Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2018 9:46 AM
251 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (7 members, 244 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,429 Year: 10,252/29,783 Month: 916/1,583 Week: 385/291 Day: 34/59 Hour: 4/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3422 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 318 (474137)
07-05-2008 7:41 PM


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.

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."

Biological Organisms as Semiosic Systems: the importance of strong and weak anticipation

Edited by Admin, : Fix link.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2008 9:08 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 7 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-07-2008 5:23 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 16 by Jester4kicks, posted 07-25-2008 12:41 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 35 by 0piumBlack, posted 08-06-2008 10:36 PM Syamsu has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12555
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 318 (474249)
07-07-2008 8:38 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4617
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 3 of 318 (474250)
07-07-2008 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
07-05-2008 7:41 PM


Theory of a Cheese Moon untill 69
There was something I watched about anticipation where it was proved that the brain was preparing to react to an unknown occurence which would follow, unknowingly to the patient.

Personally, I think it's irrelevant to put stock in one particular theory over another. Whether it's evolution, or anticipation or whatever - the fact is that nobody has actually logically proven that any one theory is certainly true.

All man has is induction, which is weak and tentative. While his efforts are admirable, they are ultimately feeble and inconclusive, pertaining to the actual history of creation.

You can build a case for anything really, if you can state that vague evidence X would follow theory Y.

Personally I think the whole thing is about beliefs, as neutrally there is no reason to favour one theory over another. I apreciate that the evidence is apparently there for evolution,(i.e. I don't say scientists are dishonest) but epistemologically, evidence itself is not a powerful inference, and evolution is largely hypothetics. There is a large amount of evidence for creation, technically speaking, because certain facts are in place which would certainly follow if creation was true.

Why can mikey question evolution? Because it can be questioned.

I can't question matter, nor any other facts. Atleast not in this manner, if we define knowledge as "justified true belief". Thuse we have this debate which goes on forever. This is why it's better to trust in the unchanging Word rather than changeable limited man theories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2008 7:41 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2008 12:03 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 07-07-2008 1:10 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 4 of 318 (474268)
07-07-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz
07-07-2008 9:08 AM


Theory in science
Personally, I think it's irrelevant to put stock in one particular theory over another. Whether it's evolution, or anticipation or whatever - the fact is that nobody has actually logically proven that any one theory is certainly true.

1) Theories can't be proved! That theories are ideas waiting to be proved is a common misunderstanding among non-scientists. In science, a theory is the highest form of explanation. Theories explain facts, and give them meaning. A powerful theory also allows successful predictions to be made, and new facts to be found.

2) There is generally only one theory in each given field, and it constitutes the current best explanation for the facts it covers. The theory of evolution does not appear to be in conflict with this "anticipation" hypothesis.

Personally I think the whole thing is about beliefs, as neutrally there is no reason to favour one theory over another. I apreciate that the evidence is apparently there for evolution,(i.e. I don't say scientists are dishonest) but epistemologically, evidence itself is not a powerful inference, and evolution is largely hypothetics. There is a large amount of evidence for creation, technically speaking, because certain facts are in place which would certainly follow if creation was true.

There is a huge amount of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, and no scientific evidence for creation. Belief in creationism is a belief.

I can't question matter, nor any other facts. Atleast not in this manner, if we define knowledge as "justified true belief". Thuse we have this debate which goes on forever. This is why it's better to trust in the unchanging Word rather than changeable limited man theories.

The unchanging Word would not lead to computers and all of the other things science has produced. It would have us believing in a global flood about 4,350 years ago and accepting slavery.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2008 9:08 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2008 9:07 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2022 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 5 of 318 (474289)
07-07-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz
07-07-2008 9:08 AM


Re: Theory of a Cheese Moon untill 69
Personally I think the whole thing is about beliefs, as neutrally there is no reason to favour one theory over another. I apreciate that the evidence is apparently there for evolution,(i.e. I don't say scientists are dishonest) but epistemologically, evidence itself is not a powerful inference, and evolution is largely hypothetics. There is a large amount of evidence for creation, technically speaking, because certain facts are in place which would certainly follow if creation was true.

