locally adaptive genes get concentrated, and in the past before modern medicine, the mistakes got eliminated.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2011 - 02:04am PT
|
These statistics come from the HRAF (Human Relations Area Files) collection. Originally done on index cards they are now computerized of course, but you have to pay to use them unless you can go to one of the 200 university libraries in the world that have them (Stanford does for example).
They were put together by reading thousands of ethnographies and then categorizing every ethnic group recorded (some 5,000 in all), by a series of standardized criteria. I did my M.A. dissertation based on them and the original ethnographies involved, for five high altitude societies.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2011 - 02:17am PT
|
no problems with your citations MikeL
but when you go throwing around terms like "entropy" and "complexity" in the manner that you did, you aren't making sense... at least not scientifically... as I believe the excerpts above show.
there are many open questions in evolution, it is not about to be discarded, however, as the major organizing principle of life
In terms of it's relevance to this topic, "mind," evolution is very relevant.
If evolution is what brought us here, the reason why human species exist
and evolution is biological, that is to say, governed by physical processes
then "mind," which is an attribute of the human species, was a part of the evolutionary process
a physical process
so I think evolution is very relevant, and getting evolution right is important
evolution sets a constraint on the nature of mind
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2011 - 02:50am PT
|
It should also be noted that mammals, in fact, do not possess the most complex genomes - many plants, amphibians, fish, mollusks, and insects havae more complex genomes, probably due to having more competitive pressures in their respective environments than mammals.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2011 - 01:02pm PT
|
MikeL: I am unaware of any scientific proof of the theory.
I am unaware of any scientific proof of any physical theory. Proof is the realm of math, formal logic, and mathematical logic.
Ed H: my point is made regarding the value of endless philosophical discussion being any more than a way for people to have an extended bullshit session with little or no real content.
Well, picture a future in which people make long voyages in space. One of the problems to solve is that the supply of conversational topics may run thin over the years. Here we are prototyping and beta testing topics which a few people can discuss endlessly. We as a society are also producing a generation which can sit for hours in front of screens typing, ultimately having no need to go outdoors or even have an outdoors. Outer space, here we come!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2011 - 03:03pm PT
|
MikeL: I am unaware of any scientific proof of the theory.
There is a not-so-well-known experiment familiar to microbiologists and evolutionary biologists that was begun in 1988 where 50,000 generations of 12 strains of e. coli were grown over 22 years with samples of each 500th generation frozen (about every 75 days) in order to be able to attempt to repeat any adaption which occurred.
In year twenty (2008), one strain adapted to utilize citrate as an energy source. The team was able to back up in 'time' to a generation without the adaptation and re-run the experiment from there. The adaptation was repeatable.
'Proof' is in the eye of the beholder, but to most folks, this is tantamount to a proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2011 - 03:18pm PT
|
Darwin's theory of evolution made several "predictions" two of which blow my mind.
the first: the age of the Earth had to be long enough for evolution to happen. do recall that, at the time, no less an authority than Lord Kelvin had estimated the age of the Earth by considering the rate of cooling of mantle material and a model of the temperatures of the planet's formation. The number he got was much too small for evolution to have happened.
Geology at that time was just coming into its own.
Eventually we learn that Darwin's prediction is correct, that the Earth had been around much longer than the physical estimates, Darwin's estimate was based on evolutionary rates.
The second prediction was the existence of genetic material, the method by which inheritance works. Darwin was ignorant of this, yet he states that it must exist if the theory correctly described the speciation process. We know this prediction to be consistent with observation, but relatively recently.
These sorts of predictions, and I put them in quotes because they were not called "predictions" but rather possible points which would "disprove" evolution were they not to be observed, are what we expect from scientific theory.
These predictions constitute what you might call "proof," that is, the theory is consistent with experimental observations that could be made to test the theory.
In later editions of Origin... Darwin enumerated a number of these tests. He was as interested in the challenge as anyone else.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2011 - 03:33pm PT
|
MH2 says: "I am unaware of any scientific proof of any physical theory. Proof is the realm of math, formal logic, and mathematical logic. "
This is right when the requirements for proof are extremely high. If you have seen chickens coming out of every hen-egg the last hundred years, that is still no proof that chickens are the only creatures that can be born out of hen-eggs. And it is no proof that an elephant cannot one time be born from a hen-egg.
In empirical science the requirement for evidens is not that strong. We have every reason to believe that it is chickens that will be born from hen-eggs and not elephants.
But obviously someone is making a big point out of this difference between mathematics/formal logics/proof and empirical science/evidens.
It is the straw you cling to if you want to make room for the possibility of achieving the great buddha-mind. If you ever meet the buddha, kill him - wasn't that the advice of a zen master?
After seeing the argumentation of MikeL I have to conclude that when he says he is standing with one foot within science that is only feathers he is borrowing to look a little better within scientifically thinking circles. He is a true believer.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!