Re: Evolution versus target function

Hallo g!

Am Sun, 31 Dec 2006 00:54:51 -0500 schrieb g:
"Carsten Thumulla" <4_trash_only@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.12.25.18.04.53.595909@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://thumulla.com/Darwin%20-%20and%20whats%20next_EN.html

In the above link, mention is made of systems with target functions.

I AM NOT able to make any sense of an evolutionary process -- neither
biological nor non-biological mechanical -- which has the capability of
establishing for itself any purpose. "Purpose" is a quality associated
with *consciousness.*

Ufff -- you changed the subject -- and hit the point -- i see.

This is a hard question. The destination /must/ not be a /conscious/
(purposed) destination.

If you drift on the atlantic ocean, you can reach england by the gulf
stream. But this does not means, the gulf stream intends (consciousness)
to bring g to england.

If it does not make sense to 'make sense of an evolutionary process' the
evolutionary process has no sense -- no purpose.

Have we a problem of understanding of sense / purpose?

While I would not argue for a certainty that *genes* have any
consciousness, nor any power to reason, nor any capacity to experience
*purpose*, I must concede that humans and other animals do demonstrate
that "consciousness" and "reason" do exist in at least one level of the
universe...

I think so -- but this must not means, that the least level has
consciousness or there ist a conscious system in the background. We dont
know this -- but there is no rational reason for this assumption.

[]
While we COULD SUPPOSE that there might be some kind of "mind" at the
cellular level, or at the level of RNA, I do not know of any research
result that has found any empirical evidence that the kind of "thought
or emotion" sensed by humans as aggregate cell colony organisms occurs
ALSO at the intra-cellular or inter-cellular level. Neither has any
scientist discovered any evidence that the "mind phenomenon" applies to
such things as intergalactic interactions, nor between raw chemical
elements, nor among molecules, nor among sub-molecular particles, nor
among thermodynamic phenomena.

Our behavior and the hole mind is a product of a fitting process -- a
fitting to this universe. Therefore our mind is a product of this
universe -- of his conditions.

We are able to understand our 3 dimensional world but we have problems
with Minkowskis world. We have problems to imagine Einsteins world.

Trust me, please. I am not about to wax metaphysical here.

What I am about to say is quite sound and reasonable... namely that, *we
do not have any empirical evidence that "mind" is NOT manifest
at any other level than the human-as-cellular-colony-organism level,
either.

right

If this 'human-as-cellular-colony-organism level' is a product of the
universe, the information came from the universe. This does /not/ mean,
that this information is /pure/ (developed) in this universe. /This/ is
developing, /this/ ist evolution. I does /not/ speak from a universal
intellect, I speak from the /conditions/, they /can/ develope
intelligence. Thats a /big/ difference -- like the transport of g to
england with a (un)conscious stream. ;)

[]
I tent to have a bias against wanting to believe it is even possible.
But it would not be "scientific" to HAVE any bias and refuse to
recognize it as such.

Before we say, "Ridiculous!" we need to reflect that much known to
science today was once deemed ridiculous.

_!_

But, NO... I am NOT about to propose here any theoretical construct
presupposing that there might be manifestations of "mind" (vis a vis,
conscious thought, emotion, organized purposeful planning, at any level
other than the one we humans experience -- qua humans -- and
physiologists find evidence of electro-chemical phenomena which they can
predict to accompany certain kinds of thought and emotion. Let me only
say that I am not inclined to think that molecules, atoms, or cells have
the capacity to "sense cognitively" an adaptive opportunity, nor an
adaptive need, and form in advance an organized, purposeful intentional
and effective genetic strategy (or RNA-level strategy) for getting
there.

We should not ever torture the plea 'electro-chemical phenomena' if we
want to declare this phenomena.

We can not declare evolution with gene countery. Evolution is more than
mutation and selection!

The system getting 'adaptive need' by adaption. The general evolutionary
criterion demand adaption >> the general evolutionary criterion demands
also "be adaptable" (adapt yourself (recursively)). This is the speech of
the evolution, of the recursively core of evolution!

The nail learns by evolution to beat himself in the wall -- thats it!

Only with this demanding (recursion) the general evolutionary criterion
can project / transport himself into the systems.

I SHALL say... that we cannot totally and conclusively find any
empirical way to RULE IT OUT, either. So, therefore, it is not quite
absolutely far fetched.

Not empirical -- but after the empirical way we need to prove our theory
-- and one time our theory delivers /more/ then we put in. We can
extrapolate with the theory.

The theory follows also the evolution, first try and error -- later
purposed developing.

Just suffice it to say, that my preferences are to believe that genes
(and morphologies in reproducing repeatedly over a large expanse of
time) are NOT... repeat NOT capable of sensing, for example, at a time
when no creature ever has flown... and no genomic order ever before has
been developed to result in a morphology that could fly... and genes

But in the start conditions could be written "more mobility wold be better".

would be able to sense that the ability to fly would be a nice survival
trait, and thence conceive, compute, calculate, formulate and establish
and execute an effective strategy to PRODUCE over millions of years the
right combination of themselves to render someday some progeny who can
take off and fly.

