Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 16 of 224 (476638)
07-25-2008 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
07-05-2008 7:41 PM


quote:
I posted here before about Dubois' theory of strong anticipation, and how it supports the creationist view of things. Now I have an update on how that theory is changing scientists' view of things towards intelligent design theory.
  —Syamsu
Quick point: Intelligent design is not a theory.
quote:
In the big picture, creation is a free act, so I have been looking for a theory that supports the fact that freedom is real. Such a theory would inevitably lead to think towards intelligent design theory, or so to say, thinking about things coming to be as a consequence of decisions leads to thinking in terms of intelligent design.
So in the detailed picture, the theory I found which confirms freedom is real, is "strong anticipation" theory by Daniel Dubois. Basically what this theory states is that things have a future, and they compute their next state with that future. With strong anticipation, the anticipation is embedded in the laws of nature, weak anticipation refers to making a predictive model in the brain.
Somebody else named Edwina Taborsky then applied this theory to the biological realm and found that:
"The semiosic biological system is not a random or mechanical process but an informed, reasoned and self-controlled process."
"Any randomness is internal and reduced to zero by the time a ”best solution’ is chosen by the system. The emergent model is immediately functional and there is no testing by struggle as required in the thesis of Natural Selection."
  —Syamsu
I've read this more times than I care to admit... and I'm still not sure how you came to these conclusions.
1) You say that creation is a "free act". By what do you judge the "freedom" of the act, and how could you possibly contrast this to suggest that something else is not a "free act"?
2) You indicated you were looking for something to support the idea that freedom is real. What type of freedom are you referring to? And why do you believe it might not be real?
3) As for this anticipation theory... either I understand it, and Dubois is an idiot... or I just don't get it. He seems to suggest that natural elements or systems somehow "know" what (or where) they will be in the future, and that they act to fulfill that future. I'm sorry, but I can't see any reason to believe any of this is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2008 7:41 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Syamsu, posted 07-26-2008 5:52 PM Jester4kicks has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 17 of 224 (476771)
07-26-2008 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jester4kicks
07-25-2008 12:41 PM


I am referring to the regular freedom of for instance going left, or right, doing something, or not doing it. The freedom that is based on having alternatives, and not based on brains persee.
This freedom has not been established in science as real except for Dubois' anticipation theory of the year ~2000.
A large share of Darwinists deny freedom on an intellectual level. Ironically many Darwinists mimic the creationist micro-evolution / macro-evolution argument, that there is evidence for micro-freedom at the quantum scale, but not for macro-freedom at the scale of substantial objects.
Personally I suggest to use the regular methods of practical every day life by which you determine an act is free, or forced.
Otherwise based on Dubois theory you can simply apply the theory and see that it is accurate.
I think the best reason to believe Dubois' theory is true, is because Dubos establishes objects as things unto themselves, which all the rest of science really doesn't do. And that independent existence of things is in agreement with common sense of how things are. When you look at a thing, you may sense that the object has it's own future, and acting toward it.
But on the other hand if we take away freedom of the object from our view, like in regular mainstream science, then it is kind of a slave to some abstract law of nature, or a slave to far away initial conditions. Either way the object then does not seem to have an independent existence, and that doesn't seem realistic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jester4kicks, posted 07-25-2008 12:41 PM Jester4kicks has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2008 6:40 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 07-26-2008 7:14 PM Syamsu has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 18 of 224 (476775)
07-26-2008 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Syamsu
07-26-2008 5:52 PM


Bring evidence next time
I think the best reason to believe Dubois' theory is true, is because Dubos establishes objects as things unto themselves, which all the rest of science really doesn't do. And that independent existence of things is in agreement with common sense of how things are. When you look at a thing, you may sense that the object has it's own future, and acting toward it.
None of that is evidence. That's wishful thinking at best. And I wouldn't consider Dubos' idea a theory. In science that term is reserved for ruling paradigms which have withstood the test of time and make successful predictions. It may at best be an hypothesis, but its not a theory.
But on the other hand if we take away freedom of the object from our view, like in regular mainstream science, then it is kind of a slave to some abstract law of nature, or a slave to far away initial conditions. Either way the object then does not seem to have an independent existence, and that doesn't seem realistic.
Realistic? You want realistic you can sum it up in two words: (Fecal matter) happens!
All the philosophers who have ever sat on a log while others were working have not been able to change that one iota.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Syamsu, posted 07-26-2008 5:52 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Syamsu, posted 07-26-2008 7:03 PM Coyote has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 19 of 224 (476777)
07-26-2008 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Coyote
07-26-2008 6:40 PM


