Chemical evolution:

[Write4U]

One more quasi ANYTHING to me and CLICK

OK

You do understand the concept I am trying to advance, no? If not, I suggest you expand your horizons.

Else you are of course free to ignore anything I say. No one is forcing you to listen or even to think, for that matter.

I just wonder why you do not object to the term Artificial Intelligence? You seem quite comfortable with that compound term, which indicates a man-made non-living intelligence.

Would that be the neccessity of an Intelligent (human) Designer of a mathematical information processing machine instead of a natural logical information processing function in a mathematically ordered geometric universe?
Can you explain that riddle to me, please?

 

[Q-reeus]

Incredulity?/ I'm pretty sure it is far far less incredible speculating a nothing that actually is the quantum foam [or as nothing as it is possible to get] and as such, has existed for eternity, rather then some omnipotent all knowing, all powerful magical deity/creator, that has absolutely no basis in science whatsoever...particularly as science has continually over the centuries, pushed any such necessity, back to near oblivion. Makes a heap of sense for that pushing to continue as science progresses.

Religious dogma has indeed been shown severely lacking. True of all faiths. So? Invoking the pop sci term 'quantum foam' explains nothing and it's very existence is debatable. Because you have never actually studied what the likes of Tour and Behe have shown, and instead rely on what ideologically motivated detractors falsely assert, you feel confident to go on militantly asserting such pronouncements. Those of us who have understood the import of Tour's and Behe's findings, realize there is no way unguided natural processes can explain either the origin of life, or it's subsequent extreme diversification. Ergo - there has to be a creator God. No known religion having a credible handle on.

 

[Michael 345]

You do understand the concept I am trying to advance, no? If not, I suggest you expand your horizons.

Else you are of course free to ignore anything I say. No one is forcing you to listen or even to think, for that matter.

I just wonder why you do not object to the term Artificial Intelligence? You seem quite comfortable with that compound term, which indicates a man-made non-living intelligence.

Would that be the neccessity of an Intelligent (human) Designer of a mathematical information processing machine instead of a natural logical information processing function in a mathematically ordered geometric universe?
Can you explain that riddle to me, please?

OK stand by for rant

Any speculation what religion could / would replace god with?

Any candidates?

NOTE bottom of my post

Two innocuous questions

Do you respond with answer?

Noooooooo, you come back with

I agree, but that does not eliminate some form of quasi-intelligence, such as the logical processing of relational values by means of mathematical processes, which needs not be sentient, nor motivated, just functional.

ie NOT ANSWERS

Off you go with 1 of many what you put out what ever is closest to YOUR interpretation

I'll rework your reply to fit the questions which were asked

Fake Write4U answer I would hope to have as a reply to

Any candidates?

1/ Well physics could be considered
2/ Logical processing
3/ Mathematical processes, which needs not be sentient, nor motivated, just functional could all be considered candidates

Follow how easy it is?

And THIS is such a annoyance

You do understand the concept I am trying to advance, no?

STOP WITH THE NO

You are NOT an authoritarian school master wagging finger at naughty children
Well I hope not, but it is my image of you
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Else you are of course free to ignore anything I say

Didn't think I NEED permission
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I just wonder why you do not object to the term Artificial Intelligence?

Artificial Intelligence is being constructed, not sure best description but appears to be more pithy than A computer so loaded with information it almost appears Intelligent

NEXT
Would that be the neccessity of an Intelligent (human) Designer of a mathematical information processing machine instead of a natural logical information processing function in a mathematically ordered geometric universe?
Can you explain that riddle to me, please?

Will try

Would that be the neccessity of an Intelligent (human) Designer of a mathematical information processing machine

YES

instead of a natural logical information processing function in a mathematically ordered geometric universe?

Well
physics is not a natural logical information processing function

Such description gives, to me, the impression IT (physics) has a capability to ACT independently

Sure we INVENTED mathematics to describe the properties of stuff and how stuff interacts with other stuff

Here is a brain fart bubble from me
Have you ever considered the intelliegence you see, in what ever you see intelliegence in, have you ever ever considered IT IS YOUR intelliegence you are looking at?

Coffee moment

 

[iceaura]

Those of us who have understood the import of Tour's and Behe's findings, realize there is no way unguided natural processes can explain either the origin of life, or it's subsequent extreme diversification.

If you are still taking Behe's "arguments" seriously, you're pretty deep in the weeds.
Is he still flogging "irreducible complexity" as some kind of problem for Darwinian theory?
(Short version of the obvious: No irreducible biological complexities exist.

There is no such thing, in a system capable of being structured by Darwinian evolution, because in Darwinian evolution there is no pre-specified function, purpose, or role, for any given structure. Complexities are only irreducible with respect to some assumed function or role - otherwise they are of course reducible simply by removing some aspect of their complexity)

 

[Q-reeus]

If you are still taking Behe's "arguments" seriously, you're pretty deep in the weeds.
Is he still flogging "irreducible complexity" as some kind of problem for Darwinian theory?
(Short version of the obvious: No irreducible biological complexities exist.