So please give some of these facts which would certainly follow if creation was true.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2008 9:08 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 6 of 318 (474292)
07-07-2008 1:19 PM


Not this Thread
Mike's post leads to interesting discussion. But let's keep this thread on the topic of the OP. Thanks.
  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 318 (474344)
07-07-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
07-05-2008 7:41 PM


Herman Newticks again!
After googling on "semiosic biological system" and reading a couple of the papers that brought up, it is obvious that Edwina Taborsky is a pseudonym for Alan Sokal.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2008 7:41 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Syamsu, posted 07-11-2008 6:56 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

  
dkv
Member (Idle past 3565 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 09-15-2007


Message 8 of 318 (474794)
07-11-2008 2:52 AM


Anticipation is just a response to stimuli.
    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3422 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 9 of 318 (474804)
07-11-2008 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by AnswersInGenitals
07-07-2008 5:23 PM


Strong anticipation theory has also been used to describe Mercury's perihelion (Dubois), dynamics of the knowledge economy (Leydesdorff), also for designing some water-managementsystem, and it's popular among artificial intelligence / consciousness people.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-07-2008 5:23 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4617
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 10 of 318 (474818)
07-11-2008 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
07-07-2008 12:03 PM


Re: Theory in science
Just one last comment, Ned, because I feel that people jump to conclusions when they read my posts. It is natural.I favour creationism subjectively, and personally..

There is a huge amount of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, and no scientific evidence for creation. Belief in creationism is a belief.

I agree with the first part to an extent, in that it is only a huge amount of evidence when the technical specifics of evolution are assumed to have weight, and/or other confirming factors, such as geological opinion. (catastrophism is out, uniformatarianism is in, alas, the stars show distance, mikey cannot win. ;)).

Define "scientific evidence".

I define evidence as something which doesn't prevent a theory from being viable AND something which would correlate with that theory.

LOGICALLY, your side overplays evidence when they say that there isn't any evidence for creation, when infact there was evidence in the past which favoured theories which are now accepted as false.

So, this attitude of fear, by saying there is no evidence for creation, infact has no rational basis. Logically it's easy to show an evidence for creation by simply showing the modus ponen being affirmed.

Example;

IF Creation was true, then we would expect mass devastation recorded in the earth.

We find mass devastation in the fossil record, which is REQUIRED, if creation as a theory is to be viable.

Do not misunderstand me, this is in no way proof that creation happened, but one confirmation that is vital. Many would agree, even scientists, that a flood would show millions of dead things thereafter. I don't see why such an obvious logical clarity should be thrown away simply because you personally want to claim that you own evidence on a personal basis. No, evidence is evidence, and always was and I shall stick to it's accepted definition.

www.dictionary.com

dictionary writes:

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
—Idiom6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.

As you can see, his flushed look could infact be because he was blushing, and not because of his fever. The first signs of spring could infact be a temporary change in the weather.

Evidence is not proof. Number 1, says "tends" because a proof certainly follows, whereas if evidence was certain proof, there could be no theories at all. It is accepted that his flushed look is one confirmation of his fever, but it is also confirmation of a blush because BOTH THEORIES ARE VIABLE AND EQUIVALENTLY CORRESPOND TO A FLUSHED FACE.( i.e. If he has a fever, then he would have a flush, if he has an embarrasment, then he has a blush. )

Apologies for geting off course, this is my final information input Ned-boss.:)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2008 12:03 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by killinghurts, posted 07-16-2008 3:33 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 2826 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 11 of 318 (475461)
07-16-2008 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
07-11-2008 9:07 AM


Re: Theory in science
quote:

Example;

IF Creation was true, then we would expect mass devastation recorded in the earth.

We find mass devastation in the fossil record, which is REQUIRED, if creation as a theory is to be viable.

Do not misunderstand me, this is in no way proof that creation happened, but one confirmation that is vital. Many would agree, even scientists, that a flood would show millions of dead things thereafter. I don't see why such an obvious logical clarity should be thrown away simply because you personally want to claim that you own evidence on a personal basis. No, evidence is evidence, and always was and I shall stick to it's accepted definition.


Your scientific method is flawed here. You should be looking at the empirical evidence provided and then coming up with the most reasonable theory - not the other way around - you don't come up with a conclusion or a theory and then try to match the evidence to fit your theory.
It is unreasonable to state "Because there was a mass devastation we can now say that creation theory (or any part thereof) is proven".

Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2008 9:07 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2008 8:48 AM killinghurts has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4617
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 12 of 318 (476355)
07-23-2008 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by killinghurts
07-16-2008 3:33 AM


Re: Theory in science
It is unreasonable to state "Because there was a mass devastation we can now say that creation theory (or any part thereof) is proven".

