PDA

View Full Version : Scientific acceleration..ever so increasingly in time?



prometheus
08-28-2016, 10:43 AM
Just some thoughts, what do you guys think of scientific accelaration?
I am refering to wether or not it can be said/esatablished that scientific research and development is accelerating at never before seen increasing speed these current times, if you relate to scientific progress between 1300-1600 1600-1800 etc.
Can we say that our current time is in a scientific progress rate unmatched by any other period, or can we label any other period to have more impact/higher rate of scientific progress?

I Just want to hear your thoughts on it, and you do not need to be scientificly correct :) it is open for speculatin.. ..if you however are correct and by far better, that is a good thing, but for us others..we can speculate til some wise person assert it with good understanding and credibility :)

erikals
08-28-2016, 11:31 AM
does time even exist?
https://www.google.no/#q=does+time+exist
----------

...buuut, that was off topic... :o

the subject is interesting, i think we'll see an innovation explosion quite soon.

computers are making the impossible, possible.


Can we say that our current time is in a scientific progress rate unmatched by any other period

Absolutely.

prometheus
08-28-2016, 12:49 PM
does time even exist?
https://www.google.no/#q=does+time+exist
----------

...buuut, that was off topic... :o

the subject is interesting, i think we'll see an innovation explosion quite soon.

computers are making the impossible, possible.



Absolutely.

ehh..you posted the reply at ( Today, 05:31 PM ) ..but I am not going in to mind twerking about the cosmology or any q momentum :) not today, maybe tommorow if there exist any time to do so :)

Since we may be able to soon harness the power of quantum computers ..I could imagine we may accelerate even faster in the near future in terms of what we can discover or engineer, I also think the internet revolution made it possible to progress at a higher speed rate, but it is higly speculative from my side on how much we can use the quantum computers for certain task, as I understand it, some tasks it will not be able to handle as good as other computers, but for certains specific task ..up to 100 millions faster.

I think google and nasa are evaluating those computers at this present Time, but I am not up to date on the research on that.
D-Wave 2X
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/d-wave-quantum-1.3525566

djwaterman
08-28-2016, 12:55 PM
On the face of it, it would seem obvious that it is increasing, I mean people lived for hundreds of years at a stretch no different from how their ancestors did. But then there were less people as you go back so that could account for the slower accumulation of knowledge. But if you ponder the things humans had to innovate just to survive and get through the day, even the cave dwellers were doing some amazing things. The average Joe would be no smarter generally, I'm sure a primitive man could be taught to operate a smart phone fairly quickly. It's hard to say for sure that the discoveries now are greater and have more impact as it's all relative to the period, like figuring out how to start a fire with sticks and moss must've been huge at the time.

prometheus
08-28-2016, 01:00 PM
I must add, I wonder if the quantum computers will be useful for mapping the mind, to map every single cell would probably be impossilbe with todays tech..at least for mapping aproximate 100 billions of them roughly.
I hope we someday could make that work for decreasing the time and learn more about our own brain, and by doing so tapping in to how the brain works, how we learn and how we may expand or possibilities and learn faster better etc, as well as finding areas that deals with dementia or other mental illness.

prometheus
08-28-2016, 01:08 PM
On the face of it, it would seem obvious that it is increasing, I mean people lived for hundreds of years at a stretch no different from how their ancestors did. But then there were less people as you go back so that could account for the slower accumulation of knowledge. But if you ponder the things humans had to innovate just to survive and get through the day, even the cave dwellers were doing some amazing things. The average Joe would be no smarter generally, I'm sure a primitive man could be taught to operate a smart phone fairly quickly. It's hard to say for sure that the discoveries now are greater and have more impact as it's all relative to the period, like figuring out how to start a fire with sticks and moss must've been huge at the time.

well yeah, fire is a huge step maybe, but contemplate how fast other techniques or inventions was implemented because of fire, the fact that it was extremly crucial for survival is one thing, but I guess you can say that it may have taken a long time from the first fires and what they later could use if for, light up things, keep warm and heat food, but not much else for quite some time, followed by pottery, and much much later melting iron etc..and that seem to have taken quite a long time to progress after all.
we got the industrial revolution starting around 1760 I think..which was one of the major phases I suspect..that may be able to competive against our current modern tech and science with itīs importance..as well as speed rate, steam power and iron making allowing for machinery not possible before.

prometheus
08-28-2016, 01:18 PM
writing was also important in itīs way :)

erikals
08-28-2016, 02:37 PM
approximate 100 billions of them roughly
close, about 86 billion neurons... http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/brain-metrics/are_there_really_as_many

even though it's "only" 86 billion, i think that number is quite alright as a beginning :)
no, seriously. that's extraordinary. :)

but we're at the edge of getting Ai.
Google is working on it.
Apple is working on it.
Others are working on it.

we're close. very close. Ai will take us to a new level, and then wipe us Out. (hopefully not)

only Arnold can save us.

prometheus
08-28-2016, 03:18 PM
close, about 86 billion neurons... http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/brain-metrics/are_there_really_as_many

even though it's "only" 86 billion, i think that number is quite alright as a beginning :)
no, seriously. that's extraordinary. :)

but we're at the edge of getting Ai.
Google is working on it.
Apple is working on it.
Others are working on it.

we're close. very close. Ai will take us to a new level, and then wipe us Out. (hopefully not)

only Arnold can save us.

Yeah..I heard about that 86 billion number too before, but I wasnīt sure...so I was fast google hacking, and picked the first credible result, which may not be the correct result :)
Thereīs only one way to be sure..
The AI role model...
http://www.sbs.com.au/guide/sites/sbs.com.au.guide/files/homer_brain_scan.jpg

Or some blade runner programmed blocking device, a four year lifespan , but that was to prevent them developing emotions in a way that they could fool the Voight-Kampff machine.
Regarding Arnold, yeah...that guy managed to shut himself down to stop his viral reprogramming, then reboot to get back to the proper nice to human program that canīt kill :)
Not sure if we can make ai with a hardwired Asimov law as their core programming they simply can not override.
A chalk up the nose ala homer simpson may work too :)

m.d.
08-28-2016, 03:50 PM
I agree R&D may be accelerating....and things technology related are vastly accelerating...but science as a whole ....no

Take physics.....there are a lot of 'pseudo scientific' people on discovery channel out there nowdays talking about carbon fiber nanotube elevators to space and whatnot...making bold predictions about what will will achieve in the future

But if you look at actual theoretical physics theory....we haven't really seen the kind of advancement we had back in the 1930's......Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg....etc etc. You cant really compare Stephen Hawking and other to those guys based on the actual theoretical advancements they made.

The problem is something like Moore's law.....back in the day they thought they were close to unlocking the secret of everything...a single unifying theory. Once quantum mechanics got thrown into the mix....we woke up from some of that arrogance and realized how much we still don't know, is greater than what we do know. (A possible 5th elemental force was just theorized and discovered through measured experiments this year). Like Moores law, advancement on this front will get ever increasingly harder to both theoretically and experimentally achieve...almost on an exponential scale.

So in some senses....the world of science looks like it is steaming forward....and for some things it is....DNA, computers, metamaterials and others there are significant advancements being made. But that is more a technological refinement, rather than pure science. In terms of metamaterials....the mathematics for transformation optics have been around for perhaps 100 years, but only recently has manufacturing caught up to make materials at optical perturbing scales.....you will be hearing about this more in the future, I guarantee.

But the base science behind the technological advancement we see...has slowed to a snail's pace in comparison to what is was 80 years ago.

erikals
08-28-2016, 03:51 PM
the more power we get, the more dangerous we get.

maybe our future indeed is the way of a Homer, where every human with an IQ over 100 gets wiped out.

too smart = too dangerous.


http://erikalstad.com/emoti/homerbeer.jpg

m.d.
08-28-2016, 04:08 PM
I think a fallacy with how people view science...is that given the right data....a scientist will logically deduce the right answer.
Star Trek has hypnotized us into thinking that.

Einstein had an intuition when he was 14.....and all the established Newtonian physics at the time (the data) proved him wrong. He spent the good portion of his life crafting the mathematics to fit his 'inspiration' of the theory of relativity.
The data did not guide him there....he forced the data to fit his theory. He did not arrive at that through examining the evidence. He spent all his time looking for evidence that agreed with him.....and he turned out to be right.(for the most part)

So even though we may have fast computers, and communication...sometimes the inspiration, just like in art, is also needed in science.

Pure Mghz will never compensate.

And dont get me started on the politics of science.

Harlen Bretz proved geologically that the 'scab lands' in the western US were formed in weeks through the breaking of the Glacial lake releasing a huge torrent of water. He demonstrated that back in the 20's.
But the prevailing theory was a slow multi millennial erosion spearheaded by one of the most prominent scientists in the US geological society, and funding politics kept any argument to the contrary on the backburner.
The theory was vindicated in 1976 and Bretz was awarded the highest geological society award at age 96...after the other guy died. Pure politics kept the better science buried for 50 years.

Prince Charming
08-28-2016, 04:19 PM
Humans will not be humans in 100,000 years, So what seems like a priority now is merely a passing whim.
The problem with "technology" is that it only involves those things that we have the senses and perspective to understand. It not the same as a true understanding of the universe, reality, and consciousness. We could very well be part of a simulation of some kind, or we could be cells that are serving some greater purpose to a larger more complex organism, like our cells are to us.... or both, or neither.
These are the kinds of questions I ask myself that science, technology, religion never gave me much help with.
I am the type that would give up all this "technology" if it meant that I could spend all my time and energy with my friends and family doing what I pleased. That is more important to me than gadgets.
In the grand scheme of things I think we understand very little, and we most likely do not possess the senses or perspective to grasp the complexity of the whole.

m.d.
08-28-2016, 04:23 PM
In the grand scheme of things I think we understand very little, and we most likely do not posses the senses for perspective to grasp the complexity of the whole.

Agree 100%....

Prince Charming
08-28-2016, 04:29 PM
Agree 100%....

Was supposed to read like this, but my spell checker did its own thing.
", and we most likely do not possess the senses or perspective to grasp the complexity of the whole."

m.d.
08-28-2016, 04:36 PM
Spelll checker has made us all a little dubmerer :)

prometheus
08-28-2016, 05:48 PM
Humans will not be humans in 100,000 years, So what seems like a priority now is merely a passing whim.
The problem with "technology" is that it only involves those things that we have the senses and perspective to understand. It not the same as a true understanding of the universe, reality, and consciousness. We could very well be part of a simulation of some kind, or we could be cells that are serving some greater purpose to a larger more complex organism, like our cells are to us.... or both, or neither.
These are the kinds of questions I ask myself that science, technology, religion never gave me much help with.
I am the type that would give up all this "technology" if it meant that I could spend all my time and energy with my friends and family doing what I pleased. That is more important to me than gadgets.
In the grand scheme of things I think we understand very little, and we most likely do not possess the senses or perspective to grasp the complexity of the whole.

Wanna bet? :) Humans may not need to evolve that much more, look at sharks, or if you refer to aclyptic events that destroys us..then that may be true.

.
I do not think we understand less by finding out more, which we actually do, if we talk about complexity in the form of a possilbe purpose of the universe, which you seem to indicate...then I can not chime in to believe there is any purpose at all..I would be looking at it in the room of the spinoza god, and everything being to beautiful ..and thus it must have had intent and purpose and possibly a creator, then again you also said neither..:)


there are some things that is hard to grasp, amongst others, there was no time before big bang..as stephen hawking formulates it, which makes me go..so what set any causality process in motion to form time or anything? if we speak of time as the space room yielded after big bang, well ..yes, no time, but if we speak of quantum movements in string theory etc, then somehow there was a process going on ..fluctuation etc, which by itself was existing in movement in space (yet quantum) then there could be said there was some kind of time as well.

I think I have formed my own philosophical views at it(wrong or right..who knows), like a rope that hasnīt got any beginning, nor ending..which is extremly hard to imagine, since almost everything we know has a beginning and end, or birth and death.the rope in question would be quantum fluctuations that always have been there.
But itīs me, maybe I should tuck the weed away for now :)

Weird how easy things like this spin off to cosmology and larger than life debates.

The analogy of cells having higher purpose is intriguing, and I have thought about that as well, but then again, once my cells can not reach out of the framework it exist in, or itīs close neighbours, other people interaction or getting eaten by a predator, my cell purpose wouldnīt have any higher meaning than that level and frame work, my cells have most likely no meaning for the planet jupiter, unless I ascend to become almighty or unless I possess any power to destroy that world...:)
so the cell analogy may work to some degree with closer neighbour levels, similar to planets, similar to atoms, electrons etc...but the purpose itself may not extend further than what it actually can.

by the way, Itīs gonna be exiting to see new jupiter images soon...I think.

prometheus
08-28-2016, 06:08 PM
OOh...the we being a part of a simulation..sure, it can not be excluded to not be true, on the other hand ..I think it is too far fetched, and it brings us to starting to simply state anything...we can be a dream in a butterflye etc, and everything is possible etc..then again, there will not be much we can do or much that indicates it to be true..and if we can not reach it, is it worth even arguing about?
I am not in a Matrix..I am not in A matrix, I control my destiny...:)
I think Iīm gonna go take a pill now and see where it goes..Nighty :)

MichaelT
08-28-2016, 06:11 PM
Humans will not be humans in 100,000 years..

I disagree. How humans will look, is mostly determined by humans themselves. At one point, look A is more preferred, later B is preferred etc.. Humans have barely changed in appearance for more than 10000 years. That doesn't mean humans cannot splinter into another group. It probably will happen (again) but if we are still around in 100 000 years, I don't think we will look very different. Maybe shorter, slimmer.. depending on preferences at the time. But in general.. I doubt it.

prometheus
08-28-2016, 06:18 PM
I disagree. How humans will look, is mostly determined by humans themselves. At one point, look A is more preferred, later B is preferred etc.. Humans have barely changed in appearance for more than 10000 years. That doesn't mean humans cannot splinter into another group. It probably will happen (again) but if we are still around in 100 000 years, I don't think we will look very different. Maybe shorter, slimmer.. depending on preferences at the time. But in general.. I doubt it.