There is no such thing, in a system capable of being structured by Darwinian evolution, because in Darwinian evolution there is no pre-specified function, purpose, or role, for any given structure. Complexities are only irreducible with respect to some assumed function or role - otherwise they are of course reducible simply by removing some aspect of their complexity)

You speak as one who is knowledgeable, but imo it's mostly show. I have posted the link elsewhere and presumably like most here you never bothered to check it out:

The likes of Kenneth Miller claimed to have refuted Behe's irreducible complexity argument, but in that vid Behe points out fatal flaws in his opponent's logic. And goes much further. Ignore it if you want to feel safe in your ideological commitment to unguided evolution.

 

[paddoboy]

Invoking the pop sci term 'quantum foam' explains nothing and it's very existence is debatable.

It's a speculative scientific proposition that holds some promise. But as usual you miss the point. Science has pushed any need for ID back to near oblivion, as I said, and continues to do research.
There's no reason not to believe that science will continue and keep pushing the myth you propose even further back.

Because you have never actually studied what the likes of Tour and Behe have shown, and instead rely on what ideologically motivated detractors falsely assert, you feel confident to go on militantly asserting such pronouncements. Those of us who have understood the import of Tour's and Behe's findings, realize there is no way unguided natural processes can explain either the origin of life, or it's subsequent extreme diversification. Ergo - there has to be a creator God. No known religion having a credible handle on.

You're getting fond of turning facts around. In fact it is you blinded by the preacher style of Tour and his disciples, to simply support a well held belief. Other experts have invalidated his stance for what it is...a crusade against the terrible god destroying scientific theory of Abiogenesis, and the fact the the universe and how it came to be, is indifferent, unconcerned and totally detached from the life that chemistry evolved.

 

[paddoboy]

The likes of Kenneth Miller claimed to have refuted Behe's irreducible complexity argument, but in that vid Behe points out fatal flaws in his opponent's logic.

I'm not sure there's a fanatical IDer or Creationist, that would accept any argument, evidence or even proof for the myth that is ID and creationism, and the facts of Abiogenesis. Tour himself openly admitted to that.

 

[Q-reeus]

I'm not sure there's a fanatical IDer or Creationist, that would accept any argument, evidence or even proof for the myth that is ID and creationism, and the facts of Abiogenesis. Tour himself openly admitted to that.

Tour has admitted to no such thing. Quote him verbatim and in full context as explicitly endorsing that in green. I say you can't.

 

[Write4U]

Arrrh, Quantum Foam when you really need a nothing

Wrong. You do need something Causal.
And AFAIK, the only definitive causal properties of the earliest state of the universe is Chaos, just chaos.
Quantum foam may well be one of the self organizing dynamical patterns emerging from Chaos.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the study of chaos — dynamical systems whose apparently random states of disorder and irregularities are actually governed by underlying patterns and deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.[1][2] Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory stating that, within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[3] The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic non-linear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

I'm guessing those who postulate some sort of god - ID'er - Higher Being etc etc do so really only because they detect DESIGN within the Universe

Precisely, they "detect" what appears to be Design within the Universe. And what is causal to these designs?

I am curious as to would religion exist IF say as some examples

• kids don't resemble parents ie can pop out any colour, features, eye colour, etc etc
• same for species
• no prediction could be made about something as fundimental as a planets orbit
• stuff just occurred at random moments
• no cause / explanation found
• yes apples fall up OR down and no-one knows why and no matter how many measurements or observations or stats collected no pattern emerges

• IF there was no apparent design there would not be the invention of a Designer! But the question is moot, there is real design, it just isn't intelligent. It's purely mathematical.

  Michael said: ↑ For me that would eliminate any form of Intelligence

  W4U said: I agree, but that does not eliminate some form of quasi-intelligence, such as the logical processing of relational values by means of mathematical processes, which needs not be sentient, nor motivated, just functional.

  That is the reason for the invention of Religion and a motivated Intelligent Designer

Being that there is indeed the appearance of a form of a motivated Intelligent Causality, mathematical processes must be considered as the original establishment for all religions which propose (incorrectly) an Intelligent Designer.

Any speculation what religion could / would replace god with? Any candidates?

None, all religions are founded on the concept of a motivated Intelligent Causality.[/quote]

Any candidates?
1/ Well physics could be considered
2/ Logical processing
3/ Mathematical processes, which needs not be sentient, nor motivated, just functional could all be considered candidates

Well 1/physics is not a natural logical information processing function

I agree.

2/ Logical processing

Logical processing may not be a measurable process at all.

3/ Mathematical processing which needs not be sentient, nor motivated, just functional could be considered

Most likely,
IMO, 3/ Mathematical processes is the only replacement for the assumption of a motivated intelligent agent, because it appears intelligent, but mathematics isn't really intelligent, it just appears that way to the uninformed observer!

No matter how you look at it or how you identify it in English evolution is a mathematical process which always leads to a mathematical Cosmological Constant.

