Is evolution hanging on ?

[Xarog]

This now seems to be in line with what I said.
If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that it may be possible to achieve absolute truth (provided, of course, absolute truth does in fact exist), but not possible to prove that absolute truth has been achieved. Is that right?
If so, then this is contrary to your first post, in which you stated that it has been proven to you that it is impossible to achieve absolute truth.

Or am I missing/misunderstanding something?

You can't make a truth claim without proof. To not have the proof of absolute truth is to not have the absolute truth. What you will in fact have achieved is a relative truth only.

Perhaps a practical demonstration is called for:

Is the Universe infinite or finite? Can you say for sure what's in it and where it is? If your mind is not big enough to hold this truth, then clearly whatever truth you have will be a truth which is not complete and thus not absolute. We can therefore safely rule out the possibility of a human being having any kind of absolute knowledge any time soon.

 

[Splinter]

Defensive much? You are assuming far too much Xarog, as usual. My initial post was quite specific in its aim and the point was perfectly clear. It wasn't aimed at you but of course you being the centre of all discussions would think it was.

So yeah, read my post. I presume nothing. I am merely surprised that OD would accept religious views as a prerequisite as what can be deemed factual or not.

Facts are specific and don't change because you believe in something that can't be overridden. Not so?

But as you were. I've no interest in being sucked into your egocentric chest beating.

But if you carry on long enough, you will get the grand trophy of victory, which is when Xarog "ignores" you because he knows he can't win..

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I don't know why that would be fine. A fact is a fact regardless of what starting point you have and what you believe something to be.

This thread is ridiculous. Just the usual people squeezing square pegs into round holes to fit their preconceptions.

'Fine', in the sense that I know why he's applying his religious views, but it's not really pertinent to the question I'm asking him.

 

[falcon786]

I will most likely be laughed at but I don't care.
Scientists refer to God but not in a religious way but a central intelligence that we are all connected to. We live in our own reality that this "God" has given us.

Had there not been an intelligence to receive information of the "big bang" then we would not be here. All there would be is a maze of scrambled waves. Nothing solid as there is no intelligent source to receive this information.

I also find it strange that the word "proof" is thrown around here. Science does not work on proof. That is for mathematics. Science works on models that work for the theory and this will change as new evidence is found.


QM is always perfect as we see what we see. Quantum Biology on the other hand has to evolve and adapt to changes to our world.
If the oxygen depletes, our chests and nostrils will grow larger.

As it is, more and more people are born without wisdom teeth and spleens as they are not needed. We lost our hair due to clothing.
Sparrows and some butterflies in London turned brown to blend in with the buildings.

Perhaps Quantum Entanglement causes finches and fish to instantly change direction at the exact same time as if their brains/minds are all connected. Will we ever know?

Excellent thought provoking post.

 

[wayfarer]

Yeah, that's fine. I understand why the religious/philosophical aspect is inescapable for you, based on your religious views. But I'm still wondering whether you apply this view to everything sans deities. You mentioned that because evolution, being so primary in the process of life, it somehow... is just different. I disagree because it seems entirely arbitrary and anthropocentric to me.

I am more inclined to see it as theocentric. The first fundamental faith testification of Islam is that there is nothing of any necessary significance in existence, other than God - not even humans. In fact, the word "Islam" literally means "surrender". A believer realises his nothingness before God, and submits in total devotion.

Is there a starting point divide for you where everything that we understand about the universe is either god-determined or atheistic? An example, is making coffee without invoking god as the prime mover the 'atheistic' model on making coffee?

Well, I don't verbalise it as "God makes the coffee", or "God walks my body to the door", despite that being the actual Islamic doctrinal view, and my belief. That is because atheists do not commonly invoke autonomous coffee-making as a support for atheism or anti-theism. The same cannot be said of one of the most metaphysically loaded science topics of the day, viz. ToE. I therefore use a more precise language when it comes to that.

 

[wayfarer]

@Xarog

I am interested in your conception of self-awareness. How do you differentiate between merely reacting to stimulus without necessarily being self-aware, and actually being self-aware?

 

[Xarog]

@Xarog

I am interested in your conception of self-awareness. How do you differentiate between merely reacting to stimulus without necessarily being self-aware, and actually being self-aware?

Well, to be pedantic, any knowledge which happens to be about oneself that an entity knows is by definition a kind of self awareness.

I wouldn't say DNA is self-aware in the sense that it knows it wants to live, only that it is self-aware in that it experiences the drive to live through its own evolutionary learning processes, and that it has some kind of idea as to what is good for it and what is bad for it in those terms. In terms of rational decision making processes, it can't really get any more self-aware than that.

 

[wayfarer]

Well, to be pedantic, any knowledge which happens to be about oneself that an entity knows is by definition a kind of self awareness.