Not so sure, look at just some years, I got fat, sitting to much in front of computers..:)
No seriously..I agree with you too, and I mentioned a bit about that in my previous post regarding evolution and some species being around for millions of years ..looking pretty much the same, if we opt for natural selection, there doesnīt seem to be much indicating that this process will affect humans that much in the future, especially since we can control environment like no other species, perhaps another defect in the genes may cause something for us to grow even larger more efficient brains, and those genes passed on will bring up smarter kids, which starts to rule the world, get more chicks and is selected by the other sex as more attractive to breed with :) so maybe we will be eggshaped large headed humans then :)

As I understand it, there was a defect in a gene I believe that caused a different type of jaw/connection to the skull, which also allowed for the cranium in homonoids to be moore loose, and that also led to the possibility for the brain to become bigger, while a gorilla evolved branch did not get this, and thus they still have smaller brain, but extremly strong bite.

erikals
08-29-2016, 01:01 AM
Humans will not be humans in 100,000 years.

Agree, it's inevitable, even though evolution has stopped, it has already begun.

the newest trend in science the last 2 years?

manipulating DNA, but in a different way this time.

scientists actually just now "cracked" it... > they can now stitch and remove DNA strings.

inkpen3d
08-29-2016, 06:23 AM
Hmm, interesting question...

In a finite (but very big) universe there must, by definition, be a finite amount of scientific knowledge and information that can be contained within it. Since the observable universe obeys the same laws of physics and mathematics, once you have worked out the basic principles, they will in theory apply across the whole of the universe. The observed complexity of today's universe (and it contains huge variety at a vast range of scales) being an emergent property of these laws working together on matter and energy over the 13.8 billion years since the big bang.

To get back to the question:

By way of analogy, if the set of all possible scientific theories and knowledge about the universe could be represented by a large (but finite) canvas, we have already sketched in pretty much all of the broad-brush details and gone on to fill in a lot of the fiddly details about most of what's there. And we've managed to do that in ~400 years, which is pretty impressive but also means that the universe is, on the whole, amenable to scientific analysis.

What the vast majority of scientific research is now engaged in is drilling down into ever finer details. Most researchers, in whatever discipline you choose to pick, are involved in highly specialised fields of work - be it working out the structure/functionality of a set of proteins involved in a given specific biochemical process within living cells, or particle physicists investigating the behaviour of matter at the quantum scale - there are very few scientists working at the broad-brush level anymore, simply because there are very few areas of the "canvass of knowledge" that are still left blank.

Of course, there are those unknown unknown's lurking in the undergrowth, which are analogous to a palimpsest hidden beneath the top layers of paint on this "canvas of knowledge" - here I am thinking of the nature of dark matter and dark energy (if they indeed exist) and, at a deeper level, the origin and structure of the universe - though as observers trapped within the system, we may never truly crack that problem (due to Godel's incompleteness theorem).

As a global "civilisation", we are now beginning to applying that hard won knowledge and have entered an era of accelerating growth in the manipulation of matter, energy and information at ever deeper levels of complexity and physical scales. The result is the creation of new technologies - be they biologically, chemically, or physically based (or a combination of all these) - that just a couple of decades ago would have seemed like the outpouring of a SciFi author (and to someone living a century ago, simply magical) - just look at all the technology wrapped up in the ubiquitous smart phone in your pocket!

In a positive feedback loop, these new technologies then enable us to go on to manipulate the universe at an even greater levels of complexity and range of scales. However, just to rain on your parade, due to the physical constraints imposed by the laws of physics, there will eventually (if indeed our global "civilisation" survives that long) come a time in the distant future when this rate of progress will slow and plateau out and things will stagnate. The only thing left then is to set sail and explore the vastness of the physical universe.

Regards,
Peter

prometheus
08-29-2016, 07:51 AM
though all those fantastic cosmologic understandings..quantum science findings, understanding the higgs partice, quantum computers, controlling dna etc...
I still have to tie my shoes, darnit :)

erikals
08-29-2016, 08:25 AM
I still have to tie my shoes, darnit

ahem... :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZHk7uaAT8

prometheus
08-29-2016, 09:19 AM
ahem... :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZHk7uaAT8

Yah..I actually knew that was out, just checking if you guys are up to date with the modern science :)
Kind a bit odd to see that vid though, since Michael j fox has the parkinsons disease, and perhaps tying a shoe may be difficult for him, then again ..a simpler shoe with velcro strapping may me quite good enough.

I am lousy at tighing my shoes, they always get loose and I may stubble on it, or I tight them to tight and it takes to long time to untie them :)
for ordinary shoes or some kind of slip on shoes it may work with velcro, but for gymnastic shoes you may want a tight grip on the front part of the shoe, I noticed you were about to design some shoes in a modeling session before, so
let me know when you got it out on the market :)
a 3d scan of my feets and a good 3d print to match it perfectly with some supermaterial and a special device that thighten the grip would be cool. it would be a small step for me, but a huge leap for mankind..maybe :)

erikals
08-29-2016, 09:30 AM
I noticed you were about to design some shoes in a modeling session before, so let me know when you got it out on the market
hah!! :)  yeah. you never know... :)

tying a shoe, think i did that 1 month ago.
my shoes = always tied.
Always. :)

and while at it...

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03418/620_3418191a.gif

prometheus
08-29-2016, 09:39 AM
When thinking of it a bit more, I also have jacket zipper issues, so many times the little zipper handle breaks, and sometimes it chugs in to the cloth itself and getting stuck, especially in winter jackets, would be nice if we could have some newer stuff
for that as well.

clothes with technology, electronics doesnīt seem to have boosted properly yet, maybe the electronics is still to expensive, or simply that people see no need to have gizmos on it.
nano tech cloth that doesnīt get dirty or doesnīt need washing, or ironing.
I would like stronger socks, gloves to keep me warm..(that we can buy in clas ohlson) socks probably too, I would also like a cape/face shield on my jacket that I can fold on my face with some heat on it when itīs really really cold outside.

Megalodon2.0
08-29-2016, 12:41 PM
Wanna bet? :) Humans may not need to evolve that much more, look at sharks, or if you refer to aclyptic events that destroys us..then that may be true.

Sharks can't blend themselves with technology. We can. We will ultimately be enhanced with nanotech and will probably end up completely different from where we are today. And then let's talk about uploading consciousness and living forever.

erikals
08-29-2016, 01:50 PM
And then let's talk about uploading consciousness
...and downloading, who i wanna be today?... Elvis?... yeah... Elvis Presley.

Computer. Download Elvis Presley.
If not available > Closest Match.

prometheus
08-29-2016, 02:55 PM
Sharks can't blend themselves with technology. We can. We will ultimately be enhanced with nanotech and will probably end up completely different from where we are today. And then let's talk about uploading consciousness and living forever.

It all assumes we choose to do so, and we would then be in the the dog breeding business with artificial selecion, not natural selection, and natural selection is what I refered to..we can only speculate of how much we may be changing our own dna, and also how much we can doo to or make us cyborgs or connected to computers etc, so how much probability there is of that, who knows? It may look very likely that we may go that route..but for natural selection I do not see how our evolution would change much on us.

Uploading consiousness, sure..I think I would be all for that, guess we need the quantum computers to help map the mind first, I think some folks made a four step plan, where mapping the mind is one of the first...but with current computers that would take enourmous amount of time.

I donīt believe the science will increase in acceleration to such point that I myself would ever have a chance of living in that era when and if they manage to solve that, I would however be grateful for a better elderly care and health so my transition from elderly to death may be quite comfortable somehow, If I am not caught by mr death in other ways before all that.


Dmitry Itskov is a russian billionaire who invests a lot in this, I reckon his money is most welcome to the science of this..
http://2045.com/

And we got the presidential brain initiative..
https://www.braininitiative.nih.gov/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Michael

prometheus
08-29-2016, 03:06 PM
Scary things may also rise in the wake of mapping the mind, such as mind reading, mind control.

MichaelT
08-29-2016, 03:21 PM
Agree, it's inevitable, even though evolution has stopped, it has already begun.
the newest trend in science the last 2 years?
manipulating DNA, but in a different way this time.
scientists actually just now "cracked" it... > they can now stitch and remove DNA strings.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It is also filled with gaps, and additions for entire species they only found a tooth of. etc.. No I am not a proponent of the bible either ;) I am saying they have no clue. But I do think it is much more likely new species just appear, literally over night. This is actually something we can already see. Every year we find new species out of the blue. I am much more inclined to believe it is chaos behind it. A gene get damaged, and rather than failing. The error actually worked, and a new species is born. Every time a cell divides, it may mutate. And that happens innumerable amount of times in every living being. Most often it fails, and the body subsequently clears the problem out.. or it becomes cancer. But sometimes, the dice rolled just right. The evolution (I believe) is more tied to choices made by the creature itself. But ultimately, it will probably not result in a new species. That would also explain why we keep failing in finding that 'brigde' between species. Simply because there isn't one. And also why we never see a new species appear out of the species we can already see. It just doesn't happen. So my vote for new species is chaos... not evolution. The added benefit of having that view, is that it makes the possibility for life in the universe, so much greater. As a side note, we have species around today that have been around for more than a hundred million years, and never changed at all.

erikals
08-29-2016, 03:28 PM
yep, and they already did / started that >


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjugk9RV3dc

just add a psychiatrist next to that machine, and you'll be in good hands...
like the famous psychiatrist Dr. Death
http://www.psychsearch.net/james-grigson-controversial-psychiatrist



The theory of evolution is just that, a theory.
one could say the same thing about the moon. is it really there? it sure looks like it though.

MichaelT
08-29-2016, 03:35 PM
yep, and they already did / started that >

...
just add a psychiatrist next to that machine, and you'll be in good hands...
like the famous psychiatrist Dr. Death
http://www.psychsearch.net/james-grigson-controversial-psychiatrist

one could say the same thing about the moon. is it really there? it sure looks like it though.

:) That research is very (emphasis) basic. You can read very basic rough shapes, and only if the person concentrate. It is about visualizing an image that you have seen, and let the computer recognize the pattern. It isn't actually reading the mind.
He is making hens (plural) out of feathers. The research is about helping blind people to see. Now they are able to give very low black and white resolution to a blind person. Enough to see door openings, people etc..


one could say the same thing about the moon. is it really there? it sure looks like it though.

True, but the problem with theories is that more often than not, academia likes to present theories as fact. Despite them saying it is a theory.

erikals
08-29-2016, 03:49 PM
That research is very (emphasis) basic. You can read very basic rough shapes, and only if the person concentrate.
It is about visualizing an image that you have seen, and let the computer recognize the pattern. It isn't actually reading the mind.
true, but it will get enhanced, no doubt.


He is making hens (plural) out of feathers.
sort of, but it's an alert for sure.

also, can you hear these words? listen and 'see'...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/31/mind-reading-program-brain-words


remember, this is at alpha stage.

erikals
08-29-2016, 04:13 PM
just recalled the DNA stitching definition >
CRISPR cas9

prometheus
08-29-2016, 04:39 PM
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It is also filled with gaps, and additions for entire species they only found a tooth of. etc.. No I am not a proponent of the bible either ;) I am saying they have no clue. But I do think it is much more likely new species just appear, literally over night. This is actually something we can already see. Every year we find new species out of the blue. I am much more inclined to believe it is chaos behind it. A gene get damaged, and rather than failing. The error actually worked, and a new species is born. Every time a cell divides, it may mutate. And that happens innumerable amount of times in every living being. Most often it fails, and the body subsequently clears the problem out.. or it becomes cancer. But sometimes, the dice rolled just right. The evolution (I believe) is more tied to choices made by the creature itself. But ultimately, it will probably not result in a new species. That would also explain why we keep failing in finding that 'brigde' between species. Simply because there isn't one. And also why we never see a new species appear out of the species we can already see. It just doesn't happen. So my vote for new species is chaos... not evolution. The added benefit of having that view, is that it makes the possibility for life in the universe, so much greater. As a side note, we have species around today that have been around for more than a hundred million years, and never changed at all.

Are you really sure there is no brigde between species?, or the so called missing transitional intermediate forms, I can not pretend I know that much about it, but I think I have seen samples of transitional species, as well as our own homonoid branch seem to indicate the transition stages quite well.
Well your chaos theory is sort of implemental I think, but only for the actual mutation, which can take huge steps what follows further down would still most likely be a natural selection based on the chaos mutation, so in essence still a kind of natural selection evolution.

Yes. darwins theory is a theory..but not just a theory, but it is also backup up with a lot of samples and evidence both in actual samples, and in morphology, biochemy etc, I simply can not understand why one even doubt the natural selections.
We have the records of artificial selection that kind of backs up the natural selection itself, the records in the nucleid acids and dna sequencing.
Not sure if you agree with on what carl sagan say about the fossile records and missing transitional intermediate forms, we do have them..but not as abundant as the more fixed and longer periods of stable fossile records in the evolutinary steps...so it isnīt really a surprise there isnīt much intermediate forms in the same amount we can find other fossiles.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6Pd8TU3Dg
Evolution is by many considered a fact, though initially a theory, it is heavily supported by the fossil records, the dating of it the dating of the sediment, and the trace back you can perform, as well as studying the genome.
So while Richard Dawkings state it isnīt a question of belief, or faith..it Is facts, you will find creationist saying..yes but it is only theory, and attack it full on since it is the biggest threat against their bible.

I do hope lightwave survives in the survival of the fittest, and evolve within a not too long evolution timeframe :)

Oh the chaos theory I am not that found of, to me it simply make sense that the forms we see, colors and functions seem to be there because the mixing of genes and thus genes that carries the code for animals to blend in against a tree..letīs say some sort of spider etc, they got a bigger chance to survive and breed and carry itīs genome further than other spider types in the same environment..and thus that type of gene is passed on.
It may be plausible that both the chaos extreme mutation and the slower mix of sex genes are valid, in case of humans I think it was that sort of chaos defective genome that made hour jaws loosen from the cranium and our cranium also got more flexible, and we got a bigger brain.

