|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 4:20:21 PM | Just can't leave these lie. - - -
- - "Let me outline a few things evolution is not-
It is not a theory on the origin of life- just the mechanism of speciation.
The origin of life is another issue, tangential to be sure, but it has little to do with the theory." ---
Actually the argument seems to center around exactly that (the origin of life). There are some that think they are one and the same. One begets the other.
- - "It would be easier to get Shakespear' completed works typed by chimpanzes on an infinite number of typewriters than to have one cell mutate into all life forms in the time that earth has been capable of supporting life."---
As far as the DNA goes, the potential is there for any type of mutation or evolution. It's all in the sequence. The codes are there. Maybe consciousness plays a part in this also.
- -"Feel free to give your spiritual opinion. There's no reason the science contingent should dominate the discussion. The forum is open to all." --- Really?
- - "Is a rock conscious?"--- How about, held together by consciousness.
;-> | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 4:40:26 PM | | Folks, I have to rant here a little about chaos ...... There is NO CONFLICT between chaos and Newtonian mechanics. Chaos isn't magic - it's mathematics! For example, Newtonian mechanics adequately describes the pendular motion of a stick with a weight on the end swinging backwards and forwards. It is a simple, repeatable cycle. Now, cut the stick in half, join those 2 halves with a hinge and look at how the pendulum now swings. The answer is that under some conditions, the top and bottom halves of the stick are out of sync with each other and the motion of the weight seems somewhat random. It is in fact a chaotic system, accurately defined by Newtonian mechanics and amenable to mathematical analysis. For example, you can always predict (mathematically) that it will swing backwards and forwards, so it ISN'T random. Curiously, it is really difficult to get the pendulum to repeat the same movements if you stop it and start it swinging again. That is one of the reasons people confuse chaos with randomness and unpredictability. In fact one of the mantras of people studying chaos is 'sensitivity to initial conditions'. In other words, if you change the way you start out the pendulum by even the slightest amount, you won't get the same results. You can model chaotic systems on a computer using standard Newtonian mechanics and come up with exactly the same chaotic behavior as you observe in the real world. Another example is the Lorenz system which was an attempt to model weather, but which first brought chaos to light. You can find an example, complete with the mathematical equations and a computer simulation demonstrationg chaos at http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~worfolk/apps/Lorenz/. The plot of the results demonstrates the inspiration behind the 'butterfly'. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 4:49:17 PM | What I really wanted to say  was that I wasn't equating consciousness and intelligence.
OK, Sili - are atoms conscious?  - and if you say are atoms held together with consciousness, I may just claim to have made my point!
[Edit - also found a double pendulum site - http://brain.cc.kogakuin.ac.jp/~kanamaru/Chaos/e/DP/] | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 5:07:36 PM | | I hope you were not refering to my reference to chaos theory quietjohn, because nothing I said contradicts what you just said. I never said that newtonian mechanics and chaos were at odds, or that chaos was randomness and unpredictability. I just likened the origin of life and consciousness to a chaotic event as opposed to a more newtonian linearly defined event. Trust me I've read a lot on chaos. In fact what you said really buttresses my point. I'm not sure you were directing that at me anyway; just wanted to clarify in case you were. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 5:11:23 PM | Silivros- like I said it is a tangential issue, but evolution does not deal with the origin of life, just the mechanisms that relate all life. On the other hand the topic of this discussion is certainly broaching the origins of life.
""Is a rock conscious?"--- How about, held together by consciousness"
Interesting. I think I see where you're going with this, but could you elaborate? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 5:12:49 PM | lol
"OK, Sili - are atoms conscious? - and if you say are atoms held together with consciousness, I may just claim to have made my point!"
qj, atoms conscious? no, consciousness is the hands that mold the clay.
What is the clay? - ;-> atoms -- Then perhaps you made "your" point, but in doing so, you made mine from a previous post. Guess I gotta cut to the chase. Consciousness creates reality. All reality.
P.S. No semantics here. :-) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 5:30:52 PM | Wonka - perception is a relative thing, sort of like that window thing which I discussed and you dismissed previously.
"Interesting. I think I see where you're going with this, but could you elaborate?"
I already have elaborated. As I have been told so many times before "read the posts" specifically my post, although I think you think you know what they say, but the truth might be something other than you claim.
The experiment may elaborate for you as well. If you give it creedence.
That experiment is very relevant to quantum physics. waves, particles, etc. Very rudimentary indeed, but reflective to a grander scale.