I wouldn't say DNA is self-aware in the sense that it knows it wants to live, only that it is self-aware in that it experiences the drive to live through its own evolutionary learning processes, and that it has some kind of idea as to what is good for it and what is bad for it in those terms. In terms of rational decision making processes, it can't really get any more self-aware than that.

I'm not sure that I get you. When a piece of software includes code that ensures that it remains alive or active on a system, do you view that software as being self-aware and knowing what is good for it?

 

[Xarog]

I'm not sure that I get you. When a piece of software includes code that ensures that it remains alive or active on a system, do you view that software as being self-aware and knowing what is good for it?

That would depend. I would not rule it out. You can get things which simulate such a state, and you get the actual thing. Because the system I am referring to can learn and grow as a result of its computational processes that looks at information it collects about itself, I think it is fair to look at it as self-aware.

So if the piece of software can re-invent itself as part of its code that ensures that it remains alive, then I expect it would be regarded as self-aware.

 

[wayfarer]

...

So if the piece of software can re-invent itself as part of its code that ensures that it remains alive, then I expect it would be regarded as self-aware.

Is it possible that it does not "know" that its actions are benefiting itself, or that its actions are "good"? What if it simply coldly responding to stimuli according to the coding instructions of the developer?

 

[Xarog]

Is it possible that it does not "know" that its actions are benefiting itself, or that its actions are "good"? What if it simply coldly responding to stimuli according to the coding instructions of the developer?

Well, what if you're really a mindless zombie that is simply responding to stimuli according to the coding instructions of the developer?

I don't think one could ever rule out the idea that it is acting according to the instructions of an external developer, is my point.

For my purposes, I am satisfied to equate awareness with the process by which intelligence operates.

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2015/12/evolution-learning-theory-study.page

 

[DWAAS]

In case anyone was wondering what has happened to the OP --

I've started this thread to see what people, knowledgeable in this area, would say. Upon reading the replies in the thread I've come to realise we have quite a few very intelligent members on both sides of the argument.

This made me wonder -- how is that possible? Intelligent humans with opposing beliefs in this regard?
If the theory of evolution is so obvious and if, at the same time, the notion of a creator is so obviously plausible -- how is THAT possible in itself?

 

[wayfarer]

In case anyone was wondering what has happened to the OP --

I've started this thread to see what people, knowledgeable in this area, would say. Upon reading the replies in the thread I've come to realise we have quite a few very intelligent members on both sides of the argument.

This made me wonder -- how is that possible? Intelligent humans with opposing beliefs in this regard?
If the theory of evolution is so obvious and if, at the same time, the notion of a creator is so obviously plausible -- how is THAT possible in itself?

Neither of the 2 are necessarily obvious.

But it is very important to note that the 2 positions are not mutually exclusive, and having to choose between them is a false dichotomy. Why should we be made to choose only 1?

See my piece on my personal experience of this.

 

[Swa]

I don't find anything particularly wrong with what you say here. However I haven't found any convincing reason/s as to why change cannot occur without a creator either. There appears to be a sort of bias inherent in all of us and that is to assume what we are is perfect and what we are in is systematic. I think this bias stems from being the subject of the matter trying to be objective from within the system we are trying to assess - if that makes sense?

Again what is perfect? A piece of paper is perfect if it allows you to write on it. If something accomplishes its intended purpose it is good. If something is good it is perfect. As humans we are conditioned into wanting everything to be better. We don't recognise that it's all just for gratification. If a paper is slightly off colour with black spots it shouldn't matter as I can still use it to write on.

In other words if the universe looked any different and abided by different laws - and we were living balls of intelligent evolving goo cruising at light speed under 10000 degrees Celsius in a different form of time - we may still think the same about ourselves and the universe and its "perfection". And thus we may still see patterns and think there is a creator behind all of it.

Simply by existing you cannot escape this bias because anything that could exist could explain itself as the result of a creator or intelligent design. Where processes guided by natural laws (Not created) are perhaps equally as capable of the same result given that those laws - that permit whatever form of existence that follows - are already there prior to life and irrespective of a creator in the first place.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here.

This is one reason why I am often unconvinced by arguments for a creator as it could be an easy trap to fall into - again not saying it is impossible Often we say evolution is completely random (And thus we cannot expect it to get as far as it has by randomness alone) - but this is not entirely true. Even without a creator it still has to follow natural laws and would inevitably find the most intricate solutions within the bounds of possibility under those laws - because that's what change in my mind ultimately leads to. And in a universe that simply "moves", change will/should occur. "Life" and evolution actually seems inevitable - not magical.

For the theist life is a miracle. But not because it is different from other matter. For the theist either everything is a miracle or nothing is. The creation of the universe, the forming of stars etc.