Megalodon2.0
08-29-2016, 05:55 PM
It all assumes we choose to do so,

Most will. When many do - and they WILL do it - those who do not will have a distinct DISadvantage. There will of course be those who elect NOT to "enhance" themselves, but that breed will soon die out.

jeric_synergy
08-29-2016, 07:06 PM
Agree, it's inevitable, even though evolution has stopped, it has already begun.
Evolution has not stopped, only the parameters have altered.

The idea that evolution is some kind of OPINION is one of the most ignorant things I've seen in a long time, and I read the internet.

prometheus
08-29-2016, 07:20 PM
Evolution has not stopped, only the parameters have altered.

The idea that evolution is some kind of OPINION is one of the most ignorant things I've seen in a long time, and I read the internet.

I could chime in with that, both of them.

Prince Charming
08-29-2016, 09:34 PM
The sharks have remained the same because the environment has been stable. When it is no longer stable they will evolve or die... Just like us. I personally dont think either of us will be around in 100,000 years. It is possible that we merge with machines and go down that road, but if that is the case we would no longer be humans, we would be something else. Personally, I'd rather just die than become some human/mech hybrid. IMO, this human existence could be part of a more complex experience. I am not one to try and fight natures plan. Plus, I am not a big fan of surgery or self mutilation. I think people would have to be very desperate for things to go down that road. If we merge with machines borg style it will be out of necessity, not want. I personally think that it will be more of a genetic manipulation type thing... with fancy removable well lit gadgets.

I think it is ignorant (and border line religious) when people talk about things like evolution, and the universe, and the "big bang" as if they have some perfect understanding of how these things functions... LMAO! You have a lot more faith in "scientists" than I do.

I am more the type who will go through life and observe my surroundings as closely and as deeply as possible, and try to come up with my own understating of things. I am in no hurry to say I know the truth. I would rather see what else may expose itself along the way... maybe by the time I die I will have a closer understanding, but I can tell you one thing... It wont be found from Steven Hawking formulations.

"Scientist" once thought the earth was flat, and Eugenics was a good thing (and used "evolution" gibberish to justify it as well). Are you sure they have the universe, reality, evolution, and consciousness right?

Evolution happens, I am not denying that, but to say that the only thing that has an effect on it is "random" mutation and natural selection is a big speculation as far as I am concerned. Especially now that we have thousands of gmo organisms that were not created in either way. Also, what kinds of forces can influence this "random" mutation? There are way too many unknowns to claim we understand these things at the highest level. IMO... atheism and new age are the new religions for this modern time. I see many atheists who take their "non religion" a lot more seriously and dogmatically than my catholic grandmom.

Darwin and his version of evolution stem from an elitist ideology. It is a well documented fact. Thats why shortly after it was used to start things like the Eugenics movement, and planned parent hood.
http://www.macroevolution.net/gentleman-naturalist.html

As far as my opinion of the current tech boom. I think it was just one possible path that technology could have gone down. I think in the past there has been other tech lineages that went down other paths. When you look at some of the stone work around the world it is clear to anyone who has done large scale construction that there was technology used in the past that we still do not understand to this day. Not that we couldn't replicate most of it, we probably could replicate most of it if we wanted, but it would take all these fancy new tech tools to do it... So the question remains... How did they do it? And are we really as advanced as you think? We sure are good at blinking very small lights very fast ;)

spherical
08-29-2016, 10:16 PM
But if you look at actual theoretical physics theory....we haven't really seen the kind of advancement we had back in the 1930's......Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg....etc etc. You cant really compare Stephen Hawking and other to those guys based on the actual theoretical advancements they made.
<SNIP>
But the base science behind the technological advancement we see...has slowed to a snail's pace in comparison to what is was 80 years ago.

And that's the way it should be. The first, second and third advancements, in hindsight, always "look" to be bigger and more significant. Because they were. The first of anything is always hard. But, it's a different kind of hard. Advances upon those "firsts" are hard in that everything in the specific field has already been discovered. Finding a new advancement is hard. IOW, the "easy" stuff has already been owned. Now, we're into more esoteric and, hence, more difficult discoveries.

spherical
08-29-2016, 10:21 PM
So even though we may have fast computers, and communication...sometimes the inspiration, just like in art, is also needed in science.

Exactly right. An analogy perhaps... In my engineering experience there were two types of engineers; those who could "DO" the engineering required, no matter what the circumstance, and those who were good at passing tests. The latter couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag.

spherical
08-29-2016, 10:27 PM
Agree, it's inevitable, even though evolution has stopped, it has already begun.

Where do you get that evolution has stopped?

spherical
08-29-2016, 10:58 PM
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It is also filled with gaps, and additions for entire species they only found a tooth of. etc..

Only because it is so difficult to find needles in a really BIG haystack. That which has been found are really significant. Of course there will be "gaps".... right up until we discover evidence that has been hidden all this time that links this to that or to something unexpected/disregarded. It's called "Science".


I am saying they have no clue.

Nor do we. That is the essence of the field of Science. IOW, getting a clue, one clue at a time; not dismissing things because they don't fit right now.


But I do think it is much more likely new species just appear, literally over night. This is actually something we can already see. Every year we find new species out of the blue. I am much more inclined to believe it is chaos behind it. A gene get damaged, and rather than failing. The error actually worked, and a new species is born. Every time a cell divides, it may mutate. And that happens innumerable amount of times in every living being. Most often it fails, and the body subsequently clears the problem out.. or it becomes cancer. But sometimes, the dice rolled just right.

Which is the classic definition of evolution. "Evolution" isn't a "movement", it is a process. Period. It's agnostic.


The evolution (I believe) is more tied to choices made by the creature itself.

Yep. That's why babes and dudes are more beautiful now than they were in the 1800's and prior. Over the decades, people selected that which was more attractive to them.


So my vote for new species is chaos... not evolution.

Chaos is part of evolution. You seem to be trying to separate them. They are one and the same. Evolution is not only by a species' choice, but also by way of mutation. The two combined is what enables leaps. Please try to open your mind to this.


The added benefit of having that view, is that it makes the possibility for life in the universe, so much greater.

Yes, it does. However, his does not mean that the above points are irrelevant. All of this can, and does, work in synchronicity; one feeding the other. There is no "side" to take. It's all the same thing.


As a side note, we have species around today that have been around for more than a hundred million years, and never changed at all.

They didn't change because there was no need to do so.

Prince Charming
08-30-2016, 12:41 AM
Yeah, the 1930s had Einstein in charge of physics, and today we have this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vek2naWv7is&feature=youtu.be&t=1289
Do you really think its a good idea to trust your view of reality to scientists? Have fun with that...:hey:

erikals
08-30-2016, 01:44 AM
Where do you get that evolution has stopped?
i agree, i exaggerated too much by saying that.

MichaelT
08-30-2016, 04:44 AM
Only because it is so difficult to find needles in a really BIG haystack. That which has been found are really significant. Of course there will be "gaps".... right up until we discover evidence that has been hidden all this time that links this to that or to something unexpected/disregarded. It's called "Science".

Nor do we. That is the essence of the field of Science. IOW, getting a clue, one clue at a time; not dismissing things because they don't fit right now.

Which is the classic definition of evolution. "Evolution" isn't a "movement", it is a process. Period. It's agnostic.

Yep. That's why babes and dudes are more beautiful now than they were in the 1800's and prior. Over the decades, people selected that which was more attractive to them.

Chaos is part of evolution. You seem to be trying to separate them. They are one and the same. Evolution is not only by a species' choice, but also by way of mutation. The two combined is what enables leaps. Please try to open your mind to this.

Yes, it does. However, his does not mean that the above points are irrelevant. All of this can, and does, work in synchronicity; one feeding the other. There is no "side" to take. It's all the same thing.

They didn't change because there was no need to do so.

Try not to break things up like this when you respond...

I know it is a haystack. But they probably can't even tell you what they themselves had for lunch three weeks ago. I like to look at things viewed out of evidence. We can have a dating of an object that puts it within a certain time frame. We might strike gold (like with the frozen mammuts in Russia) and get the contents of their bellies intact etc.. and piece things together from that. But that doesn't mean we know anything about their behavior. How they mate etc.. Anything added on evidence that we actually have, is just making things up. And the charts pulled out from imagined animals (because they only found a tooth of it) is just imagination. The problem here is that there is plenty of that. Worse still is that they present those imagined things in the classroom as fact, rather than theory.

And where does this 'movement' nonsense come from? Where did you even read that?

"Yep. That's why babes and dudes are more beautiful now than they were in the 1800.."
What? That isn't evolution. And you are also wrong.. use google image. In fact search for "actor twins in the 1800s".

Of course I separate chaos from evolution. Evolution is development through choice. Chaos is the exact opposite. They might serve each others goal, but they are not the same thing.

Them not changing is the entire point... it actually goes against evolution as a theory. They should have changed.. Because there have been at least two extinction events during that time as well, and they still didn't change. Luck is a more fitting word that comes to mind here.

MichaelT
08-30-2016, 05:11 AM
Are you really sure there is no brigde between species?, or the so called missing transitional intermediate forms, I can not pretend I know that much about it, but I think I have seen samples of transitional species, as well as our own homonoid branch seem to indicate the transition stages quite well.
Well your chaos theory is sort of implemental I think, but only for the actual mutation, which can take huge steps what follows further down would still most likely be a natural selection based on the chaos mutation, so in essence still a kind of natural selection evolution.

Yes. darwins theory is a theory..but not just a theory, but it is also backup up with a lot of samples and evidence both in actual samples, and in morphology, biochemy etc, I simply can not understand why one even doubt the natural selections.
We have the records of artificial selection that kind of backs up the natural selection itself, the records in the nucleid acids and dna sequencing.
Not sure if you agree with on what carl sagan say about the fossile records and missing transitional intermediate forms, we do have them..but not as abundant as the more fixed and longer periods of stable fossile records in the evolutinary steps...so it isnīt really a surprise there isnīt much intermediate forms in the same amount we can find other fossiles.

(MichaelT EDIT: I took the video out because I am *not* a creationist. I even went out of my way telling you that I am not)

Evolution is by many considered a fact, though initially a theory, it is heavily supported by the fossil records, the dating of it the dating of the sediment, and the trace back you can perform, as well as studying the genome.
So while Richard Dawkings state it isnīt a question of belief, or faith..it Is facts, you will find creationist saying..yes but it is only theory, and attack it full on since it is the biggest threat against their bible.

I do hope lightwave survives in the survival of the fittest, and evolve within a not too long evolution timeframe :)

Oh the chaos theory I am not that found of, to me it simply make sense that the forms we see, colors and functions seem to be there because the mixing of genes and thus genes that carries the code for animals to blend in against a tree..letīs say some sort of spider etc, they got a bigger chance to survive and breed and carry itīs genome further than other spider types in the same environment..and thus that type of gene is passed on.
It may be plausible that both the chaos extreme mutation and the slower mix of sex genes are valid, in case of humans I think it was that sort of chaos defective genome that made hour jaws loosen from the cranium and our cranium also got more flexible, and we got a bigger brain.

Please don't put my response together with creationism when I specifically said I am not one.

I also respect Dawkins in many ways, however he is a firm believer in evolution as fact. For him, it is not a theory. This is troublesome, since as an educated man he should really know better. In many interviews he openly states that it *is* fact. Sometimes he does add that it is a theory, as if that would safeguard his position in some way. But like I said, I respect him. I just don't like that he vehemently pushes evolution as fact, when he really knows better than that.

If they ever do prove it as fact.. I will accept it. But I don't see that happening, because I don't think it fits the evidence around us. Something you often see in charts when looking for transitional intermediate forms, are pictures of bones where there is a new species with an added toe (just an example) then people in Chernobyl who have been born with extra fingers (after the reactor leak) would also qualify as a new species, by the same logic. Yet, we don't qualify them as that, do we? But had those people died 15000 years ago, and their bones been found. I promise you they would have been categorized as just that. Because then they would fit the bill, simply because the same bones are looked at from another perspective.

erikals
08-30-2016, 05:30 AM
Of course I separate chaos from evolution. Evolution is development through choice
what choice, who made that choice?

https://www.google.no/#q=do+we+have+free+will



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMdAnU3vYzA

MichaelT
08-30-2016, 05:40 AM
what choice, who made that choice?

..

:) shhhh... don't leak the secret.

That video misses a very important point.. that the mind isn't the same thing as speech. Many like to think that our thought words are our minds. That isn't the case however. When we make a choice, that isn't a result from a verbal thought pattern. We act, and any words related to that, are after the fact. Otherwise we would be impossibly slow in everything we do. Hmm, sometimes that could probably be a good thing :D

prometheus
08-30-2016, 07:45 AM
Please don't put my response together with creationism when I specifically said I am not one.

I also respect Dawkins in many ways, however he is a firm believer in evolution as fact. For him, it is not a theory. This is troublesome, since as an educated man he should really know better. In many interviews he openly states that it *is* fact. Sometimes he does add that it is a theory, as if that would safeguard his position in some way. But like I said, I respect him. I just don't like that he vehemently pushes evolution as fact, when he really knows better than that.

If they ever do prove it as fact.. I will accept it. But I don't see that happening, because I don't think it fits the evidence around us. Something you often see in charts when looking for transitional intermediate forms, are pictures of bones where there is a new species with an added toe (just an example) then people in Chernobyl who have been born with extra fingers (after the reactor leak) would also qualify as a new species, by the same logic. Yet, we don't qualify them as that, do we? But had those people died 15000 years ago, and their bones been found. I promise you they would have been categorized as just that. Because then they would fit the bill, simply because the same bones are looked at from another perspective.