Give it a shot. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 5:33:18 PM | | yeah, that's what I thought. This comes down to the age old philisophical debate between the materialists and the idealists. The idealists, of which Hegel would be a prime example, contended that the fundamental constituent of nature is consciousness. The materialists, obviously, argued it was matter. Personally I think that quantum physics has, in a sense, allowed for a truce to exist between these once fundamentally opposed views. I still fall more towards the materialist camp, but you could make a quantum mechanical argument for the idealist view. I liken this divide to the one that existed earlier between the rationalists, who insisted on deduction as the only means of arriving at truth, and the empiricists, who insisted on induction. It was the marriage of these two opposing ideas that led to the scientific method. I do think going back to readdress some of Hegel and others ideas on this subject could be helpful in wrapping our heads around quantum physics, but I would not go so far as to say the idealists were right. We are still a long way from that claim, but it is a fascinating position you take. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 5:57:16 PM | LOL
You leave me speechless.
Well almost.
--"I still fall more towards the materialist camp" -- really? ! I hadn't noticed. :-)
The quantum world will bridge the gap between the science that only believed in the physical, or the physical senses, and the science of our future.
Spirituality (not religion) will be a science based philosophy.
time for homework. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 5:59:49 PM | No, the post wasn't entirely directed at you, Wonka. Maybe it's my interpretation, but I thought you were separating chaos and Newtonian events. Your second post qualifies the Netonian event to a linear one which would not exibit chaos. However, as I noted in my post, there are non-linear Newtonian systems too, and some exhibit chaos. But I still don't understand why you believe chaotic systems have a better chance at consciousness than linear Newtonian systems.
Sili - I think we are somewhat in agreement and I'll have to ruminate upon it some more. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 786 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 6:27:01 PM | Hi Silivanos, atoms are the clay? Not quarks and Gluons?
Assuming there’s a conscious-force, does it trump the strong-force?
Or are all forces necessarily harmonious?
What/who do you see as having consciousness?
Feral, you talked about neglected/abused children before. Failure to thrive is well documented. Some, hospitals now have volunteer programs to massage the premie babies because they do much better than the ones just in incubators, gaining weight up to 50% faster, are more active and responsive, less likely to cry and had long-term benefits in mental and motor ability. Perhaps touch is still very important as we age. It makes me wonder about our touch-deprived society, and the possible consequences.
(re: *feral grin*… guess I should use the power of the asterisk carefully )
Hmmm… I’m still mulling about consciousness.
It seems that we’re talking about something more than the ability to see the relationship between yourself and your surroundings. Which would have obvious adaptive benefit. Perhaps more along the lines of how we ‘see’ or create the world in our mind’s eye?
Although... maybe consciousness is that odd ability we have to ‘divide’ the mind. Who are we talking to when we talk to ourselves? It seems the division is alternatively into multiple perspectives or more commonly a distanced perspective of an idea of ‘us’ looking at what we’re seeing. Seems an artificial division to me, it’s all 'us' in the mind; whether it’s the idea of ourselves or our translation of the world from our senses.
That translation seems to me to be an incredibily limited glimpse of the world; such a small spectrum of light & sound, a bit of a temperature sense, coarse sense of touch, some chemical receptors. And that assumes we learn to use the senses we have, which reminds me of the experiment with cats. If from birth their environment consists only of vertical or horizontal patterns, and they are taken to an environment that has the opposite pattern, they don’t ‘see’ it. They’d bump into things all the time. I wonder what we don't learn to see.
It occurs to me that just because we’ve given a name and definition to something, doesn’t mean it necessarily exists (*laughing* outside our minds anyway). Maybe consciousness is like the ‘ether’ that was used to explain experimental observations before Einstein’s special relativity theory.
Apologizes… probably my most convoluted post yet. I seem to lack the eloquence to say what I’m thinking I’m afraid. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 6:49:18 PM | | quietjohn- Simply because chaos defines complex dynamical systems, which I see consciousness as. I don't see the mind or the process of evolution for that matter as symmetrical in relation to time. They don't possess the temporal symmetry of a linear deterministic event. Instead, they are more accurately depicted as a non-linear mathematical construct with a vast pool of interdependent factors. Metaphorically speaking I see chaos as a more organic model, where slight changes in initial conditions blossum into radically different, but similarly complex, outcomes. Remember chaotic systems are mathematically deterministic, but practically impossible to predict. In fact chaotic systems... well... evolve more than proceed. Chaos theory can be thought to relate to my comments before on the arrow of time. The vast number of events in the world we experience are non-linear; linearity is the anomoly. It could be that chaos will help us better understand why there is the disconnect between quantum and deterministic physics. Recall that I said understanding the different roles that time plays could hold at least part of the secret, and it could very well be that chaos will help us to understand why this is. When I muse on the complexity, unstable yet cohesive and interdependent nature of consciousness it seems to me to have chaos theory written all over it. Also remember that chaos theory is not entirely about chaos; it's about the order that chaos can generate. Coupled with the contemporary paradigm of the neuro-sciences I think chaos theory's relation to consciousness makes perfect sense. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 6:55:11 PM | "Maybe consciousness is like the ‘ether’ that was used to explain experimental observations before Einstein’s special relativity theory."