I agree, as that doesn't show the modus tollens, which would be the falsification. (If there was no destruction/death, in the earth, then there was no creation).

My point is that evolution, or any theory - IS a proposition, with regard of the facts. Creation itself regards the facts, i.e. the fossils.

One confirmation is not a proof, it is just the beginning of an induction. I could also theorize that Apollo had a fight with the sphagetti monster causing the death of all animals.

BUT - the bible is infact apriori, in that is states worldwide flood and death BEFORE human knowledge of fossils.

Your scientific method is flawed here. You should be looking at the empirical evidence provided and then coming up with the most reasonable theory

No - that is posteriori, we must predict and then see if those predictions follow. The bible said there was a flood before knowledge of the fossils (facts).

Usually evolutionists accuse creationists of having a posteriori theory but it is hypocritical because one can not come up with any theory without firstly observing a degree of what would be essential to any potential speculation.

i.e. Every fact known now makes our speculations post-fact. BUT - IRONICALLY, the bible, logically, gives us an apriori claim to the facts as regarding fossils, so I regard this as a fairly strong confirmation of creation, logically.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by killinghurts, posted 07-16-2008 3:33 AM killinghurts has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by killinghurts, posted 07-24-2008 3:37 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 14 by bluescat48, posted 07-25-2008 10:33 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2008 11:45 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 2826 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 13 of 318 (476473)
07-24-2008 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
07-23-2008 8:48 AM


Re: Theory in science
quote:
BUT - the bible is infact apriori, in that is states worldwide flood and death BEFORE human knowledge of fossils.

Firstly - it cannot be "apriori" after the event - this does not make it prophetic - it makes it an interpretation in hindsight.

Let me give you an example - Nostradamus predicted world war 3 - we can't then, after world war three happens (if it does) then say that Nostradamus was prophetic about it - unless he gives specific, reproducible, testable evidence (like a specific calculated date, time and series of events) - *anything* else is simply coincidence and/or an interpretation of what WE would like to believe - i.e a guess.

If you seriously believe the bible is prophetic please give me one prophecy that has been predicted (predicted like we predict utilising the scientific method - not some wishy washy general Nostradamus-esque "interpretation") that has then come true - I will bow down and beg for mercy.

Secondly - I'd like to introduce a bit of reason here. Perhaps I wasn't being clear in my last post.

Which do you think is more reasonable:

a) A 2000 year old script mentioned that once there was a worldwide flood that this lends evidence to suggest that we were created by a magical imaginary being - of which we can't see, touch, smell, taste or hear.

or

b) Countless fossils based on sound dating methods, direct DNA links, hundreds of years of gathering evidence and questioning and changing theories, searching for falsities and contradictions and we *sort of* know what happened, not quite everything, but we have a GOOD idea that we evolved from a common ancestor and that we change with our environment and geographical location - much like we see on a micro level *every day* right here right now - in reality.

You are correct that the theory of evolution is a theory. However it is not based not on ONE fact alone (i.e a 2000 year old script), and thus it is much more reasonable to state that we did not get majicked up by the spaghetti monstor OR any other imaginary being, and that it is more likely that we evolved.

You're thinking may be "logical" as you put it - but it is far from objective, far from lateral and far from reasonable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2008 8:48 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2008 7:50 AM killinghurts has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2022 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 14 of 318 (476617)
07-25-2008 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
07-23-2008 8:48 AM


Re: Theory in science
No - that is posteriori, we must predict and then see if those predictions follow. The bible said there was a flood before knowledge of the fossils (facts).

Still you are predicting after the fact. The "Flood" occured before the prediction. Whether fossils were known before or after is irrelevant. The role of science is to search for the truth based on what can be observed and tested from which conclusions can be drawn. The fact that fossils were later shown to be remains of life further gives evidence to the creedence of evolution rather than creation.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2008 8:48 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2008 7:56 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 295 by Open MInd, posted 09-11-2008 10:59 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 15 of 318 (476627)
07-25-2008 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
07-23-2008 8:48 AM


Re: Theory in science
BUT - the bible is infact apriori, in that is states worldwide flood and death BEFORE human knowledge of fossils.

Two subsequent posts addressed this line, but I think they missed the point.

There is no scientific evidence supporting a worldwide flood. Period.

Therefore, any conclusions based on that premise are undermined.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2008 8:48 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2008 7:33 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018