|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
if and how information in multi-cellular level affects genome, what are the types of it, what are the specific characteristics of the empathetically or through intelligent communication transferred information and the role of neural system as regards this transfer and in evolution process in general. All these above are functioning on the basic assumption that nature is all the time striving for life and is innately intelligent. Emphasis mine. So from the outset you assume a priori that nature is intelligent. With no evidence, or even a rationale you have already assumed that you are right. That's like saying: "Sir, your dog did wilfully steal my credit card and ran up an enormous bill buying hard core internet porn" "Excuse me?" "Sir, I repeat that your dog did wilfully, with beastliness aforethought steal my credit card and ran up an enormous bill buying hard core internet porn" "Surely, you can't expect me to believe my dog would have interest in human porn, can you?" "Oh yes indeedy I do, sir. And don't call me Shirley" "Well I must say I'm a bit confused: for why do you draw such a conclusion? What reason do you have to believe my dog would be interested in human porn?" "Surely you don't want me to provide evidence or even a way that your dog could possibly be interested or even download human porn, what with the lack of hands?" "Actually, yes sir, I do sir. And now may a prevail upon you not to call me Shirley?" "I fail to see sir, why providing evidence or a rationale for my assertion could move this discussion forwards." "Sir I must kindly ask you to fuck off. My hansome carriage awaits and I have no time to discourse with you about my dog or human porn". "But I'm right, I tell you! Your dog and my massive internet porn bill are innately connected.!" "Driver, to the Tescos Metro, if you would; I have a mind to purchase some of Mr Kellogs most delicious Co Co Pops." *Clatter of hooves on a cobbled road fades away.* Edited by Larni, : No reason given. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hi Zi Ko,
This is from your website (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com/), Larni also quoted it:
Zi Ko's website writes: All these above are functioning on the basic assumption that nature is all the time striving for life and is innately intelligent. [Bolding is in the original] You call the innate intelligence of nature an assumption. You've apparently known all along precisely what we've been telling you since the beginning of this thread: you're making an assumption, an unwarranted one at that. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You might have a point in terms of single celled organisms, where light (specifically UV) can directly interact with the singular copy of the genome that will give rise to any successors. Once again we are returning to the same issue that all of the 'directed' mutational systems, weak as they are, are only apparently suitable for unicellular organisms and don't appear to have any plausible mechanism by which to operate in metazoa with a somatic/germline division. Probably you find useful what i am saying about this division in my work on neurgenic evolution.(http://www.sleepgadgedabs.com).I quote: At this level all mentioned studies, show that there is a mechanism of information transfer from external or internal (somatic) environment to genome area. Otherwise how chicken could feel stress and how this stress could get known by genome so t o create the instinct of foraging? Also how, in Baldwin effect, could offspring learn new skills? From Wikipedia I quote: The paper (by Baldwin) proposed a mechanism for specific selection for general learning ability. Selected offspring would tend to have an increased capacity for learning new skills rather than being confined to genetically coded, relatively fixed abilities. In effect, it places emphasis on the fact that the sustained behavior of a species or group can shape the evolution of that. These skills have to be learnt by other animals. How could that be done, or how in the first place these new skills could ever be learnt? Obviously this mechanism is served by neural tissue. It is almost self evident...... I think we are ultimately obliged to put in the picture the neural system, as it’s known properties as a messenger, makes it the best choice among other tissues. The somatic/germline division in metazoa calls for a mechanism that connects these two..... I think it is a functional extension and complementary to genome. It has some of the properties of DNA, as f.e to inherit its contents, and get involved in evolution process or even direct evolution. I think it is a functional extension and complementary to genome. It has some of the properties of DNA, as f.e to inherit its contents, and get involved in evolution process or even direct evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You call the innate intelligence of nature an assumption. You've apparently known all along precisely what we've been telling you since the beginning of this thread: you're making an assumption, an unwarranted one at that. I agree. But my assumptions seem to give rational answers of how instincts were formed,it fills the gap between somatic cells and germline, it explains i my opinion the facts of micro and macroevolution, it fits well with geological findings,e,c.t. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I agree. But my assumptions seem to give rational answers of how instincts were formed,it fills the gap between somatic cells and germline, it explains i my opinion the facts of micro and macroevolution, it fits well with geological findings,e,c.t. None of what you say makes any bit of the slightest sense. It does not explain where instinct comes from. Don't you know anything about evolutionary psychology? Of course not. Just like you know nothing about what empathy or intelligence is. Define instinct: bet you can't. Aaargh! *boom!* *Head assplodes* Edited by Larni, : AngerThe above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Specially if i dont agree with what you. plain logic!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