The rest of your rant is incoherent, so I'll refrain from even attempting to make sense of it.[/quote]

 

[Write4U]

Ignore it if you want to feel safe in your ideological commitment to unguided evolution.

Evolution is not unguided! It just isn't motivationally guided. It is mathematically (probabilistically) guided!

 

[Q-reeus]

Evolution is not unguided! It just isn't motivationally guided. It is mathematically (probabilistically) guided!

Hopelessly confused by your own alphabet soup of pseudo-scientific buzzwords. Actually watch that vid featuring Behe being interviewed and learn something useful.

 

[Write4U]

Wrong. You do need something Causal.
And AFAIK, the only definitive causal properties of the earliest state of the universe is Chaos, just chaos.
Quantum foam may well be one of the self organizing dynamical patterns emerging from Chaos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory Precisely, they "detect" what appears to be Design within the Universe. And what is causal to these designs?

• IF there was no apparent design there would not be the invention of a Designer! But the question is moot, there is real design, it just isn't intelligent. It's purely mathematical.

Being that there is indeed the appearance of a form of a motivated Intelligent Causality, mathematical processes must be considered as the original establishment for all religions which propose (incorrectly) an Intelligent Designer.
None, all religions are founded on the concept of a motivated Intelligent Causality.

I agree. Logical processing may not be a measurable process at all. Most likely,
IMO, 3/ Mathematical processes is the only replacement for the assumption of a motivated intelligent agent, because it appears intelligent, but mathematics isn't really intelligent, it just appears that way to the uninformed observer!

No matter how you look at it or how you identify it in English evolution is a mathematical process which always leads to a mathematical Cosmological Constant.

The rest of your rant is incoherent, so I'll refrain from even attempting to make sense of it.[/quote][/QUOTE]

p.s. What I don['t understand is that you readily admit that religions are based on the "appearance" of intelligent design, but that mathematics is a purely human invention apparently without the benefit of observation of an ordered processing of relational information via mathematical functions.

How, pray tell, did humans come to invent a mathematical language without the benefit of naturally occurring examples?????

 

[Michael 345]

I agree. Logical processing may not be a measurable process at all. Most likely,
IMO, 3/ Mathematical processes is the only replacement for the assumption of a motivated intelligent agent, because it appears intelligent, but mathematics isn't really intelligent, it just appears that way to the uninformed observer!

No matter how you look at it or how you identify it in English evolution is a mathematical process which always leads to a mathematical Cosmological Constant.

The rest of your rant is incoherent, so I'll refrain from even attempting to make sense of it.

[/QUOTE]

p.s. What I don['t understand is that you readily admit that religions are based on the "appearance" of intelligent design, but that mathematics is a purely human invention apparently without the benefit of observation of an ordered processing of relational information via mathematical functions.

How, pray tell, did humans come to invent a mathematical language without the benefit of naturally occurring examples?????[/QUOTE]
To, far to long

Did NOT read

Ever heard of Readers Digest?

Please take lessons

 

[Write4U]

Hopelessly confused by your own alphabet soup of pseudo-scientific buzzwords. Actually watch that vid featuring Behe being interviewed and learn something useful.

Of course you are confused by logic, you like mystery!
I have read Behe and also the entire transcript of the evidence presented in the Kitzmiller trial. Behe is a charlatan. I have not read Troup. The concept of "irreducible complexity" is only present in Chaos Theory (see above).

 

[Write4U]

p.s. What I don't understand is that you readily admit that religions are based on the "appearance" of intelligent design, but that mathematics is a purely human invention apparently without the benefit of observation of an ordered processing of relational information via mathematical functions.

How, pray tell, did humans come to invent a mathematical language without the benefit of naturally occurring examples?????[/QUOTE]

To, far to long

Apparently you like shorter, simpler explanations. OK

Did NOT read

Of course not, you cannot answer the question.

Ever heard of Readers Digest? Please take lessons

That is your source of scientific information? Impressive.....

C'mon Michael, keep it civil. No need for aggression.

 

[Write4U]

Artificial Intelligence is being constructed, not sure best description but appears to be more pithy than A computer so loaded with information it almost appears Intelligent

Thank you, you just articulated the definition of quasi-intelligent.....

 

[Q-reeus]

Of course you are confused by logic, you like mystery!
I have read Behe and also the entire transcript of the evidence presented in the Kitzmiller trial. Behe is a charlatan. I have not read Troup. The concept of "irreducible complexity" is only present in Chaos Theory (see above).

The most insistent and persistent posters here have imo the least real knowledge to share.

 

[Michael 345]

aggression

Aggression???

Nowhere near aggression

Rest of waffle is waffle

 

[Write4U]

The most insistent and persistent posters here have imo the least real knowledge to share.

YEA, well, that YMO.
IMO you have no knowledge to share at all, so go figure.

 

[Write4U]

Aggression???

Nowhere near aggression

Rest of waffle is waffle

Waffle is better than Fluff.