I love that. What an interesting way to look at it, as if we are giving a name to something only because we don't understand the larger picture that would render our perceptions obvious in relation to more encompassing principles. I've never thought of it in that way. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 8:07:35 PM | Hi dryad
atoms were in context to qj's post, but yes all the little things. :)'
Harmonious? All forces. In what context?
Harmony as in frequencies? now that is a whole nuther ball O' wax. no time for that, too much prereq's.
Man - the species, has consciousness in this format. although I'll reference dual consciousness which I stated before. Body mind and analogical.
Body mind is the autopilot consciousness with a built in timeline from birth to death, that we live in on this plane of expression.
Anological mind is the consciousness that occasionally intercedes on our behalf, whether by conscious design, (very rarely) or by brief moments of complete focus (one mindedness, single mindedness, might be the terms) like a sudden moment of lucid thought. someone called it an ah-ha moment. (can't remember were I saw that) Atheletes call it being in the zone. Learning how to use it. well that is something else -- | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 8:33:36 PM | Dear Wonkavision:
Thank you for your comments. You are right when you say that I clearly do not understand Evolutionary Theory, because I don't. However I have the feeling that anyone who does, considers any other theory or consideration at variance to be twaddle, and its' supporters to be fools. Be that as it may, when we look around us today and see the relative ease with which we now approach cloning and such, it is easy for non evolutionists to consider it not impossible for natural selection to be speeded up with a little spiritual guidance, without jumping into the Adam and Eve pit.
Personally I'm not disagreeing with natural selection, I merely said not enough time had been available for what needed to happen, to happen using natural selection. In my universe, nature has been aided by forces unseen, which I realise is at variance with your own feelings expressed so eloquently throughout this piece.
With a universe out there to secure for the Free Thinking spiritual public, I cannot devote much more energy to this one topic, but we will meet in other arenas, I'm certain of this.
Ed.. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2005 10:28:33 PM |
nature has been aided by forces unseen Ed, I'm not sure you would find total disagreement with that view amongs supporters of evolution. I supect many would ask if it isn't possible that those 'forces unseen' are also nature, but a part that we don't yet understand. Where some people are just happy to believe in them, others want to understand them. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2005 12:12:49 AM | QuietJohn, regarding determinism, I don't think I'm quite as worried as I originally may have seemed. It strikes me that that is quite possibly as unknowable as whether or not there was or is a supernatural influence on the world. I guess you could say I'm a "deterministic agnostic" lol!
subconscious knows our reactions before we are consciously aware of them... That seems to have been demonstrated experimentally. Which still leaves us asking why we should have consciousness and what is it. I think this may tie in to Silivros' assertions regarding the "mind-body" consciousness vs. the "higher" consciousness. I tend to view the electrochemical interactions between the mind and body as inherent and interdependent, whereas, like Descarte's "me who is doing the thinking" is the higher, or "conscious" consciousness. Sort of the will vs. the reactionary personality. Metacognition, if you will, which I refer to as the "Genius." Raziel, thanks for the references. I wasn't sure where to look for stuff on that. It would be easier to get Shakespear' completed works typed by chimpanzes on an infinite number of typewriters than to have one cell mutate into all life forms in the time that earth has been capable of supporting life. While this has already been addressed, I do have to say I disagree. There is no empirical basis for this kind of comparison, nor is there any way to actually calculate the odds for certain on either instance. Then, of course one is left with the awful question: Why didn't the amoeba mutate? Why is it still only one cell? Is it a stupid cell, or just unlucky? It basically ties in to this ^. The simple fact of the matter is that, while organisms do evolve to take advantage of available resources, they also tend to maintain a presence in any available niche until dislodged by something (a mutation of the original species or another, new one altogether) that is better adapted to garnering the most and best resources from that niche. Hence, specific extinctions, as opposed to the mass extinctions seen in the fossil record. That being said, I'd go back to the "mutation of the original species" with a more effective means of exploiting its environment, and wonder whether or not amoebae millions of years ago, while possibly similar to modern ones, might have had different structures relevant to their environments, as well as whether or not there are any means to test this. There's every living thing on this planet, including all of the plants. What in the begining constituted life? Was it plants or animals. Evolution would have to include a common ancestor for both. While I disagree as to whether or not there "was enough time" for all the diversity of life to have evolved, there is one thing I do wonder about. Would it not be possible that the postulated "origin of life" (i.e. chemicals->RNA->DNA->eventual cell/life) could not have happened in more than one place, possibly with different "base pairs," so to speak, and, thus, the Bible may be right again, in that these different "lines" developed "according to their kind," meaning from different "original stock?" They wouldn't necessarily have to be "alien" or "genetically incompatible" I don't suppose, since it's life developing on the same planet, using the same resources, etc. According to at least one reference I've read (yeah, "someone told me" - sorry; not an argument, just an observation), there were, supposedly several phyla (and presumably, families, classes, species, etc.) that existed around the Cambrian, but went extinct. I'm wondering if they might not have been of different "original stock," like that, but the coding was perhaps slightly different and had less survivability. Just some random thoughts. It is not a theory on the origin of life- just the mechanism of speciation.