zi ko writes: I agree. But my assumptions seem to give rational answers of how instincts were formed, it fills the gap between somatic cells and germline, it explains in my opinion the facts of micro and macroevolution, it fits well with geological findings, etc. Okay, at least that's the beginning of an argument. Your arguing that we can't explain instincts, or the gap between somatic and germ cells, or the facts of micro and macroevolution, or geological findings, but that these are all explained if we assume an innate intelligence in nature for which we as yet have no evidence. Larni has already mentioned instinct, asking why you reject evolution as an explanation? I would ask how nature's innate intelligence explains instinct, assuming that the explanation isn't the same as "God did it" but with "nature's innate intelligence" replacing God. I'm also wondering what is the gap between somatic and germ cells that you think is missing an explanation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Instint is such a woolly term that it has virtually no meaning.
Fixed Action Pattern or Preparedness is a much more useful term.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: I would ask how nature's innate intelligence explains instinct, assuming that the explanation isn't the same as "God did it" but with "nature's innate intelligence" replacing God. ...or "nature's innate intelligence" as accomplished by God. I think this is an interesting discussion but I don't see any reason to bring God into the discussion. It is about how things are and not why they are the way they are. Whether or not everything is the result of creative intelligence or the result of nothing but naturalistic forces makes no difference to the discussion.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
God was mentioned only to make clear that saying "Nature's innate intelligence did it" is as worthless as saying "God did it."
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I thought that's what you meant but I just didn't want to see the discussion going down that rabbit hole. I think you may have fianlly succeeded in getting it on track.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Are you assuming that Peter Swain is a complete idiot? Are you saying that he is right? If so, demonstrate why he is right by citing evidence. Arguments from authority are useless. Cite evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Don't you think decision making and information processing are intelligent acts (according to my own definition of intelligence)? According to your definition of intelligence, a rock is intelligent because it decides to fall. A cloud is intelligent because it processes surrounding information to produce huricanes. By your definition, EVERYTHING is intelligent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
According to your definition of intelligence, a rock is intelligent because it decides to fall. A cloud is intelligent because it processes surrounding information to produce huricanes. By your definition, EVERYTHING is intelligent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------rocs and clouds are subjected to physical laws. This makes them arudimentary intelligent, not in the way you percieve it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Okay, at least that's the beginning of an argument. Your arguing that we can't explain instincts, or the gap between somatic and germ cells, or the facts of micro and macroevolution, or geological findings, but that these are all explained if we assume an innate intelligence in nature for which we as yet have no evidence.
I am an evolutionist.But instinct being a fix inherited pattern of behaviour? How did evolute? By random mutations?All fine grades of instinct behaviour needed different mutations? Larni has already mentioned instinct, asking why you reject evolution as an explanation? I would ask how nature's innate intelligence explains instinct, assuming that the explanation isn't the same as "God did it" but with "nature's innate intelligence" replacing God.I never said or imply" innate intelligence" replaces God.What i say is : information driven evolution through neural system, together with random mutations,natual selection combined with nature's strive for life and innate intelligence based on physical and chemical laws (and so diffused and rudimentary) lead to new species appearance. I'm also wondering what is the gap between somatic and germ cells that you think is missing an explanation. W.K has spoted this gap in somatic cells and germline division in message 219 Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024