Re: Bring evidence next time
This thread starts out with a reference to a paper. That paper contains references as well, so you can start looking from there, for the evidence that's already been established. Alternatively, it is better to google for the word "hyperincursive", or "hyperincursion", since new things are being added all the time.
Any youngster who doesn't know what subject to choose for college, if you choose this as your subject, you are guaranteed a good career. That's because:
- it's new, so you don't have so much competition
- it's big, huge and enormous since it is fundamental in science, several technical applications have already been made
- if any of it turns out false, or if it all just whimpers out for lack of credibility, you can still use your knowledge about it in the humanities, where many still do believe freedom is real regardless of any hard scientific evidence for it
And ofcourse it would be helpful if somebody on the forum took the effort to understand hyperincursive math, and could explain the maupertuis least action principle, and the lorenz transform from a viewpoint of incursive and hyperincursive math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2008 6:40 PM Coyote has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 224 (476780)
07-26-2008 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Syamsu
07-26-2008 5:52 PM


Hi, Syamsu.
Syamsu writes:
I am referring to the regular freedom of for instance going left, or right, doing something, or not doing it.
I think the term you want is either "free will," "free choice," or "free agency."
Syamsu writes:
This freedom has not been established in science as real except for Dubois' anticipation theory of the year ~2000.
Last I checked, this claim was wrong.
Syamsu writes:
A large share of Darwinists deny freedom on an intellectual level. Ironically many Darwinists mimic the creationist micro-evolution / macro-evolution argument, that there is evidence for micro-freedom at the quantum scale, but not for macro-freedom at the scale of substantial objects.
I'm pretty sure you just made this up. Or, that you just copied it from somebody who just made it up.
If scientists deny the existence of free choice, how come we're all frickin' liberals!?
Syamsu writes:
But on the other hand if we take away freedom of the object from our view, like in regular mainstream science, then it is kind of a slave to some abstract law of nature, or a slave to far away initial conditions. Either way the object then does not seem to have an independent existence, and that doesn't seem realistic.
I'm a little confused by this reasoning. Are you suggesting that our free will goes so far as to control our physical being? Like, we can control whether we're born autistic or blind? Or, are we just slaves to that law of genetics? Clearly, we are just slaves to the law of gravity, aren't we?
Forgive my scriptures in the science forum, but I think this is quite appropriate:
John 9:2-3 writes:
2. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
Apparently, the will of God (which I translate as: the laws of nature) controls our destiny, not us or our parents.
----
Or, is it the genes themselves that are supposed to have anticipation abilities? How come they sort independently and are inherited pretty much randomly, then?
I'm not sure how any of this applies to "freedom" or contradicts natural selection.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Syamsu, posted 07-26-2008 5:52 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Syamsu, posted 07-26-2008 7:21 PM Blue Jay has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 21 of 224 (476781)
07-26-2008 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
07-26-2008 7:14 PM


from your reference.
"We speculate that if free will exists,"
That doesn't sound very established to me.
In any case I have yet to meet *any* evolutionist who believes decisions take place in the universe at large.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 07-26-2008 7:14 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 07-26-2008 8:11 PM Syamsu has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 22 of 224 (476791)
07-26-2008 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Syamsu
07-26-2008 7:21 PM


Syamsu writes:
That doesn't sound very established to me.
But, Taborsky does!!??
Here is a link to the abstract of the actual paper reported in the news article I provided in my last post. It is an experiment that quite definitively shows either the existence of free will, or (as the author would have it), something that just manifests itself pretty similarly to free will.
In contrast, your article from Taborsky is just Edwina rambling on about her concept, its associated terminology and the math that would apply if it were true, without once presenting any evidence that it actually is true, or even doing an experiment to test the idea. How the hell is that "established," in any sense of the word?
Syamsu writes:
In any case I have yet to meet *any* evolutionist who believes decisions take place in the universe at large.
I don't have any idea what you're talking about here.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Syamsu, posted 07-26-2008 7:21 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Syamsu, posted 07-26-2008 8:54 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 07-26-2008 9:03 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 23 of 224 (476805)
07-26-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Blue Jay
07-26-2008 8:11 PM


It's more established, because it's mathematically worked out according to the laws of nature, and the strong anticipation theory is already applied a few times by different scientists in several different fields, some of them applying it experimentally with direct proof. Right, Taborsky is just giving a generalizing view of what this theory means for semiotics.
The kind of thing that you reference, it's not so theoretically worked out, and in the end those kinds of efforts usually end up reinterpret the word freedom to mean calculating towards a goal without the possibility of any alternative. For instance calculating towards a survival optimum, and then they call it "free" because there are less than optimal alternatives presented. These alternatives however can never be actualized according to their own theory, because they assert the thing behaves according to the optimum only.
And besides, if you did believe freedom was real, you would understand decisions taking place in the universe at large. That just means decisions taking place in planetary systems and so on, or biological systems in the way Taborsky talked about it. So it seems to me, you have referenced some article about free will, that doesn't even establish decisions at all at it's theoretical basis.
But by all means carry on along these lines, argue anything about freedom at all at length, and you will naturally end up with some sort of theory on creativity at the very least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 07-26-2008 8:11 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 07-26-2008 10:42 PM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 24 of 224 (476809)
07-26-2008 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Blue Jay
07-26-2008 8:11 PM