I'm reminded of the statement - The universe's constants are all so perfectly/intricately/finely tuned or balanced to allow life and the universe itself to exist "as we know it". The last part, "As we know it", is key I feel. It is obvious to me that something supported in one system (Universe) would be totally incompatible in another universe following very different laws. But there may be a vice versa hidden in there Unfortunately I'm no physicist to try and confirm this. It does help though that I find little distinction between life and non-life and thus have no special separation of these concepts to abide by in assessing possibilities/outcomes.

The last bit is just a tag. The statement is still valid as "the universe's constants are all so perfectly/intricately/finely tuned or balanced to allow life and the universe itself to exist." Many people forget that and add that some form of life could still exist in a different universe. In short it is highly unlikely. A different universe may be able to exist but it will most likely not be with meaningful structure or allow life of any kind to exist. Of course it doesn't matter if your point of view is that a formless universe is just as meaningful as one with life as you'll see all outcomes as accidents but for me a universe with form is pretty remarkable when chance only allows for one without form.

 

[wayfarer]

If all judgements are subjective in this sense, then it is simply wrong to speak of an absolute truth, because no such thing could possibly exist.

Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?

Put another way: is the statement that "no such thing as an absolute truth could possibly exist," an absolute truth?

 

[Xarog]

Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?

Put another way: is the statement that "no such thing as an absolute truth could possibly exist," an absolute truth?

I wouldn't say that. I only say that it is reasonable to conclude that we'll never achieve it.

I would say that we experience a subjective reflection of the absolute truth. Thus, what we acquire are subjective truths. Every truth we think we know is subject to the perspective by which we came to that truth. If the perspective is false, then it is highly likely that the truth beheld is also false.

 

[Bobbin]

Is it possible that it does not "know" that its actions are benefiting itself, or that its actions are "good"? What if it simply coldly responding to stimuli according to the coding instructions of the developer?

My take on this is that if one piece of software observes another piece of software in the same package it is then 'self aware'. Association is quite a profound word to me and is likely the primary driver behind all intelligence and learning which stems from the binary form of life. Which is also why we have 2 very extreme indicators of success/survival (Happiness and Sadness). I could go on and on... I feel there's just too much uncanny-ness going on here. Lol makes me want to tear my hair out sometimes

 

[Bobbin]

Again what is perfect? A piece of paper is perfect if it allows you to write on it. If something accomplishes its intended purpose it is good. If something is good it is perfect. As humans we are conditioned into wanting everything to be better. We don't recognise that it's all just for gratification. If a paper is slightly off colour with black spots it shouldn't matter as I can still use it to write on.


Not really sure what you are trying to say here.


For the theist life is a miracle. But not because it is different from other matter. For the theist either everything is a miracle or nothing is. The creation of the universe, the forming of stars etc.


The last bit is just a tag. The statement is still valid as "the universe's constants are all so perfectly/intricately/finely tuned or balanced to allow life and the universe itself to exist." Many people forget that and add that some form of life could still exist in a different universe. In short it is highly unlikely. A different universe may be able to exist but it will most likely not be with meaningful structure or allow life of any kind to exist. Of course it doesn't matter if your point of view is that a formless universe is just as meaningful as one with life as you'll see all outcomes as accidents but for me a universe with form is pretty remarkable when chance only allows for one without form.

Where do you draw the line between something that is living vs something that is not? For me personally, just because something moves or reacts electrically or chemically to its surroundings doesn't make it any different from a rock or a battery or a bomb. Just wondering if you share the same view? (Though I doubt it but curious to hear where I should be looking)

 

[wayfarer]

I wouldn't say that. I only say that it is reasonable to conclude that we'll never achieve it.

I would say that we experience a subjective reflection of the absolute truth. Thus, what we acquire are subjective truths. Every truth we think we know is subject to the perspective by which we came to that truth. If the perspective is false, then it is highly likely that the truth beheld is also false.

So:
- Absolute truth exists.
- Each individual may have a unique subjective experience of the absolute truth, and therefore not necessarily a complete conception thereof.

Is it in any way possible that the subjective truth conception of an individual coincides with the absolute truth? While we may not have a way of proving such congruence, my question is about whether that is within the realm of possibility.

 

[Xarog]

So:
- Absolute truth exists.
- Each individual may have a unique subjective experience of the absolute truth, and therefore not necessarily a complete conception thereof.

Is it in any way possible that the subjective truth conception of an individual coincides with the absolute truth? While we may not have a way of proving such congruence, my question is about whether that is within the realm of possibility.

I do not rule it out. I kind of think the whole point of seeking knowledge is to come as close to that absolute as one possibly can.

That is what it means to understand the world around you, not so? It's just that this understanding also requires a certain amount of understanding about oneself and the way in which one's understanding operates. The subjectiveness is part of the absoluteness too.