The origin of life is another issue, tangential to be sure, but it has little to do with the theory." ---
Actually the argument seems to center around exactly that (the origin of life). There are some that think they are one and the same. One begets the other. True, the [u]argument[/u] (read: the Evolution/Creation debate) centers around this to some degree, as it is a major underpinning of the Creationist point of view. It is, however, only obliquely relevant to evolution, as the theory of "descent with modification" and how those modifications make it possible for the "fittest to survive" is what evolution is really about. Oh, and I do believe rocks can/may be conscious, but with the limited definition of consciousness we could have based solely on our own experience of such, I don't believe it is possible at this point for us to test or perhaps even know if they are. Perhaps touch is still very important as we age. It makes me wonder about our touch-deprived society, and the possible consequences. Dryad, I agree. I'd like to see if there are any studies revolving around the effects of physical contact on mood, behaviour, etc. from a biological/anatomical standpoint, especially as regards different ages and stages of development. I'm of the opinion (largely unfounded, but supported by a lot of Trewq's "somebody told me" references) that, in addition to the hormonal and biological development enabled, even forced by placental development, a lot of psychological, mental, and physical growth is affected by contact in the triggered release of hormones and, possibly also by pheromones as well (women roommates' cycles aligning, etc.). re: *feral grin*… guess I should use the power of the asterisk carefully No sweat. Feral likes to grin.  It seems that we’re talking about something more than the ability to see the relationship between yourself and your surroundings. Which would have obvious adaptive benefit. Perhaps more along the lines of how we ‘see’ or create the world in our mind’s eye? In addition to the rest you posted, I think this covers a lot of the metacognition I was talking about. Basically the ability to reflect, to think about thinking. Maybe consciousness is like the ‘ether’ that was used to explain experimental observations before Einstein’s special relativity theory. Yes, I'm an empirical heretic for this, but I still accept the postulated ether. Not so much as a fluid substance containing everything, but I wonder if it couldn't be redefined for modern science as a "quantum potential field" or something that encapsulates the universe? Anological mind is the consciousness that occasionally intercedes on our behalf, whether by conscious design, (very rarely) or by brief moments of complete focus (one mindedness, single mindedness, might be the terms) like a sudden moment of lucid thought. Sort of like Socrates' "genius" or the "higher consciousness" referenced in New Age thought? (And, yes, my Genius concept is similar to the Greek) I supect many would ask if it isn't possible that those 'forces unseen' are also nature, but a part that we don't yet understand. Well said, QJ. I wonder if there isn't a broader sense to Silivros' and my perhaps mutual concept of the "metaconsciousness" that acts in such a way. I know there's no evidence for such, beyond interpretations of quantum theory, but might this not lend some credence to the existence of "nature spirits?" | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2005 12:19:30 PM | Yes I have been enjoying this debate. Although I have to read a few of the posts a couple of times and it sometimes makes my head hurt. 
I like Dryad's question/suggestion
That translation seems to me to be an incredibily limited glimpse of the world; such a small spectrum of light & sound, a bit of a temperature sense, coarse sense of touch, some chemical receptors.
We really experience such a little part of what makes up the "universe" that we are like blind men trying to describe an elephant. But at least we are trying. while it seems the Creationists are saying to just believe in the elephant and never mind trying to understand, it'll only make your head hurt.
The question about matter having consciousness reminds me of an idea of reincarnation, where some 'souls" chose to reincarnate as rocks, so as to take a break for a few thousand years. But as the rock gets broken down into grains of sand, which grain holds the consciousness?