...and besides your reference is evidence that strong anticipation theory is true to fact

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 07-26-2008 8:11 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 25 of 224 (476825)
07-26-2008 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Syamsu
07-26-2008 8:54 PM


Okay, here’s my critique of a small, but crucial, bit of Edwina’s model:
Edwina Taborsky writes:
The problem of course, is the stability/plasticity dilemma, where a system develops a functional model, sets up that model within immune protections, and then, meets up with new environmental situations which require a different behavior. That is, how can a system that must retain its integrity, react to environmental uncertainty and demands for novel behavior? How can it take risks? If retaining the ”best solution’ model and the process of deriving a ”best solution model’ are operating in the same domain, then, this is an irresolvable situation. The current model will rapidly weed out any emergence and retention of other options by the reproductive authority of the current statistical average (survival of the fittest).
Except, that the current model (Neo-Darwinian Evolution) does not, in fact, mandate the weeding out of all the other options, as she claims it does. In fact, it promotes diversity, which is why we see millions of different kinds of animals, and not just the narrow range of “best solutions” that her misconception of natural selection would produce.
Edwina writes:
The biological system does not have to waste time and energy in coming up with myriad random unworkable solutions to environmental requirements.
Yes, if the biological system had been smart enough to use her model, it would not have to waste time and energy in coming up with myriad random unworkable solutions to envrionmental requirements. But, the curious thing is that the biological system actually does waste time and energy coming up with myriad random unworkable solutions to environmental requirements. Doesn’t this suggest that the biological system is not using her model?
Edwina writes:
If we consider the statistical nature of random generation, we have to conclude that by the time that a functional ”best solution’ is randomly generated, the species will be long extinct .
And, indeed, we see many lineages that did, in fact, go extinct long before a functional solution was randomly generated. Isn’t that interesting?
We also see that populations with a wider range of genetic diversity tend to fare better in the wild, not because they were smart enough to anticipate the future, but because they have a higher likelihood of containing a mutation in their ranks that could have a useful function in the face of a new challenge.
Edwina writes:
These suggestions do not threaten the integrity of the current model operating as weak anticipation until and unless that current model starts to lose its robustness, until its occupants are threatened by environmental pressures. Then, the internal hypothetical solutions become practical options - and one is selected by the system itself - to become the new dominant model.
The neodarwinian answer to this problem is that the new option appears as a result of a random mutation rather than an informed hypothesis. It is a basic axiom of this biosemiotic thesis that such a tactic is impossible. Again - by the time a mathematically random option appeared - the species would be extinct.
This is like a “God of the Gaps” idea now: natural selection works, except where we haven’t proven that it can work yet. The problem comes in right here:
Edwina writes:
Then, the internal hypothetical solutions become practical options - and one is selected by the system itself - to become the new dominant model.
She said “selected.” Isn’t that the Darwinian mechanism?
And here:
Edwina writes:
The neodarwinian answer to this problem is that the new option appears as a result of a random mutation rather than an informed hypothesis . by the time a mathematically random option appeared - the species would be extinct.
What the Neo-Darwinian answer to this problem is not is that the mutation has to happen in response to the new environmental challenge. The Neo-Darwinian mechanism works based on the random diversity that already exists in the population (remember, despite Edwina’s claims, that diversity is not weeded out by natural selection). And, if the diversity that already exists does not contain an adequate response to the new challenge, the lineage most likely does go extinct.
It seems to me that Edwina doesn’t believe in extinction. That’s stupid.
Though, I kind of do like the name “Edwina”: maybe I’ll name my daughter that.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Syamsu, posted 07-26-2008 8:54 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Syamsu, posted 07-27-2008 6:25 AM Blue Jay has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 26 of 224 (476845)
07-27-2008 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Blue Jay
07-26-2008 10:42 PM


Your critiqe is pointless for a more broad reason. We can trace back the likelyhood of species, or categories of organisms, coming to be further into the past than the randomness natural selection proposes. Since freedom is established as real in the whole universe by dubois, we therefore must attribute the main part of creation further back in the sequence of decisions, which is history. And reasonably, we can find all kinds of decisionprocesses in between. Your insistence on only one kind of decisionprocess in the biological realm for the formation of an organism, an illdefined randomness, is very probably based on a misconception of decisions altogether.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 07-26-2008 10:42 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 07-27-2008 1:49 PM Syamsu has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 27 of 224 (476863)
07-27-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Syamsu
07-27-2008 6:25 AM