Please Michael, that was not my intent...and I am sorry if you perceived it that way, it wasnīt mentioned in any way or suggested that you were one, it was however put together in the response that evolved to describing others.
Again...theory or not theory, there is things profoundly verified and matched with other classification items, that it at least in my opinion reaches a state of fact, until something else simply denotes it, but so it is with most things we call facts.

the chernobyl connection I do not understand, it is an artificial singel event with radiation, and so limited to a few individuals and the event itself is not likely to occour that often..once these individuals have died ther genomes of the mutation will probably not go further, I suspect this is quite a different mutation that what often takes place inside dna both in natural selection or by other genetic mutation.
I think there is a vast difference between genetic disorder that yields defect anomalies within the species, and other mutational forms.

if we disregard your chernobyl thesis, what else makes the otherwise so abundant evidence not holding up as "theory" ?

prometheus
08-30-2016, 07:59 AM
The sharks have remained the same because the environment has been stable. When it is no longer stable they will evolve or die... Just like us. I personally dont think either of us will be around in 100,000 years. It is possible that we merge with machines and go down that road, but if that is the case we would no longer be humans, we would be something else. Personally, I'd rather just die than become some human/mech hybrid. IMO, this human existence could be part of a more complex experience. I am not one to try and fight natures plan. Plus, I am not a big fan of surgery or self mutilation. I think people would have to be very desperate for things to go down that road. If we merge with machines borg style it will be out of necessity, not want. I personally think that it will be more of a genetic manipulation type thing... with fancy removable well lit gadgets.

I think it is ignorant (and border line religious) when people talk about things like evolution, and the universe, and the "big bang" as if they have some perfect understanding of how these things functions... LMAO! You have a lot more faith in "scientists" than I do.

I am more the type who will go through life and observe my surroundings as closely and as deeply as possible, and try to come up with my own understating of things. I am in no hurry to say I know the truth. I would rather see what else may expose itself along the way... maybe by the time I die I will have a closer understanding, but I can tell you one thing... It wont be found from Steven Hawking formulations.

"Scientist" once thought the earth was flat, and Eugenics was a good thing (and used "evolution" gibberish to justify it as well). Are you sure they have the universe, reality, evolution, and consciousness right?

Evolution happens, I am not denying that, but to say that the only thing that has an effect on it is "random" mutation and natural selection is a big speculation as far as I am concerned. Especially now that we have thousands of gmo organisms that were not created in either way. Also, what kinds of forces can influence this "random" mutation? There are way too many unknowns to claim we understand these things at the highest level. IMO... atheism and new age are the new religions for this modern time. I see many atheists who take their "non religion" a lot more seriously and dogmatically than my catholic grandmom.

Darwin and his version of evolution stem from an elitist ideology. It is a well documented fact. Thats why shortly after it was used to start things like the Eugenics movement, and planned parent hood.
http://www.macroevolution.net/gentleman-naturalist.html

As far as my opinion of the current tech boom. I think it was just one possible path that technology could have gone down. I think in the past there has been other tech lineages that went down other paths. When you look at some of the stone work around the world it is clear to anyone who has done large scale construction that there was technology used in the past that we still do not understand to this day. Not that we couldn't replicate most of it, we probably could replicate most of it if we wanted, but it would take all these fancy new tech tools to do it... So the question remains... How did they do it? And are we really as advanced as you think? We sure are good at blinking very small lights very fast ;)


Of course..I am all with you on sharks, what you say does in no means contradict what I said about sharks, they didnīt have to evolve much more..they were quite perfect for their environment since it was quite stable (though if you count other species in the environment variable...they changed, but sharks may have been the top predator and wasnīt in need for that)

Regarding ignorant as if scientis have the perfect understanding..? why do you project it to be that way? it may fit in to some peoples notion of scientist, personally and generally..no of course they do not have..but I would rather follow a person of 180 in IQ than 65 when asked about the road, when listening to any scientists, you canīt just take the word for it, you have to someway understand the principles they talk about as well.
(edited..well You can be right too..many people may follow scientist blindly, I think I perceived it from my personal view rather than you may have ment a general view)

If you go around in life and make your own conclusions..sure that is find with you ..and you can not as you say state it for the truth, You could also reflect on your own skills and abilities to make the conclusions VS a large amount of professors saying/stating facts in unison..and if you in any field manage to correct them so they surrender to your thesis or whatever, that would be an ackomplisment, or keep it to yourself and it will only matter to you what you believe.

And no..I am not sure they have the universe, reality, and conscioussness right...I think they are pretty much right on evolution though, I donīt see anything that would make me skeptical about it..that is not to say I can be 100% right..If we go for we are in a simulation machine..then nothing would really make sense.

Michio Kakus Mtheory and cosmic symphony of vibrating strings resonating through 11 dimensions, is something I consider hard to grasp and may have a hard time to swallow..and understand, just because the whole entity may be quite impossible to verify or understand.

Regarding stone work? what you refer to is lucid..and I can not even argue about it until I know exactly what stone work you refer to (pyramids) etc? even pyramids they have as I know of brought forth explanations that could work even at that time when it was created.

erikals
08-30-2016, 08:12 AM
:) shhhh... don't leak the secret.

That video misses a very important point.. that the mind isn't the same thing as speech. Many like to think that our thought words are our minds. That isn't the case however. When we make a choice, that isn't a result from a verbal thought pattern. We act, and any words related to that, are after the fact. Otherwise we would be impossibly slow in everything we do. Hmm, sometimes that could probably be a good thing :D

well, yeah. that's exactly what happens. nothing in that video contradicts that.

prometheus
08-30-2016, 08:28 AM
Only because it is so difficult to find needles in a really BIG haystack. That which has been found are really significant. Of course there will be "gaps".... right up until we discover evidence that has been hidden all this time that links this to that or to something unexpected/disregarded. It's called "Science".



Nor do we. That is the essence of the field of Science. IOW, getting a clue, one clue at a time; not dismissing things because they don't fit right now.



Which is the classic definition of evolution. "Evolution" isn't a "movement", it is a process. Period. It's agnostic.



Yep. That's why babes and dudes are more beautiful now than they were in the 1800's and prior. Over the decades, people selected that which was more attractive to them.



Chaos is part of evolution. You seem to be trying to separate them. They are one and the same. Evolution is not only by a species' choice, but also by way of mutation. The two combined is what enables leaps. Please try to open your mind to this.



Yes, it does. However, his does not mean that the above points are irrelevant. All of this can, and does, work in synchronicity; one feeding the other. There is no "side" to take. It's all the same thing.



They didn't change because there was no need to do so.

Agreed on a lot here.
I think...In my Opinion MichaelT separates the processes too much, I do not believe it to be a limiting process of choice, or maybe it is on a high level..but it is in no way disconnected to many other factors, the choice is connected to attributes in environment variables and a genome Or behaviour in the other sex..it is driven in synchronicity as yo say.
And yes..I donīt put anything else in the gap to be anything that I am not aware of, unless the gap is filled with a marsian found in the earliest layers, then I would start to wonder.


yes..I donīt follow MichaelT here eiher about the statement that we have species like sharks that hasnīt changed, that is a statement without actually further argueing why that could be, I discussed the premise and the conclusion of that earlier, their environment didnīt change that much for them to change, like sharks..and especially this may be true when it is top predators which function works extremly well to survive.
And we are not just having one shark species do we, nor do we have only one spider species.
Not sure if there is a species that is extremly unique that it has no real relative in itīs branch?

erikals
08-30-2016, 09:15 AM
Not sure if there is a species that is extremly unique that it has no real relative in itīs branch?
i wish, but if anyone found that, or some creature with no relative, they would win the Nobel Price.  :)

that would be Fantastic, as it would revolutionize the way *we look at life. (*people who believe in evolution that is)

prometheus
08-30-2016, 09:42 AM
i wish, but if anyone found that, or some creature with no relative, they would win the Nobel Price.  :)

that would be Fantastic, as it would revolutionize the way *we look at life. (*people who believe in evolution that is)

Darnīt it..I though I was special, but I guess that is only my inflated ego.

Not sure how much new stuff they have found the recent years..but I can imagine that each finding more verifyies the theories than overthrows them.

It is a bit dazzling that scienctist seem to have easier to understand and describe some cosmologic events or laws (unless entering black holes or quantum physics)
easier than being certain on metallurgy or physics related to constructions (ala 9/11 events) or being able to understand or reproduce spider webs, or understanding some other natural biology on earth.
I suppose the more earth bound events are so much more complex with variables harder to pin point than understanding celestial body movements or forces.

hereīs an interesting clip with carl sagan ..where he discusses the problem of us "normal" public laymen distancing us from the science because it may be to complex for us to comprehend...5:10 in the clip where he focuses on that I think..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrZ4197C1I0

When it comes to explaining their theories of big bang, and any possible time before time began, and 11 dimensions etc, I think non one has done a really god job at describing it properly, it may be due to either me haveing a hard time understanding, or the very fact it is extremly hard to comprehend ..especially if you are without the language tools to understand it, which may be a case of advanced maths.

erikals
08-30-2016, 10:16 AM
but seriously, if they find some microbes that have evolved separately, it must mean that life began twice.
and that'd be Awesome. not likely, but not impossible.


When it comes to explaining their theories of big bang, and any possible time before time began, and 11 dimensions etc, I think non one has done a really god job at describing it properly, it may be due to either me haveing a hard time understanding, or the very fact it is extremly hard to comprehend .
i think it is difficult to describe as it is currently a hypothesis. most complex hypothesis are quite vague.

when they discuss the 11th dimension i always make a funny face. can't quite grasp it.

prometheus
08-30-2016, 10:31 AM
but seriously, if they find some microbes that have evolved separately, it must mean that life began twice.
and that'd be Awesome. not likely, but not impossible.


i think it is difficult to describe as it is currently a hypothesis. most complex hypothesis are quite vague.


when they discuss the 11th dimension i always make a funny face. can't quite grasp it.

You have panspermia, where bacterial life could have started it all..from comets, as well as it all begun through the later stage of earth development in acid soup, photosynthesis and luiqid water and all the combinations there in, it could be one of them only, it may even be possible for the two factors being the cause of it as well..I think :)

the origins can be from lightwave as well...


https://vimeo.com/103389185


regarding 11 dimensions, well..I have a hard time tying my shoes with any advanced folding, so trying to unfold these dimensions to fit this dimension makes no sense..to me :)
Seriously one could perhaps try and imagine things, but it will just be higly speculative based on what you know or think you know..both kaku and sagan have tried to describe it as flatlan, piece of paper perhaps..which we live in and suddenly something appears..like a ball traveling up and down through this paper, where we could only perceive a tiny spot suddenly appearing..growning larger, then suddenly shrink back to nothing again, and we wonder what the heck was that.
If one look at it as a folded dimension, distorted space, ( add the ripple procedural to a dense sphere :) ) where it dances, or vibrates) and folds itself back and forth...well, thatīs kind the kind of image of the universe I seem to get, then again..I shouldnīt have smoked that tinyy tiny weed many many years ago, in essence..I am having just as hard time as you to grasp it.

Megalodon2.0
08-30-2016, 11:46 AM
Yeah, the 1930s had Einstein in charge of physics, and today we have this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vek2naWv7is&feature=youtu.be&t=1289
Do you really think its a good idea to trust your view of reality to scientists? Have fun with that...:hey:

Apples and oranges.

More like.... today we have THIS...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c

erikals
08-30-2016, 11:46 AM
I shouldn't have smoked that tinyy tiny weed many many years ago, in essence..I am having just as hard time as you to grasp it.
some scientists claim that helps.  :hat:

MichaelT
08-30-2016, 11:47 AM
Please Michael, that was not my intent...and I am sorry if you perceived it that way, it wasnīt mentioned in any way or suggested that you were one, it was however put together in the response that evolved to describing others.
Again...theory or not theory, there is things profoundly verified and matched with other classification items, that it at least in my opinion reaches a state of fact, until something else simply denotes it, but so it is with most things we call facts.

the chernobyl connection I do not understand, it is an artificial singel event with radiation, and so limited to a few individuals and the event itself is not likely to occour that often..once these individuals have died ther genomes of the mutation will probably not go further, I suspect this is quite a different mutation that what often takes place inside dna both in natural selection or by other genetic mutation.
I think there is a vast difference between genetic disorder that yields defect anomalies within the species, and other mutational forms.

if we disregard your chernobyl thesis, what else makes the otherwise so abundant evidence not holding up as "theory" ?

Chernobyl wasn't meant as evidence. Just as an example of how it looks when you take one piece of bone, place it in a structure. And make up whatever to make it fit. Because that does happen... frequently.

MichaelT
08-30-2016, 12:00 PM
Agreed on a lot here.
I think...In my Opinion MichaelT separates the processes too much, I do not believe it to be a limiting process of choice, or maybe it is on a high level..but it is in no way disconnected to many other factors, the choice is connected to attributes in environment variables and a genome Or behaviour in the other sex..it is driven in synchronicity as yo say.
And yes..I donīt put anything else in the gap to be anything that I am not aware of, unless the gap is filled with a marsian found in the earliest layers, then I would start to wonder.


yes..I donīt follow MichaelT here eiher about the statement that we have species like sharks that hasnīt changed, that is a statement without actually further argueing why that could be, I discussed the premise and the conclusion of that earlier, their environment didnīt change that much for them to change, like sharks..and especially this may be true when it is top predators which function works extremly well to survive.
And we are not just having one shark species do we, nor do we have only one spider species.
Not sure if there is a species that is extremly unique that it has no real relative in itīs branch?

True, but spiders (and insects in general) are far more prone to changes. You quite often see insects mutate. That is something you can try for yourself (and probably have in school) with banana flies for instance. They can change within days. With larger living creatures it is a different story. But please do pay attention to me never saying that evolution is false! I am saying it is a theory, and that I happily concede when it is a proven fact. But at the same time I just don't think it fits what I can see. I could very well be overly critical, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

erikals
08-30-2016, 12:04 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c

smart guy, nobody can deny that, but regarding intelligent life elsewhere, i find it strange that he doesn't mention.

-an example where their technology never used radio waves
-an example where their technology never used radio waves the way we do
-superior technology that could distort radio waves. (camouflage)
-that they don't want contact
-less intelligent life

-more...

MichaelT
08-30-2016, 12:09 PM
smart guy, nobody can deny that, but regarding intelligent life elsewhere, i find it strange that he doesn't mention.