Just like with us, where is your consciousness (or for the religious, Soul)? It is not in you hand or foot as they can be lost and you are still you. Or parts of the brain can be removed/damaged and you're still you. On the other hand there are stories of people who having received an organ transplant claimed to have memories from the original owner (i.e. Woman was able to guide police to the killer of her heart's donator).
And I know some have covered this but I have to comment.
Why didn't the amoeba mutate? Why is it still only one cell? Is it a stupid cell, or just unlucky?
Sorry Edward this statement just shows you do not understand Evolution. Just like those who expect all apes to be human by now?????
The same evolutionary process did not affect all amoeba or all apes at the same time and some got left behind. Not really a mystery.
And as to the time frame if you think 4.5 billion years is not enough time for the various species to develop then how does the creationist claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old explain the diversity of species found after the great flood? Noah carried them all? How did he pick up the Kangaroos and get then back to their home?
What would be a relevant time frame?
What advice do you have for us ones out here unconvinced of Darwin's suggestions as being the total explanation?
Read More. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2005 3:55:25 PM |
The question about matter having consciousness reminds me of an idea of reincarnation, where some 'souls" chose to reincarnate as rocks, so as to take a break for a few thousand years. But as the rock gets broken down into grains of sand, which grain holds the consciousness?
I know its a bit off topic, but have you ever checked out Kirlian Photography, its a method of photography that captures an energy field around an object instead of the object itself. What exactly the field is, is still under debate (probaly magnetic or electrical field, but still no one knows) and it shows some remarkable things. Of course its not yet science, still regard as hocus-pokus by 'true' science, but it is very intresting (once you get past the new age gobldegook that is often asosiated with it.) and I think may be relavent to your post as there has been some evidence that it shows a kind of consiousness (energy field change with mood in animals, and show up for a time as a hole leaf after the leaf has been cut in two, rocks from 'haunted' areas show far stronger paterns than non-haunted ones.). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2005 5:15:53 PM | Thanks Raziel
---"I know its a bit off topic, but have you ever checked out Kirlian Photography, its a method of photography that captures an energy field around an object instead of the object itself. What exactly the field is, is still under debate (probaly magnetic or electrical field, but still no one knows) and it shows some remarkable things" ---
If it is consciousness that holds matter together - - ?
Now -- how about collective consciousness? whole species consciousness, whole planet consciousness -- creating a reality. but maybe that is too much of a leap. ;->
---"Of course its not yet science, still regard as hocus-pokus by 'true' science, but it is very intresting" ---
True science? - - Would that be the Imperical Empiricalists?
The same guys that refuse to accecpt evidence of a global flood because it smacks of creationism? I think science thinks that if they give creationists an inch they'll take a mile. (granted there are many valid reasons to assume that.) but to not accept huge amounts of physical proof. (please forgive me for baiting! I have a passion for this specific subject) Well that just wallows in hypocricy. lol | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2005 5:21:00 PM | If competent unbiased scientists refute a theory it is because the evidence isn't strong enough, it isn't because they are hypocrits.
You prove it, they will eventually support it. Creationists haven't been able to do that; they generally don't see the point. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2005 5:40:09 PM | I didn't meen to add any fule to the science versus not science debacle, I mearly ment, that Kirlian photography is still too new and too little understood to be accepted into the fold of scientific rational yet, it neads to be further tested and explored to find out what is happening and to propose hypothesis and theores, which can be tested and which make testable predictions.
This has not been done with Kirlian photography.... yet.
Mostly because it would be academic suicide, due to all the hippy, new age mumbo jumbo atached to the very simple proces of taking a photo of an energy field.
At least there are now tests being started in Moscow and Kiev, Thank god for the Rusians ia all I can say!  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2005 5:42:41 PM | "Imperical Empiricalists?"
Did you mangle that on purpose as a joke, or are you refering to the rational empiricists?
"The same guys that refuse to accecpt evidence of a global flood because it smacks of creationism?"
What evidence of a global flood? There is evidence of localized floods around the time, and most historians I think would agree that there is likely a historical basis for the flood myth, but there is no scientific evidence of a global flood. What MLR says is accurate. With actual evidence they would adjust their theories.
"whole planet consciousness"
This sounds like the gaia theory- an interesting perspective, but... ah forget it. You know what I'm going to say. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2005 6:05:52 PM | Wonka
You don't fish do you? lol
Not gaia - but think collective thought. how might a thought spread without verbalization. use Razial post with the Kirlian (sp) photography. heres a hint. You could feel the tension in the air.
I'll be back :-) | |
|
|
| Page 32 of 156
|
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 |
|
Home
login 