Not rendering -- developing! -- rendering of a recursive core.

Evolution is no hazard -- they /use/ hasard.

What is selection without a criterion? Nothing! Without a criterion is no
selection existent! The essenz ist the criterion -- nothing else!

Therefore we must ask, what other mechanisms are possible, to transport
the information from the criterion to the system. Thats it, what I have
done in the book.

On this way we approach to the essenz of evolution, the recursivly core.

[]
To speak of a system as having a purposive TARGET.

If one wishes to speak of purposive TARGETS, then let him acknowledge
that he has thought through logically that this explicitly implies that
morphologies, or their cells generally, or their RNA, or their DNA has
THE QUALITY OF BEING ABLE TO RECOGNIZE AND ENGAGE IN DOING
SOMETHING ABOUT ACHIEVING A PURPOSE.

Is the gulf stream purposed?

It depends from the view -- from the content of the word purpose.

The Water has nothing, no target, no purpose.

The physical rules have a target (in sense of destination) -- to minimize
the sum of all field forces, but there is no purpose.

While a system -- in the abstract, or in the physical application -- may
be designed by a human to have a "purpose..." and, while a system which
has come about by natural means may tend to produce a certain result, or
"opportunize" within certain parameters. The "machinery" of
non-conscious biological organic mechanisms cannot have a "purpose."

Could it be, that our use / understanding of 'purposive TARGET' makes
problems?

When cames sense in the world? How cames sense in the world?

Only by us!

Could it be, that our differentiation between purpose and unpurpose is a
"fata morgana"?

If we accept, that our consciousness is a product of the evolutionary
process, we accept, that this was in the recursive core of it.

Otherwise we must accept, that consciousness is just a effect of fields.

'The Battle of Systems' shows, that we inherit our purpose /and/
consciousness from the dead physical world.

[]
I have objected previously (many months previously) to the frequent
references made by some thinkers about evolution to certain species'
having "evolved" certain adapted traits because they "needed to, in
order to survive.

Is this (there) a order to survive? Does it /not/ /reach/ that the
survivers survive? (recursion) You make with 'order to survive' the same
mistake, that you blame me. Newtons apple has no purpose to fall down,
just the worm will stay up.

If we are going to treat evolution as something opportunistic, only...
then it seems only reasonable to use language that does assign "mind" to
what occurs. And, having done some studying of the nature and effect of
the art of "propaganda," I do not believe I am being unreasonable when I
say that we humans ARE impacted by subliminal suggestion. And the
terminology we use can influence the way we think and act, whether we
realize it, and admit it, or not.

yes (purpose)

Oh well... this assertion will probably stir up the usual hornets nest
of protestations about how scientists "know what they mean when they use
certain terms, and no layman should judge or object to their using any
word they wish to mean among themselves whatever they want their words
to mean."

And I DO agree with that. I DO recognize that personification is useful
in communications about inanimate, or non-human things.

Ok, but 'personification' smells a little bit.

Also, I am quite sincere in saying that it does not matter to me WHAT
words anyone uses to mean whatever he/she wishes them to mean. What I
would assert, however, is that many who use such terms as "targeting
systems" in referring to adaptations, rarely ever disclaim what they
might mean by that, and go to great lengths sometimes in building an
entire theoretical apologetic
around what strikes ME as an assumption that organisms and their genes
DO set up and seek out certain prognosticatory strategies.

Examples? The evolutionary literature ABOUNDS with examples.

to be continued ...

regards
Carsten
--
exit close quite bye cancel escape

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution versus target function
    ... What is selection without a criterion? ... On this way we approach to the essenz of evolution, ... establishing for itself any purpose. ... the gulf stream intends (consciousness) ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Evolution versus target function
    ... establishing for itself any purpose. ... which humans exist as humans. ... scientist discovered any evidence that the "mind phenomenon" applies to ... in regard to evolution which subliminally... ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Article: The Evolutionist Campaign to Suppress the Truth
    ... Kazmer Ujvarosy is the founder of Frontline Science, ... Only development from a most complex universal common ancestor ... Ken Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, what evolution ... because if the evolutionary mechanism he proposed is without purpose, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: California: Board OKs Darwin challenge - Alex Branning Responds
    ... Ernest Major wrote: ... evolution is even a slightly viable perspective. ... purpose, we want to reach humanistic naturalists and other evolution ... I didn't really expect the web site to reappear when I challenged him to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Heres my problem with you people
    ... >>> byproduct of some biological process. ... >>Humans have the purpose they choose to have for themselves. ... > underlying feeling of joy. ... because the fact of evolution isn't going away. ...
    (talk.origins)