-an example where their technology never used radio waves
-an example where their technology never used radio waves the way we do
-superior technology that could distort radio waves. (camouflage)
-that they don't want contact
-less intelligent life

-more...

We might think radio is obvious, but to other aliens it might not even appeared as a concept. They might know what that radiation is, but not that it can be used for communication. They might have invented something else, that to them is equally simple, but we have missed entirely.

erikals
08-30-2016, 12:09 PM
MichaelT, if you alter 2% Chimpanzee DNA, you get human DNA, that should be proof enough.


We might think radio is obvious, but to other aliens it might not even appeared as a concept. They might know what that radiation is, but not that it can be used for communication. They might have invented something else, that to them is equally simple, but we have missed entirely.
Totally agree here.

besides, it's weird, he, better than nobody else, should know that the time-frame for using radio waves probably is, say, max 800 years, give or take.
this means, that those 800 years would have to line up exactly with ours.

that's damn unlikely when one has, say, 10 billion years to take from.
> the chance is roughly 12.5 million to one (!)

and... :) those radio waves would have to go in this direction at that point in time.
and... that's giving SETI too much credit, thinking SETI can catch everything.

as far as i recall, Michio Kaku explained this, and he is no dummy.


often, people who excel in a field, do not excel in others.

oh well, who am i... Stephen Hawking ?

MichaelT
08-30-2016, 12:22 PM
MichaelT, if you alter 2% Chimpanzee DNA, you get human DNA, that should be proof enough.


And we also share 70% with worms, that doesn't prove anything more that that dna have been around for a very long time :)

prometheus
08-30-2016, 12:42 PM
True, but spiders (and insects in general) are far more prone to changes. You quite often see insects mutate. That is something you can try for yourself (and probably have in school) with banana flies for instance. They can change within days. With larger living creatures it is a different story. But please do pay attention to me never saying that evolution is false! I am saying it is a theory, and that I happily concede when it is a proven fact. But at the same time I just don't think it fits what I can see. I could very well be overly critical, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing.


Yes Michael I have noticed that..and I havenīt ever claimed that you are creationist or do not believe in evolution, you are mostly inerpreting what I have written that way..but in no way I have ever claimed that.
.. I am paying attention to that you do not say that is false, I thought I mentioned that I understood that you were mostly accepting it..but maybe I missed to write it down.
and that is not what I am argueing about, itīs merely that you just state it is JUST a theory, you may believe on up to a certain degree.where I beg to differ considering the records of fossile, the dating, the chromosomes, dna etc which all seems to fit pretty nicely ..to such extend I would never call it just a theory, when things tend to have overwhelming evidence for being true, unless nothing indicates otherwise...it will be classified as fact, I can only conclude that some of you may consider it takes more than what combined is out there to state it to be a fact, we simply disagree on this.
So we disagree on what is a true fact, and we may disagree on how to look at the mutations or the processes involved that can be put as attribute for the evolution.

Yes..sounds fair enough that you conced when it is a proven fact, but letīs go step by step, you say you do not think it fits...that is like asking me ..do you think this green hat will fit my head, I wouldnīt have a clue since I do not know the size of your head :) so unless you do not explain what you do not think fits..we can not have any sensible discussion about it.

No I didnīt experiment with banana flies in school, however I have full case of them now, there must be some sweet stuff or fruit somewhere because they are spreading in my kitchen now :)

prometheus
08-30-2016, 12:47 PM
And we also share 70% with worms, that doesn't prove anything more that that dna have been around for a very long time :)

AS I know of, most mammalīs lounge and heart is derived from the first circulatory system and some early worm types in the oceans..
for those of you understanding swedish (only made for swedish television)
The story of the heart...
http://www.oppetarkiv.se/video/1351458/hjartats-saga-avsnitt-1-av-3

erikals
08-30-2016, 12:58 PM
MichaelT, can't say much more, other than there are many books/videos on why it's 99.999999% certain that man came from apes.

prometheus
08-30-2016, 01:01 PM
There are those who argues this, in the kambrium period we can see trilobites quite developed with advanced organs and structure..and they see this as some kind of evidence for the species just popping up fully evolved.
But I would say there must be a failing to understand that there was millions of millions of time for species to develop before that, but..trilobites was among the first with skeleton that could be kept in fossile state, where other species simply couldnīt...so that is one part of why we do not have those recorded as fossiles.

Michael

- - - Updated - - -



MichaelT, can't say much more, other than there are many books/videos on why it's 99.999999% certain that man came from apes.

Note quite correct I would say, a branch to relatives of the ape species, not a direct evolution from ape species...it is a primate of the homonid branch.
Homo Habilis may be considered as the oldest relative homonid, (2.5-1.9 millions of years ago..found in tanzania) I think..and they are believed to have been able to use stone tools etc.
Some of us may actually carry genes from neanderthals as well.
Some argue though that homo habilis may have been more apelike than human like, despite their upright walk, they seem to lack other unique attributes that other later homonoids showcase that is closer to homo sapiens.

MichaelT
08-30-2016, 01:07 PM
There is those who argues this, in the kambrium period we can see trilobites quite developed with advanced organs and structure..and they see this as some kind of evidence for the species just popping up fully evolved.
But I would say there must be a failing to understand that there was millions of millions of time for species to develop before that, but..trilobites was among the first with skeleton that could be kept in fossile state, where other species simply couldnīt.

Michael

- - - Updated - - -



Note quite correct I would say, a branch to relatives of the ape species, not a direct evolution from ape species...it is a primate of the homonid branch.
Homo Habilis may be considered as the oldest relative homonid, I think..and they are believed to have been able to use stone tools etc.
Some of us may actually carry genes from neanderthals as well.

I would like to add that I am pretty sure we have monkeys/apes as ancestors :) Never claimed otherwise. It is not like I think anything came into existence out of thin air :)

erikals
08-30-2016, 01:07 PM
Note quite correct I would say, a branch to relatives of the ape species,
yes, sorry, i know, but should have emphasized that.  :)


Some of us may actually carry genes from neanderthals as well.
as i recall, yep, recent research proved that. (if i remember correctly)

prometheus
08-30-2016, 01:16 PM
this may be the next leap in evolution, the cats will rule...sure they are "pretending" to like us and being nice by purring and cuddle...but you never know :)




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDcy3WlQ_6E

erikals
08-30-2016, 01:29 PM
SuperCute, and i'm not a cat person... :)

interesting read, about Stalin wanting to create a man/ape hybrid
https://www.nrk.no/viten/xl/drommen-om-apemennesket-1.13110734
in Norwegian, but might be worth a shot for Swedes?

prometheus
08-30-2016, 01:33 PM
MichaelT, if you alter 2% Chimpanzee DNA, you get human DNA, that should be proof enough.


Totally agree here.

besides, it's weird, he, better than nobody else, should know that the time-frame for using radio waves probably is, say, max 800 years, give or take.
this means, that those 800 years would have to line up exactly with ours.

that's damn unlikely when one has, say, 10 billion years to take from.
> the chance is roughly 12.5 million to one (!)

and... :) those radio waves would have to go in this direction at that point in time.
and... that's giving SETI too much credit, thinking SETI can catch everything.

as far as i recall, Michio Kaku explained this, and he is no dummy.


often, people who excel in a field, do not excel in others.

oh well, who am i... Stephen Hawking ?

Just gather a few links from hawkings and michiou kaku, carl sagan..and at least pretend you know what the heck you talk about :)

yeah..I had a discussion with rebel hill concerning the question why it seems so alone out there, no signals..that we at least can see, we got a bit to overheated when discussing the necessary fossile fuel that I think he claimed was essential for Any civilization ..and I had my doubts about it, but I would also be open to chime in on it as well, though I will not go in to that debate again...other than the premise was that quite intelligent species could have lived and died out due to lacking fossile fuel sources to cover a certain time.

As you guys also seem to have recognized about civilizations living and being able to reach us in a similar time frame is small..
regarding us picking up signals in the time period the universe has existed, now how long have we been listening..extremly small time window, civilizations could have died out long time ago, or they simply have not reach the era of sending signals, and as mentioned..they could be hiding there presence to ensure they themself will not be found by hostile aliens.
and it could have to do with the vast space itself and the time it takes for a signal to reach us..contemplating that, then it may not be such surprise really that we doesnīt find anything, and we could also be listening in a completly wrong spectrum so we do not recognize what may be there.

I found it a bit intriguing to think about what stephe hawking says, de grasse tyson etc, when they assume there are civilizations out there that most likely (according to them it seems) is so far ahead in intelligence that they wouldnīt even bother stop to try and communicate with us..it would be like talking to a worm for them.., at least degrasse tyson mentions this, stephen hawkings points a warning finger that they may be hostile and destroy us, since that is the lesson learnt from mankinds history when more advanced civilization meets a lower level, I am sort of split by that..I would think it would be un intelligent to not study or communicate, if they are so advanced, why would they pick our earth to exploit when they must likely could choose many other planets (permitting the odds are there for enough planets)
Or would they consider us a threat.. then make a judgement on us?

stiff paper
08-30-2016, 01:51 PM
No, no, no.

No.

Don't do that. Humans are not descended from apes.

Humans and apes have a common ancestor. It's not the same thing as being "Descended from monkeys" at all.

Don't give creationists such easy attack vectors for their fatuous views.

prometheus
08-30-2016, 01:59 PM
No, no, no.

No.

Don't do that. Humans are not descended from apes.

Humans and apes have a common ancestor. It's not the same thing as being "Descended from monkeys" at all.

Don't give creationists such easy attack vectors for their fatuous views.

If you read carefully..we have already debated and sorted that fact out.

erikals
08-30-2016, 02:00 PM
discussing the necessary fossil fuel that I think he claimed was essential for Any civilization ..and I had my doubts about it,
fossil fuel is likely, but far from essential.
it's not even given that life elsewhere is silicon based.
and again, we, in our lifetime, have a 12.5mill to 1 ratio of finding life on just a few small premises. (SETI, being about the only one)
+based on conditions, fossil fuel might be way trickier to find on certain planets.
so no, i don't buy that one. neither the > "they must use radio waves, and in the same way we do".

when life first starts, it's a sucker for adaption. hey, just look at earth.

also, i could answer this one easily, if i was from another planet. would i reveal myself, crushing the system / religion / taboo / customs / ideas that this planet has?

nope. it's enough chaos as it is.

prometheus
08-30-2016, 02:02 PM
No, no, no.

No.

Don't do that. Humans are not descended from apes.

Humans and apes have a common ancestor. It's not the same thing as being "Descended from monkeys" at all.

Don't give creationists such easy attack vectors for their fatuous views.

If you read carefully..we have already debated that..I think, yet some misunderstandings or perhaps formulations retains.

prometheus
08-30-2016, 02:17 PM
fossil fuel is likely, but far from essential.
it's not even given that life elsewhere is silicon based.
and again, we, in our lifetime, have a 12.5mill to 1 ratio of finding life on just a few small premises. (SETI, being about the only one)
+based on conditions, fossil fuel might be way trickier to find on certain planets.
so no, i don't buy that one. neither the > "they must use radio waves, and in the same way we do".

when life first starts, it's a sucker for adaption. hey, just look at earth.

also, i could answer this one easily, if i was from another planet. would i reveal myself, crushing the system / religion / taboo / customs / ideas that this planet has?

nope. it's enough chaos as it is.

yes..well, I had a twisted debate on that with rebelhill, wher I also didnīt believe there would be a necessarity for fossile fuel for a civilization to rise and being able to communicate advanced and even travel in space..the debate got out of hand when defining what I said..what he said etc..so I think I will leave it at that, it may be likely that is the fact, but I was definitly not sure this would be essential.
I hope rebelhill doesnīt jump in here and watches this, or we would probably get entangled again with not so good communication..haha.

Yes..I reckon it may be on a world wide agenda ..where it may be decided how we should act if we encounter other species, I think there might be something already, at least for a case of they showing up here, but for us finding other civilizations, if we encounter only the signals, should we start hiding our signals..or make contact, in the hope we can share scientific knowledge, we can hardly write the agenda for 500-100 years ahead I reckon.

Itīs a bit fascinating though if we made contact with a civlization that was so close ..a 4.2 or 10, 30 lightyears , where sending information and discoveries back and forth would take a long time, but not that impossible.
Makes me wanna pop up the contact machine again :) and if we listen to james woods, it could be a blueprint of some sort of machine that simply blows everything up :)
on the other hand, we could send the worst music we can create and hope for the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s9-qP7_Q1E

erikals
08-30-2016, 02:18 PM
ok, something like this then :)

https://bare5dotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/hominid_evo.jpg

prometheus
08-30-2016, 02:44 PM
Kanzi the bonobo...

I recall watching some documentaries with Kanzi, how Kanzy had concept of time and knew the consequences if breaking a mirror he often played with, and if he did ..he wouldnīt be allowed to go to a park, so when kanzi got a mirror to play with..he understood that he couldnīt control himself due to his excitement, he then simply gave the mirror back to the keepers..simply to avoid breaking the mirror..that way kanzy could be sure of getting a chance to visit a park.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKauXrp9dl4

There are some studies on parrots where a researcher had a long relationship with some parrot that showed to be quite intelligent it seems, it could seemingly understand advanced questions and distinguish time and object properties, donīt have the links right here, but I saw it on a documentary..baffling anyway.