Hi, Syamsu.
Syamsu writes:
Your critique is pointless for a more broad reason.
So, instead of arguing against my critique, you're just going to blow it off as irrelevant?
Syamsu writes:
We can trace back the likelihood of species, or categories of organisms, coming to be further into the past than the randomness natural selection proposes.
Does this actually make sense in Dutch? Because I have next to no idea what you're trying to say in English here.
Syamsu writes:
Since freedom is established as real in the whole universe by dubois, we therefore must attribute the main part of creation further back in the sequence of decisions, which is history.
Wait. Because freedom is real, creation had to have happened earlier? Are you sure you didn't leave out a few important steps in the middle somewhere?
Syamsu writes:
Your insistence on only one kind of decisionprocess in the biological realm for the formation of an organism, an illdefined randomness, is very probably based on a misconception of decisions altogether.
Warning: the next paragraph involves sarcasm.
You're right. I only believe in natural selection because I don't know what you mean when you say "decision process." My belief in natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with all the evidence for it. Nothing whatsoever.
----
Not only have you just blown off my critique without even addressing what it said, but you have now explained your position with at least three non sequiturs.
I think I've wasted enough time on this.
Bye, Syamsu.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Syamsu, posted 07-27-2008 6:25 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Syamsu, posted 07-27-2008 4:23 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 28 of 224 (476870)
07-27-2008 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
07-27-2008 1:49 PM


You seem to have missed that part in Taborsky s paper, where she talks about randomness as freely choosing. So as before, your critique is based on a misconception of decisons altogether, including very probably an intellectual misconception of peoples choices also.
When an elephant is likely, then the elephant may be walking about in the future, ready to become actualized if so decided. But by randomness, the decision is short, just for a single gene, and there hardly is a future to speak of. This is what you say is occuring, that it is short, but we see the future is long, but then you dont say it, because you simply fail to comprehend decisions.
Besides, reasoably Taborsky is well aware that species go extinct, she doesnt need to spell that out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 07-27-2008 1:49 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 29 of 224 (476926)
07-28-2008 5:25 PM


Why doesn't somebody post something exciting about the rhythms of the universe? Besides the more linear kind of decision sequences, the familiar historical progression, there are also sophisticated rhythmic decision sequences in the universe at large.
I suggest for people to take a priority interest in the science about freedom, decisions. It is the cutting edge science, and closer to the spiritual truth of creationism.
As you can see in the paper, natural selection is out, and creation is in. So why not take an interest in this science, which seems to be the best science ever had to offer. I mean they have discovered free will of people, applied the same theory to the perihelion of Mercury, have pushed natural selection aside in favor of some kind of intelligent creation theory. These are not small things. The concept of decision is not a small thing. Choices have your interest in your day to day life, perhaps choices should have your interest in science too.

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 30 of 224 (476967)
07-29-2008 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coyote
07-25-2008 11:45 AM


Re: Theory in science
There is no scientific evidence supporting a worldwide flood. Period.
It's irrelevant, because contingency is distinguished. i.e. In human history, the popular accepted search was for a natural explanation - there is no search for evidence of creation, however - logically there is evidence of creation.
You missed that post to you that defined evidence. There is still evidence for theories that are no longer popularly accepted.
HOW?
(Because of induction. If there was no evidence for false theories they would never get off the ground. I don't know how much you know about deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning, but a better understanding of the two lead you to a conclusion that evidence is easy to come by, but BECAUSE it is easy to come by - theories are hard to prove unless they have a huge induction, thus it is hard to get a paradigm shift.)
There are possible alternatives, and I find that the evolutionary explanations that answer for the problems we see, are insufficient. Living fossils for example - I believe flesh being preserved on dino bones , etc...all these evidences are more logically explained with the Creation model, and it is the job of scientists to prove otherwise, and protect their theory - but the explanations are poor nowadays because of the comfortable acceptance of evolution. Anyone who thinks deeply enough can find holes.
You can't just expect me to buy science over what logic can tell me. Popular acceptance of evolution isn't enough to prove it. You only have an induction of evidence which does not give a crystal clear inference of evolution.
As for micro-evolution, I don't even discuss it - it is so logically inept as an example that I find it almost amusing. There simply is no conflation between some bacteria changes, and what I define as completely new systems in fully formed animals.
The fallacy of composition will help you here. It's not enough to simply state that lots of little will give you a lot. LOL!! That truly disregards logic. You have to REMEMBER what logic says about ANY CLAIM. That you have to PROVE it - not simply jump from the unit to the whole.
Unconvincing to me personally. I can't help that - intellectually the arguments don't satisfy me, as I find errors in them.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2008 11:45 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 07-29-2008 8:37 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 37 by Taz, posted 08-24-2008 11:02 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 08-24-2008 9:21 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024