Not sure the phrase .."birdbrain" is appropiate when degrading a hopeless student :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_intelligence

MichaelT
08-30-2016, 03:20 PM
ok, something like this then :)

https://bare5dotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/hominid_evo.jpg

I don't think any of us debate that there is a chain. At least my debate is about how new species actually come about. Like I said, I lean towards that for some reason (be radiation, virus infection or other) there is a sudden and rapid mutation. And that this branches off into another group. I am less inclined to believe that an extra digit is useful when playing the piano, would result in humans developing an extra digit for that purpose :)

erikals
08-30-2016, 03:31 PM
Like I said, I lean towards that for some reason (be radiation, virus infection or other) there is a sudden and rapid mutation. And that this branches off into another group.
agreed.  :)

dickbill
08-30-2016, 04:40 PM
Since we had that sort of discussion in the past, allow me to give an alternative point of view.
First regarding Human intelligence, great scientists like Roger Penrose and Kurt Gödel came to the conclusion that Human Intelligence is composed of a computing part and an awareness part. The computing part (logic, memory, comparisons, sensations etc.) is intrinsically doing computations as its name indicates and nothing else, therefore it is accessible to Computers at least in theory even if the complexity to compute is out of reach of present computers. However the Awareness part is not accessible to computers because it is NOT computable. Not everything is computable in this world and awareness may be one of these things. That is the point of view of Sir Roger Penrose, Kurt Gödel and many other 'hard scientists'. That has nothing to do with religious belief since Penrose, for example, is an Atheist. Obviously if they are right, then a true AI will never occur because it will always lack the awareness part. Of course, I am not naïve and I am also convinced that computers will be able to simulate awareness with an asymptotic realism.
Personally I go further and I include Evolution among those non-computable 'thing', which has the side effect to negate the need for extra-terrestrial life and intelligence, as opposed to Darwinism in which ET life is an absolute requirement.
A quick point why : In the Computationalist point of view, Darwinism IS computable: it can be reduced to a Turing Machine whose output would be a living organism containing, among other things, the DNA code necessary to produce a brain and Consciousness. Which means that for Computationalists, Consciousness itself is Computable.
Well now, if it isn't, then it can't be the output of a computer program called Darwinian Evolution. So if you don't adopt the Computationalist point of view and believe that Awareness or Consciousness are not computable, you are sort of forced to believe that Evolution is not entirely described (Gödel would say it is incomplete) in the Darwinian conceptual framework. It may be close, but it is not the thing itself.

I also read a bit of Erwin Schrondinger and I also believe that he was a non-computationalist as probably would be Newton today. I mention that to refrain some people to say that non-computationalism is idiotic and can only comes from the mind of morons.

prometheus
08-30-2016, 05:44 PM
I don't think any of us debate that there is a chain. At least my debate is about how new species actually come about. Like I said, I lean towards that for some reason (be radiation, virus infection or other) there is a sudden and rapid mutation. And that this branches off into another group. I am less inclined to believe that an extra digit is useful when playing the piano, would result in humans developing an extra digit for that purpose :)


Yah..I think I know what you mean..I still can not follow that line of thinking, it sort of In my opinion assumes there was radiation, virus infections and rapid mutation..I think it may be a case for some things..but in generall small changes for many parts, and it isnīt necessary needed to have extrem mutations, simple coloring of skin can be a case of female and male genomes that gives a different offspring, so the sexual genome is of imporatance, and the types of chromosomes dna they carry, what you see with dog breeding isnīt any case of radiation or virus infection...there is however something special with dog genes that makes them extremly easy to breed in to new races in only a few generations, which isnīt the same with cats.

So if looking at radiation or virus, I think we can assume that such mutations may cause defects and disease that simply isnīt benifital for the species, neither will it then be a prospect to carry forth such genes.

Pianos isnīt even in the natural ekvation of how we evolved, so that thought I can not follow as useful to think about really, neither can we even discuss how lightwave, or computers are part of any evolution purpose.
the digits are there from very early one, and in many cases the base is traceable back to fins of fishes, and has later served to grasp things.

Michael

prometheus
08-30-2016, 05:47 PM
Since we had that sort of discussion in the past, allow me to give an alternative point of view.
First regarding Human intelligence, great scientists like Roger Penrose and Kurt Gödel came to the conclusion that Human Intelligence is composed of a computing part and an awareness part. The computing part (logic, memory, comparisons, sensations etc.) is intrinsically doing computations as its name indicates and nothing else, therefore it is accessible to Computers at least in theory even if the complexity to compute is out of reach of present computers. However the Awareness part is not accessible to computers because it is NOT computable. Not everything is computable in this world and awareness may be one of these things. That is the point of view of Sir Roger Penrose, Kurt Gödel and many other 'hard scientists'. That has nothing to do with religious belief since Penrose, for example, is an Atheist. Obviously if they are right, then a true AI will never occur because it will always lack the awareness part. Of course, I am not naïve and I am also convinced that computers will be able to simulate awareness with an asymptotic realism.
Personally I go further and I include Evolution among those non-computable 'thing', which has the side effect to negate the need for extra-terrestrial life and intelligence, as opposed to Darwinism in which ET life is an absolute requirement.
A quick point why : In the Computationalist point of view, Darwinism IS computable: it can be reduced to a Turing Machine whose output would be a living organism containing, among other things, the DNA code necessary to produce a brain and Consciousness. Which means that for Computationalists, Consciousness itself is Computable.
Well now, if it isn't, then it can't be the output of a computer program called Darwinian Evolution. So if you don't adopt the Computationalist point of view and believe that Awareness or Consciousness are not computable, you are sort of forced to believe that Evolution is not entirely described (Gödel would say it is incomplete) in the Darwinian conceptual framework. It may be close, but it is not the thing itself.

I also read a bit of Erwin Schrondinger and I also believe that he was a non-computationalist as probably would be Newton today. I mention that to refrain some people to say that non-computationalism is idiotic and can only comes from the mind of morons.

Can you give a short brief on why awareness wouldnīt be computable? I am fully aware that we can not do that today, since it would require full knowledge and mapping of the brain I suspect, if you can avoid linking to or ask me to read a book on it, then it would be fine if you can briefly explain why that wouldnīt be possible in the future perhaps? if not..I can not even argue about it to be true or not.
you simply state that awareness isnīt computable without saying b..and you also reflect uncertainty that awarness may be one of those things you assume may not be computable.
I would simply not state it to be impossible or for fact, I rather see it as we probably know way to little to make conclusions on that at current time.

MichaelT
08-30-2016, 05:55 PM
Since we had that sort of discussion in the past, allow me to give an alternative point of view.
First regarding Human intelligence, great scientists like Roger Penrose and Kurt Gödel came to the conclusion that Human Intelligence is composed of a computing part and an awareness part. The computing part (logic, memory, comparisons, sensations etc.) is intrinsically doing computations as its name indicates and nothing else, therefore it is accessible to Computers at least in theory even if the complexity to compute is out of reach of present computers. However the Awareness part is not accessible to computers because it is NOT computable. Not everything is computable in this world and awareness may be one of these things. That is the point of view of Sir Roger Penrose, Kurt Gödel and many other 'hard scientists'. That has nothing to do with religious belief since Penrose, for example, is an Atheist. Obviously if they are right, then a true AI will never occur because it will always lack the awareness part. Of course, I am not naïve and I am also convinced that computers will be able to simulate awareness with an asymptotic realism.
Personally I go further and I include Evolution among those non-computable 'thing', which has the side effect to negate the need for extra-terrestrial life and intelligence, as opposed to Darwinism in which ET life is an absolute requirement.
A quick point why : In the Computationalist point of view, Darwinism IS computable: it can be reduced to a Turing Machine whose output would be a living organism containing, among other things, the DNA code necessary to produce a brain and Consciousness. Which means that for Computationalists, Consciousness itself is Computable.
Well now, if it isn't, then it can't be the output of a computer program called Darwinian Evolution. So if you don't adopt the Computationalist point of view and believe that Awareness or Consciousness are not computable, you are sort of forced to believe that Evolution is not entirely described (Gödel would say it is incomplete) in the Darwinian conceptual framework. It may be close, but it is not the thing itself.

I also read a bit of Erwin Schrondinger and I also believe that he was a non-computationalist as probably would be Newton today. I mention that to refrain some people to say that non-computationalism is idiotic and can only comes from the mind of morons.

I actually know Penrose, or at least his son which I used to live with. I programmed some fractal calculations for his studies in mathematics back then. His father I only spoke to rarely. When it comes to consciousness, I think there is a fair bit of fear behind those ideas (this is a topic I actually discussed with his son about at length... oh back in early '94 I believe) Fear that what we define as human, might not be unattainable for computers. Fear that AI if and when it does become conscious, it would rapidly become far more intelligent than any living being. I don't see why they need to fear that. With added intelligence, you need to couple that with knowledge, or it is of little use. Let's argue that this entity would have access to Google, and can access all information as quickly as we can (or faster, it doesn't really matter) It would still have to sift through all the results, and come to a conclusion. It would also need to learn from it, and store it. As it grows more experienced, access will be increasingly slower.. due to the growing amount of stored data. This would grow up to a point where I doubt you would think it is a very quick thinker at all. Similar what happens to people as they get older. Contrary to common belief, the brain does not necessarily slow with age. And there is research on that (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/responsetime.htm) mind that I am of course talking about healthy brains :)

But yeah, I think it is more about fear of us actually succeeding in creating an AI with a mind as great as our own. And I think that will happen, and no I don't think skynet will happen because of it either. But at the same time, I do think bad things will grow out of it. Probably because of some shady ideas, out of the minds of certain people whom are afraid of the light :)

I am far more worried about our potential misuse of our acquired knowledge in DNA, than I am over some AI awakening.

MichaelT
08-30-2016, 06:36 PM
Yah..I think I know what you mean..I still can not follow that line of thinking, it sort of In my opinion assumes there was radiation, virus infections and rapid mutation..I think it may be a case for some things..but in generall small changes for many parts, and it isnīt necessary needed to have extrem mutations, simple coloring of skin can be a case of female and male genomes that gives a different offspring, so the sexual genome is of imporatance, and the types of chromosomes dna they carry, what you see with dog breeding isnīt any case of radiation or virus infection...there is however something special with dog genes that makes them extremly easy to breed in to new races in only a few generations, which isnīt the same with cats.

So if looking at radiation or virus, I think we can assume that such mutations may cause defects and disease that simply isnīt benifital for the species, neither will it then be a prospect to carry forth such genes.

Pianos isnīt even in the natural ekvation of how we evolved, so that thought I can not follow as useful to think about really, neither can we even discuss how lightwave, or computers are part of any evolution purpose.
the digits are there from very early one, and in many cases the base is traceable back to fins of fishes, and has later served to grasp things.

Michael

:) The piano is an illustration more than anything else. Highlighting the emphasis on development through need. Eyes are a popular example. But for eyes to evolve in the first place, it needs a realization that light is a thing. And I don't mean consciously. Then it needs to develop a photosensitive part, and repeatedly improve upon it. Until you get eyes. But what I am saying would be something more along these lines.. (for example) an unknown burrowing creature mutates, and develops something like a black scab. As it turns out, this scab reacts to light (perhaps even painfully) so when the sun comes out, it hides into the sand (yes I am making things up, I am making a scenario) but it turns out beneficial. Maybe it helps the creature not to dry out in the sun like before? Then from now on it begins evolving. Its mates selecting the ones with best sensitivity for light. etc.. soon enough you might have your eyes. Basic, but there. It mutates again, with some other benefit, but is scorned by its would be mates. Except for the one that selected it anyway. And so it goes... mutate, benefit, evolution.. with most mutations coming to nothing at all. Or having remained dormant, until another dormant gene comes along with another mate, and it mutates again... etc.. All of this would be short, quick jumps. But the improvements for the mutations that do work, would be very real.

But then we also have beings with very stable genes. Like some jellyfish that can revert to baby stage at an old age (there are quite possibly some that are around today, that literally are from hundreds of million years ago. Because they don't age the way we think of aging) or sharks, which also are genetically very stable. So much so, that they are used in studies for remedies against cancer. These creatures are very unlikely to mutate, and not creatures I would expect to evolve into something else that quickly. But it does obviously happen, since we do have species of them, and not just one. Crocodiles are also quite interesting, as they don't age at all. They die from either sickness etc.. or starvation from having grown to large. Kind of puts the perspective on dinos in general ;) Just think what it would mean if any human species had this?

prometheus
08-30-2016, 07:09 PM
I am far more worried about our potential misuse of our acquired knowledge in DNA, than I am over some AI awakening. The whole Nietzsche übermensch routine, is suddenly a reality.


Ah..I need to sleep now, so I wonīt analyze much of the other stuff you posted, I am too tired ...and my responses would look more stupid than normal:D

I agree about the last sentence from you though..I really perceive what we as instigators can dream up and create, and especially with moral intent can be dangerous, personally I believe we may be capable of controlling where the AI should go, we could give it options to be so aware and make their own rules that we might be in danger, but I would also think that when we reach that level I suppose we also will know when that point is reached and where we should go from then to stop it.
with übermenschen and how we see at human genome and our breeding, it may be trickier...and I somehow is so fond of spinning out in my discussions with scifi reference, so here we go again, from a movie with the theme of only those of the right and best human genes belongs to the overclass and may fill important positions, in this case a space academy for astronauts..
Gattaca..a beautiful film with the theme, "there is no gene for the human spirit" wonderful music score as well.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-znjDGubE

prometheus
08-30-2016, 07:22 PM
:) Crocodiles are also quite interesting, as they don't age at all. They die from either sickness etc.. or starvation from having grown to large. Kind of puts the perspective on dinos in general ;) Just think what it would mean if any human species had this?


Oh..crocodiles doesnīt age at all?..that I didnīt know, have to look in to that and see what that is about, I hope it isnīt anything taking out of thin air so it is like crocodile tears, not true that is:)
As I understand it, all cells are exposed to the oxidation process and thus we age ..that is a part of it, and telomere that is loosing information when replicating..so when the numbers is up..it is finnished.
so I will have to look later at what is hidden in the cells of crocodiles to counter all this :)
https://www.quora.com/Are-crocodiles-biologically-immortal

Oh as for having a choice of living almost as long as we can on earth VS accepthing death, if it was possible to transfer my mind to some constructed bio grown copy of my brain or something similar ..where I could be assure I would feel fine..it would come down to a couple of things.
1. how the world would be like in the future.
2. provided I would be without diseases and pain.
some base criteria I reckon, I would rather take my chances with such life, than finnishing it off, I see no reason for no life, with a most certain outcome of no afrterlife.. when I on the other hand got the option to a certain life
..if I still would be in a wrecked old sick body and perhaps mind as well, I suspect my mind would be set to..ok, letīs let go of it and take the final jump to the big void of no feelings, and no mind, and as I believe it to be now..not even darkness, more like it was just before I was conceived and born..nothing of recallection.

erikals
08-31-2016, 02:33 AM
that's right, Crocodiles don't age. sort of... thing is, their physical shape alters ever so slightly, and in time that would cause death.
it would be interesting to see just how old a Crocodile could get. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile#Longevity


if it was possible to transfer my mind to some constructed bio grown copy of my brain or something similar ..where I could be assure I would feel fine..
but the question of course is, would that be you then, or just a replica of you? :)

also read > Human hibernation possible?
http://theconversation.com/could-humans-hibernate-54519

prometheus
08-31-2016, 07:37 AM
that's right, Crocodiles don't age. sort of... thing is, their physical shape alters ever so slightly, and in time that would cause death.
it would be interesting to see just how old a Crocodile could get. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile#Longevity


but the question of course is, would that be you then, or just a replica of you? :)

also read > Human hibernation possible?
http://theconversation.com/could-humans-hibernate-54519

yeah..thatīs interesting how are they gonna verify itīs you and not just a copy?

as for strange animals..this is fun, beware of the snake though 1:36 in the clip..
Edit..had to remove the embedding since the clip thumb is to hidious.

Oops..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD8QuTZ4oZQ

erikals
08-31-2016, 08:18 AM
agh, the beauty..! :)

dickbill
08-31-2016, 09:54 AM
Well I only know Penrose through his books or his videos. His argumentation about 'Awareness' (he actually calls that 'Understanding') is basically a consequences of Gödel Incompleteness theorem that states that NO system of rules can be at the same time Consistent and Complete.

Penrose goes like this : IF Awareness is computable, then it is a product of Algorithms running in our Neural Networks inside our brains. In terms of algorithms, many tasks or problems don't have any answer. For example ask a man called Euclid if there is a last Prime Number and ask the same question to a computer. Euclid proved in ~300BC that there is No last Prime Number so he wouldn't bother to dedicate his brain power to find the last one since he knows that there is none. But how did he find it ? what are the algorithms that ran into Euclid's brain to reach that conclusion ?

Proponent of the Computationalist point of view say that Intelligence and Awareness can be simulated by algorithms, or 'computed'. Therefore from a Computationalist point of view, it makes little difference if you ask Euclid or a Computer if there is a 'last Prime Number'.
How could a computer do that ? well the computer has to use all the mathematical rules at his disposal, which may be trillions but finite, and try to infer Euclid's Theorem from these rules.
But remember Gödel's incompleteness theorem that sates that No system of rules can be both Complete and Consistent. There are actually examples of mathematical theorems that cannot be inferred from a system of rules, for example the Theorem of Goodstein, that cannot be inferred from a system of rules on natural numbers. The consequence is that NO Computer running mathematical rules on natural numbers could find the Goodstein theorem, yet a man called Goodstein found that theorem.
Goodstein's can actually be inferred from an extended set of rules on numbers, but you understand the point : for a finite set of rules running as Algorithms inside a Computer 's processor there are always some mathematical Rules or Theorems that cannot be inferred from within this system. These Rules or Theorems are outside the computer's sphere of 'knowledge' and there is no way for the computer to know which ones. It doesn't know what it doesn't know and we could say that these mathematical theorems are forever outside the sphere of Awareness of the Computer.
An AI of the future, even self learning, and even using quantum computing, will still be running trough trillions of Algorithms and will still be limited by Gödel Incompleteness theorem, no matter what set of rules, extended over extended set of numbers it will use.
Human awareness on the other hand, seems to be able to transcend this limitation, at least for mathematicians. And if it is true for mathematicians it must be true for humans in general. So to Penrose (and Gödel too, according to Penrose) human awareness doesn't work like a computer with Algorithms, or not just with Algorithms. And if a part doesn't work with Algorithms, this part is not a product of a 'Computation' however complex is this computation.

To simulate 'completely' a human mind, an AI would have to be able to break its own rules and create new ones, de novo, out of nothingness, because those new rules can't be inferred from the old ones. And right now, all computers rules are either directly encoded or implicitly 'learnable' in Learning Machines that learn from inferences. NO Computer can be Programmed, by definition, to do that.

dickbill
08-31-2016, 10:02 AM
To simulate 'completely' a human mind, an AI would have to be able to break its own rules and create new ones, de novo, out of nothingness, because those new rules can't be inferred from the old ones. And right now, all computers rules are either directly encoded or implicitly 'learnable' in Learning Machines that learn from inferences. NO Computer can be Programmed, by definition, to do that.

Further, if the Operating System of the AI itself is the obstacle to find these new rules, as it will most likely to be the case, the AI will have to destroy itself and rebirth with a new OS. It will have to know Death. That's why I believe that Awareness, even in its most primitive animal or plant forms, is linked to Life itself.

prometheus
08-31-2016, 10:20 AM
Further, if the Operating System of the AI itself is the obstacle to find these new rules, as it will most likely to be the case, the AI will have to destroy itself and rebirth with a new OS. It will have to know Death. That's why I believe that Awareness, even in its most primitive animal or plant forms, is linked to Life itself.

A lot to read up on and comprehend..so I can really not meet you on what you just described in your post above this post...not without further reading up to it, but thanks for the shorter version..it may help further on If I want to read up on it.
as for as ai settng itīs own rules, I would believe that a future ai will not be just manufactured electrical computers, but actually grown membrance that deals with memory as well as emotions, and just as it is a bit impossible to perceive what another living being perceivs in form of awareness, it would most likely be the same in the case for a grown ai system, as I understand it.
If I would go for a extremly advanced super quantum computer with ai in the future, the awareness might not be there, but I would suspect otherwise when we reach a state of growing braincells, that can be activated but sort of programmed to some part, but otherwise reacting with the same chemistry as normal brains.

Also..how do we define awareness, defining it what it is may be the most crucial part in order to examine somethings awareness, if we would look at a supercomputer or biocomputer in the future..I am sure we would be able to see where it thinks and what parts take care of memory, image senses and other senses...and it would really be hard to say anything else than it performs and behaves as a human awareness, as if you were to study me, you couldnīt define my awareness either, only tracking what I feel and where the activity is in my brain, you can not experience my awareness first hand.

So No..I still donīt believe it would be impossible for some form of cyborg or bio organism to be created with awareness, if we even canīt define it properly for a human, neither would it be possible for a possible AI model.

I would probably incline with some of the life parameters, a constructed bi organism, may have easier to create awareness if it is born, or adapts from some parent, where it constructs itīs rules based on some type of artificial dna that can transform in various way.

dickbill
08-31-2016, 01:17 PM
@Prometheus, I mainly wanted to mention that NOT everybody agree with the currently accepted 'Computationalist' view, not just because it is the mainstream view but because strong minds have a different opinion and that other possibilities exist.
All the wording takes time to get used to. I am a biologist you know, so it wasn't easy to me either. But Wikipedia is your friend and has nice articles on Penrose, Gödel incompleteness theorem, Computationalism, Turing machine, Halting Problem, Non-computable functions and finally 'P vs NP', another esoteric term that describe the fact that some things are easy to compute in one direction, but infinitively more difficult to compute in the other direction.
Ironically, I feel more and more that Biology is irrelevant to EXPLAIN Consciousness and Evolution. Biology is a mere consequences of some more fundamental processes that must still be discovered.

prometheus
08-31-2016, 01:24 PM
, Turing machine, Halting Problem, Non-computable functions and finally 'P vs NP', another esoteric term that describe the fact that some things are easy to compute in one direction, but infinitively more difficult to compute in the other direction.
Ironically, I feel more and more that Biology is irrelevant to EXPLAIN Consciousness and Evolution. Biology is a mere consequences of some more fundamental processes that must still be discovered.

with all respect for you being biologist, you say biology doesnīt matter in explaining evolution?..or do you mean them together...In such case, it makes no sense to me what you are saying.
why doesnīt biology matter for evolution.?
I am sure I must have misunderstood you here..or?

Not sure what your views are on evolution, god etc..so I canīt say anything about you..but with all respect to all scientists or biologists generally, despite their profession or schools, there are often two views..those who believe in evolution and no god, or the other way around( third who may believe in evolution and some spinoza god maybe)..where it may be a minority by those who do not believe in evolution..whith that said, I would really consider those on the god and creationist to be ..nutcases, not all of them could be right, someone is wrong.
Again..not saying you are, because I do not know.

erikals
08-31-2016, 02:00 PM
To simulate 'completely' a human mind, an AI would have to be able to break its own rules and create new ones, de novo, out of nothingness, because those new rules can't be inferred from the old ones. And right now, all computers rules are either directly encoded or implicitly 'learnable' in Learning Machines that learn from inferences. NO Computer can be Programmed, by definition, to do that.

this is the hard part of Ai, i'm sure they will get to it eventually, but that is indeed the real challenge.

how does one program an artificial Einstein?

maybe Einstein would know.

prometheus
08-31-2016, 02:58 PM
this is the hard part of Ai, i'm sure they will get to it eventually, but that is indeed the real challenge.

how does one program an artificial Einstein?

maybe Einstein would know.

One of the problem is that we would most likely need to map the mind completly, and being able to produce artificial brain/cellmembrane with almost identical functions, and to map just connectomes with our technology today would take enourmous time, (one cubic millimeter of brain would take tens of thousands years )and unless they get a boost in new technologies..not something for even our coming generations..
And so we may finally get a mapped mind and a computer model, but thatīs al computer digital model, I suspect it would have to be constructed based on that and with growing stemcells for organic designed models, and letīs hope we donīt call him Roy Batty...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Oqf4NfAIk

Article..
http://news.mit.edu/2010/brain-mapping
"At the Max Planck Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg, Germany, neuroscientists in the laboratory of Winfried Denk have assembled a team of several dozen people to manually trace connections between neurons in the retina. It’s a painstaking process — each neuron takes hours to trace, and each must be traced by as many as 10 people, in order to catch careless errors. Using this manual approach, finding the connectome of just one cubic millimeter of brain would take tens of thousands of work-years, says Viren Jain, who recently completed his PhD in Seung’s lab. "

erikals
08-31-2016, 04:18 PM
Article.. http://news.mit.edu/2010/brain-mapping
ah, 2010, old news...
just to add, still interesting though :)


with our technology today would take enormous time
this is why we need nano robots, but more importantly nano robots are needed within medicine.

here's new news... :D
from HAL...

ahem, i mean ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdUzIGYXbSY

erikals
08-31-2016, 04:23 PM
2014


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5eKfterbeo

dickbill
08-31-2016, 07:04 PM
with all respect for you being biologist, you say biology doesnīt matter in explaining evolution?..or do you mean them together...In such case, it makes no sense to me what you are saying.
why doesnīt biology matter for evolution.?
Biology IS a product of Evolution, not the other way around. So you don't explain Evolution with Biology, you explain Biology with Evolution and you explain it a posteriori, always. So now, the question is how to explain Evolution and is it computable ?

erikals
08-31-2016, 07:35 PM
Evolution and is it computable ?
well, as you say, evolution comes first, then consequence.

so technically, the evolution has already been made.

(as far as we know)

there are factors like other dimensions, but they are hypothetical.
and even if they exist, they most likely couldn't change destiny.


in a way i find it a bit sad, making history less exiting.

prometheus
08-31-2016, 08:10 PM
Biology IS a product of Evolution, not the other way around. So you don't explain Evolution with Biology, you explain Biology with Evolution and you explain it a posteriori, always. So now, the question is how to explain Evolution and is it computable ?

That sounds like a mathematical narrowminded somersault...to a much more complex process than initial motions.

evolution is driven with whatever biological species there is in the variables, as I see it, they go hand in hand and you donīt exlude biology from the equation in the evolution, the fact that biology is risen from evolution doesnīt make biology invisible and a non factor, it really makes no sense to even discuss evolution without biology...thatīs my take on it...they are tightly intertwined.
I never stated it was the other way around by the way.
Still donīt get how a biologist would explain evolution..without going in to detail with biology.
To me it seems You are way stuck with initial conditions..where Evolution started it to form the biology, but then discards the importance of biology and genes when it concerns later evolution?
Where in fact evolutionary result is the same as a biologic product, and also based on biological conditions.

Michael

prometheus
08-31-2016, 08:28 PM
ABout theory of evolution...
Darwins Is scientific theory.
"
The definition of a scientific theory differs from the common meaning of theory, which is defined as a guess or a supposition about a particular process. In contrast, a good scientific theory must be testable, falsifiable, and substantiated by factual evidence.

When it comes to a scientific theory, there is no absolute proof. It's more a case of confirming the reasonability of accepting a theory as a viable explanation for a particular event."

erikals
08-31-2016, 08:31 PM
the fact that biology is risen from evolution doesnīt make biology invisible and a non factor
as for evolution itself, it is a non factor.
but for changing for example the "the course of DNA / manipulating DNA" it is...

it's a bit nit picking, but the word evolution is used wrong daily.


it really makes no sense to even discuss evolution without biology...
a sentence like this one below for example would be completely wrong.
"we are manipulating DNA to change human evolution"
it's wrong because one can't change evolution, the evolution has been set in stone.

it's nit picking a bit though.

prometheus
09-01-2016, 06:51 AM
as for evolution itself, it is a non factor.
but for changing for example the "the course of DNA / manipulating DNA" it is...

it's a bit nit picking, but the word evolution is used wrong daily.


a sentence like this one below for example would be completely wrong.
"we are manipulating DNA to change human evolution"
it's wrong because one can't change evolution, the evolution has been set in stone.

it's nit picking a bit though.

Mehh..a lot of nit picking I would say, and of course manupilating Dna to change Human evolution, may be wrong..firt of all it is artificial selection, what we do is introduce a course change in the biology
as well as in the direction the evolution takes, I do not see it as static.
Evolution is constantly happening, and does so based on what biology transitions there are in the biology, so no..I still regard it as valid...wether or not one should set it in stone for how we explain it with setting it in stone in the initial conditions..or analyze it during itīs developing time and explain that etc..welll....

If we are so strict to say evolution canīt change, that would mean that everything we do is part of the evolution..and also what we do to change evolution, such as we do breed dopgs artificially and the results are artificial selection and evolutionary changes, but canīt be considered sucht if we restrict everything we do as part of evolution...bahh, to me it is just word mongling.
so no..I donīt agree on we can not change Wich Direction evolution may take or at wich speed something occours, we already discussed ubermenshen, then again it is artificiall selection, accidently or environmental we may be out of control as well, and also in control..how we choose to live and what our environment provides us with.
I may see it differently..which is of course evolutionary principles are set, and we can not change the history of evolution, but it is a dynamic process that hasnīt stopped and we can interact and change Direction of evolution, unless someone states, well our ability to change evolution is a product of evolution..and we are word mongling again...and of course it is a product, it doesnīt make our ability to change the direction less true.

Sounds like we could end up in causality principles and enter a discussion of free will, or not free will:) that I will not go in to:) not here, I choose not to by my own free will, then again just by saying that..the stone is thrown in the lake of causality ripples.

dickbill
09-01-2016, 07:17 AM
That sounds like a mathematical narrowminded somersault...to a much more complex process than initial motions.

You want explanations in a few sentences, no links, no references. Too hard, sorry I tried. I started a text, 40 lines and counting and I tried to be synthetic, but my explanations have too much to do with Algorithmic complexity, Halting Problems and such, to be understandable like that. I deleted everything and only left this cryptic sentence which I agree with you and Erikals, has not much value.
You have to read Penrose, or search in Wiki for the key words i gave earlier, or at least read the link below.


Still donīt get how a biologist would explain evolution..without going in to detail with biology.
see Conway's game


To me it seems You are way stuck with initial conditions..where Evolution started it to form the biology, but then discards the importance of biology and genes when it concerns later evolution?
Yes Initial conditions are fundamental. I can't start on that either. See below.

About Darwinism : Yes, it is a scientific theory and it is computable. That is, you can run a Simulation on a computer of what you think is Evolution using Darwinism as a model and you'll get an output, that is, a New Species. This is exactly what Darwin tried to do when he wrote 'On the Origins of the Species'. The question is : is it the right model ?

In other models, closer to Lamarckism, you will also get New Species, a priori indistinguishable from those obtained from the Darwinian model, but the mechanism is NOT computable. It can't be simulated completely on a computer although perhaps it could be approximated close enough.

I reject those who claim that their computer simulation 'proves' that Darwinism is the Right conceptual Framework. They assume that Evolution is computable and then the conclude 'My computation proves Evolution', yes of course a computation is a computation.
Read the wiki article on Conway's game of Life, it won't be long before you fall in theoretical issues such as undecidabilty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
Quote : " It can be asked whether the game of life is decidable: whether an algorithm exists, so that given an "initial" pattern and a "later" pattern, the algorithm can tell whether, starting with the initial pattern, the later pattern is ever going to appear. This turns out to be impossible: no such algorithm exists. This is in fact a corollary of the halting problem.[24]

Indeed, since the game of life includes a pattern that is equivalent to a UTM (universal Turing machine), this "deciding" algorithm, if it existed, could have been used to solve the halting problem, by taking the initial pattern as the one corresponding to a UTM+input and the later pattern as the one corresponding to a halting state of the machine with an empty tape (as one can modify the Turing machine to always erase the tape before halting). However the halting problem is provably undecidable and so such an algorithm does not exist.."
Get acquainted with the language, this is what I am talking about.

Even if it is not predictable, at least you can run Conway's game. Darwinism is just one variation of this 'game'. But there are other possibilities, some of them must be non-computable. Why or How does Evolution follow a computable model (Darwinism) rather than a non-computable one, is the big question. In fact, we are now back to the issue of Consciousness or Awareness. For Evolution to be computable, all its products must be computable. If Penrose's conjecture is true and Consciousness is NOT ENTIRELY computable, then Evolution can't be either.

prometheus
09-01-2016, 07:24 AM
You want explanations in a few sentences, no links, no references. Too hard, sorry I tried. I started a text, 40 lines and counting and I tried to be synthetic, but my explanations have too much to do with Algorithmic complexity, Halting Problems and such, to be understandable like that. I deleted everything and only left this cryptic sentence which I agree with you and Erikals, has not much value.
You have to read Penrose, or search in Wiki for the key words i gave earlier, or at least read the link below.


see Conway's game


Yes Initial conditions are fundamental. I can't start on that either. See below.

About Darwinism : Yes, it is a scientific theory and it is computable. That is, you can run a Simulation on a computer of what you think is Evolution using Darwinism as a model and you'll get an output, that is, a New Species. This is exactly what Darwin tried to do when he wrote 'On the Origins of the Species'. The question is : is it the right model ?

In other models, closer to Lamarckism, you will also get New Species, a priori indistinguishable from those obtained from the Darwinian model, but the mechanism is NOT computable. It can't be simulated completely on a computer although perhaps it could be approximated close enough.

I reject those who claim that their computer simulation 'proves' that Darwinism is the Right conceptual Framework. They assume that Evolution is computable and then the conclude 'My computation proves Evolution', yes of course a computation is a computation.
Read the wiki article on Conway's game of Life, it won't be long before you fall in theoretical issues such as undecidabilty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
Quote : " It can be asked whether the game of life is decidable: whether an algorithm exists, so that given an "initial" pattern and a "later" pattern, the algorithm can tell whether, starting with the initial pattern, the later pattern is ever going to appear. This turns out to be impossible: no such algorithm exists. This is in fact a corollary of the halting problem.[24]

Indeed, since the game of life includes a pattern that is equivalent to a UTM (universal Turing machine), this "deciding" algorithm, if it existed, could have been used to solve the halting problem, by taking the initial pattern as the one corresponding to a UTM+input and the later pattern as the one corresponding to a halting state of the machine with an empty tape (as one can modify the Turing machine to always erase the tape before halting). However the halting problem is provably undecidable and so such an algorithm does not exist.."
Get acquainted with the language, this is what I am talking about.

Even if it is not predictable, at least you can run Conway's game. Darwinism is just one variation of this 'game'. But there are other possibilities, some of them must be non-computable. Why or How does Evolution follow a computable model (Darwinism) rather than a non-computable one, is the big question. In fact, we are now back to the issue of Consciousness or Awareness. For Evolution to be computable, all its products must be computable. If Penrose's conjecture is true and Consciousness is NOT ENTIRELY computable, then Evolution can't be either.


yes..I suppose so..will have to read up.
and yes ..of course initial conditions are fundamental, it is still not static ..it is a living evolving process that constantly changes, yet based on the initial conditions..but the complexity of it, as I am willing to concure with, may most likely not be computable to an exact mach, itīs just too complex..this doesnīt deflect from the fact we can explain evolution with the help of biology,(not that biology is the cause of evolutions initial conditions, that is clear) nor that we can change evolutionary direction, yet most artificially.
Conways game says nothing to me, havenīt read anything about that...thatīs the problem here, I would have to read up, take the time do do so, so it will take a bit of time before you would get answers...nothing wrong with that, that is however just why I urged for shorter explanations...if possible.
Why donīt you record something on youtube as a teacher, in the same clear voice of carl sagan, then it would be so much easier :)

REgarding life predictable, well...just look at the complexity and al variables that must interact, I just donīt see how we even would be close in thousands of years, roughly maybe..but not exact.
then again we may all live in a simulation, which indicates someone is doint the maths, but then again..I donīt buy in to that either.

Must add as I see it, biology is the manifistation of the evolutionary process, if we wouldnīt have the manifistation, we would most likely not be able to disect and anylyze it..and less explain it , thus I just didnīgrasp the initial.."evolution can not be explained by biology"...maybe we got caught in some word mongling in the end?

dickbill
09-01-2016, 09:02 AM
Well my vision of this thing is still not completely clear you know, not enough to make a video. Right now I have pieces there and there but no thread to link them.

prometheus
09-01-2016, 09:56 AM
Well my vision of this thing is still not completely clear you know, not enough to make a video. Right now I have pieces there and there but no thread to link them.

I can understand that completly, these things may not be that easy to cover with a few sentence, nor less without providing links and reference.
It is very interesting and fun to discuss though, and I can only encourage you to contemplate how you could possibly explain your thesis in simpler ways or more understandable.
I guess it is of course a matter of what kind of language you are debating with and what language your listener may be able to comprehend, that said I refere to language of pure math, science etc, and of course it may be quite difficult for us to understand if we do not have those tools in our "vocabular" to interprete what you say.

I will take some time and try to get some briefing, some kind of overall mosaic when I look at what michio kakou discuss about the 11 dimensions etc, however ..it may be futile if I am not able to comprehend some levels at maths required to do so.

I am also questioning if we are not in some confusion about what you actually ment to, I mean, the biology is the product, but also the manifistation of the processes taking place in a course of time, the genome itself or initial evolutionary processes , I hardly can imagine biology processes, evolutionary process a mind concept or understanding or purpose to know what lies ahead in time, and time and all possible factors in environment consists of so many complex variables and possibilities that can not be accounted for until it has run itīs course.
So I see it as, biology is necessary as help samples to explain evolution, without physical biological samples and the study of them, we wouldnīt even be able to discuss evolution, the very initial conditions Is however something much more complex tied to all kinds of physical laws and chemical interaction in a course of time that is the starting point for evolution, so I do not argue about that.
I simply say ..biology is a tool for us to explain the evolutionary process as a help tool, and not going in to if it is the foundation or not, because it isnīt, but you stil can not anlyze it and examine without biology.

The problem when discussing these kinds of stuff, when someone referes to links ..which may be needed, you would have to check and check, and get back, and the discussion will take longer..much longer, on the other hand, it may be more correct without our lucid speculations.
So a balance would be nice, but explaining it simple and shortly..I understand may be hard.

dickbill
09-01-2016, 11:35 AM
there are factors like other dimensions, but they are hypothetical.
and even if they exist, they most likely couldn't change destiny.


But if they did, we couldn't see any differences from our perspective. You may refer to Penrose's writings about the nature of causality in space time and the fact that he discussed retro-causality quite a few times in 'Shadows of the Mind'. How does he make a link between that and Consciousness, I don't know.

dickbill
09-01-2016, 12:03 PM
But yeah, I think it is more about fear of us actually succeeding in creating an AI with a mind as great as our own. And I think that will happen, and no I don't think skynet will happen because of it either. But at the same time, I do think bad things will grow out of it. Probably because of some shady ideas, out of the minds of certain people whom are afraid of the light :)
I see that you know the meaning of the name Lucifer.
Honestly I hope that Penrose didn't make such a big deal and write two books (He could have stopped at one if he wasn't sure of his motivations) dedicated to Consciousness, out of just fear. I'd rather think that he has a point and that he thinks that this point is very important, one important point on top of other important points.
Because there is also the very important problem of the anthropic coincidences of the early cosmologic values. Evolution, and the Darwinian model that we imagine to explain it, is also all about 'coincidences', or rather, 'random variations' that coincidently happen to fit within the range of acceptability by Natural Selection. The simple fact that these right values existed is troubling. Of course, once a solution to a problem is known to exist, it's only a matter of time to find this solution by different algorithms.
No I think Penrose weighted the relevance of writing these books, he may have been supported or unconsciously induced to do it by Gödel ?

prometheus
09-01-2016, 12:06 PM
But if they did, we couldn't see any differences from our perspective. You may refer to Penrose's writings about the nature of causality in space time and the fact that he discussed retro-causality quite a few times in 'Shadows of the Mind'. How does he make a link between that and Consciousness, I don't know.

Tricky isnīt it, if other dimensions simply can not interact with out dimension, it will be hard ..if not impossible for us to tell what kind of weed the folks are smoking on the other side, we can speculate all we wanīt and even make ekvations, but if it has not chance to be analysed and studied, we are better of with our weed on this side.

And tricky to figure out a state of retro causality or a state of no causality where there is no time, thus there would be no time for anything to create time..and we wouldnīt be here.
So when stephen hawking propose there wasnīt even time for god to create the universe, it kind of gets awkward, If I discard the term god, and just look at causality factors that are instigating the initial big bang, by fluctation or something, perhaps by the dancing string theories, or colliding or fracturing of other universes,..the only way I can get any sense of it is if there Always has been fluctiations..perhaps in various dimensions, and there has never been any zero stat at all, so to conclude, I can only see it as there indeed has been some sort of time, though that time may not be comparable to our perspective of time, or what we define as time.

As for intendend purposes in the uiverse or random coincedences, I see that as purely man made projections, not that each smallest entity in the form from quarks to atomes to genes, knows or have any intent to form in the universe upon a set of given rules that are excluded from what may happen in the future with all complexity and variables that can occour.
I doubt the reason for a plant to exist is to feed mee personally, or any other person specificly, or animal, itīs purpose or intent only reaches a certain leve connected to itself and what is closest to that framework, and also time..and it fades in to impossibility when trying to fit the glove of purpose in the overall universe.

dickbill
09-07-2016, 09:05 AM
The wiki article on string theories is no less esoteric than all the wild speculations we are discussing here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Extra_dimensions

One notable feature of string theories is that these theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency. In bosonic string theory, spacetime is 26-dimensional, while superstring theory is 10-dimensional and supergravity theory 11-dimensional. In order to describe real physical phenomena using string theory, one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments.[22]

The extra dimensions in String Theories that could carry causality, even if they were curled on a 'time' scale so small that no macroscopic effect could be detected, could still, perhaps, be relevant to the Orchestrated Objective Reduction mechanism imagined by Penrose. I am not sure what sort of causality can be expected from such multiple 'time' dimensions, probably nothing conductive of Life, which can be seen as another Anthropic coincidence : these minuscule time dimensions had to be compacted to a size that make them initially irrelevant, otherwise Complexity and Life cannot emerge, yet, somehow their effect may start to emerge in the special conditions that can develop once Life has emerged.