Darwin's Discovery: Design without a Designer

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Greg, if you remember, my initial formula was premised with G = Genericity = Perameterization. I don't think it possible to answer the straight Form/Function or Function/Form question, whithout the categoriztions first premised in my formula post, as leaving the Form/Function question open__way too large__only invites the infinite regress to undecidability. So all subjects/topics must be clearly defined to talk successfully about them, and that means G first, or such as; Do we talk about Geo-Formation-Physics, Bio-Evolution-Physics or Bio-Meta-Physics. We first have to choose a field, then stay within that field, and the linguistics and language that pertains to it. Otherwise, you already see in my last response, that by you leaving it so open, I interpreted your ideas as being presented completely Universal in nature and physics. This is usually the communication problem__Not perameterized enough...

Do you agree that Function follows Form ... that is, function comes about after form has come about, it evolves after ?[answered above...]

In other words my infinite regress is not infinite, it bottoms out at uncertainty. I believe it is necessary as the only factor that accounts for triggering motion.[You see, that's the same trouble I had with David. He wasn't willing to investigate deep enough to discover the truth. Uncertainty is no answer at all, except the fact it exists__the question is how does the eternal form function, not just one simple aspect of it__Imo, there's a much deeper and profound story here...]

CLICK

I have no more idea than you ? But my best guess is it displays the properties of a field.[Then the FS Field must be defined, at least as to how it produces mass, and what is its prime mover, or we're starting in magic, no different than religion...]

CLICK

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

G = åf/f * Õf = åUF
G = åF/F * ÕF = åUf

So all subjects/topics must be clearly defined to talk successfully about them, and that means G first, or such as;

Do we talk about Geo-Formation-Physics, Bio-Evolution-Physics or Bio-Meta-Physics.

We first have to choose a field, then stay within that field, and the linguistics and language that pertains to it.

Lloyd .... still unsure if I am interpreting you correctly.

All subjects must be defined clearly ? G first ?

I thought from some of your posts in other threads that you had told me quite ... ummm .. vociferously .. lol ... that you were only interested in Modern Man and Intelligence ... and how these relate philosophically ?

But lets clear the Deck

Two years ago, Dave and I stated much about what absolute fundamentals are required for any truth systems functions. No-one has listened except Tim, and where's he...? Yeah sure, David and I dis-agree to total mechanics, but there's much we agreed about also__The basic FS...

To me, We are all free to have our own ideas of 'Inflation' or the 'Big Bang' .....as we can't really 'G = Genericity = Perameterization' prior to that

Uncertainty is no answer at all, except the fact it exists

The fact that it exists is enough for me to accept 'that it exists'. Uncertainty in a Zero Value Field will eventually give rise to bigger (more divergent) events ... Until eventually, as the long odds become due, a large enough displacement will exceed a phase shift/transition, and there will be no going back. A new state will exist and a return to 'normal' will no longer be possible ..... because a phase shift/transition absorbs latent energy ... for no discernible output

Gregs view of a Phase Transition Click

But Please note ... from this point on I believe all else is explained as best it can be by current scientific opinion.

I don't see a problem with 'Something' always having been in existence, it has the same probability as 'Nothing' having existed .... so I see 'Nothing' as a human measurement of a Zero Energy Field. I think the FS always existed.

Both you and Tim and Dave all have different explanations for this 'starting incident'. I suggest we leave it ... and if you like we can take it up again in the 'Something from Nothing' thread.

Do we talk about Geo-Formation-Physics, Bio-Evolution-Physics or Bio-Meta-Physics.

We first have to choose a field, then stay within that field, and the linguistics and language that pertains to it.

I suggest Bio-Evolution-Physics ? with whatever amount of 'meta' you deem necessary for teleological comprehension ??

For: I think it is more your interest ?
Against: I don't know a lot about philosophy ... meta ...
Against: I don't know all the correct terms
Against: I have not read any Philosophy for many years
For: My belief is that we are biological and 'mind' is just a biological function of brain. If I'm right, then I should be able to defend it ... (I hope ... lolol)

Wish List: If we get hung on a semantic .... the person who used the word/phrase has the right to re-define (without changing the meaning) ... rather than be blanket-judged as incorrect ??

What starting parameters do you need as givens in order to proceed ?

genuine ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lloyd .... still unsure if I am interpreting you correctly.

All subjects must be defined clearly ? G first ?

You were using form and function, without the most important element of the formula I originally gave__that's all. It don't work without the G, imo, as you'd have the infinite regress...

I thought from some of your posts in other threads that you had told me quite ... ummm .. vociferously .. lol ... that you were only interested in Modern Man and Intelligence ... and how these relate philosophically?

No, not at all Greg, as I don't have any vested interest in philosophy, per say. It's just some or most of the greatest scientists and physicists were also philosophers. I was simply trying to clarify categories and meanings, so we could have communication move forward, sensibly. Imo, there's no conversation possible without a grounded area to start and return to__That's all...

But lets clear the Deck

To me, We are all free to have our own ideas of 'Inflation' or the 'Big Bang' .....as we can't really 'G = Genericity = Perameterization' prior to that

That what G = Genericity = Parameterization is all about, a grounded area to start from, but 'Inflation' or 'BB' are not grounded positions__They're academic theories, totally unproven, so there's no ground there to start a sensible conversation from, or return to__so that requires some ground to start with. My ground is Earth, people and the known aspects of the Universe, not the theories of__The totally known true realities of__Thus far in time...

The fact that it exists is enough for me to accept 'that it exists'. Uncertainty in a Zero Value Field will eventually give rise to bigger (more divergent) events ...

This is just an assumption__you can't use an assumption as ground__It's unknown. What does zero value field mean...? Emmy Noether defined field as 0 or 1, i.e., non-existing or existing__and you can't use a non-existing field as anything but a false assumption. It's the same as saying nothing__Sorry, no thing, as a nothing state exists = Pure Meta-Non-Sense...
Zero Value Field = Meta-Physics ___Not valid in physics...

Until eventually, as the long odds become due, a large enough displacement will exceed a phase shift/transition, and there will be no going back. A new state will exist and a return to 'normal' will no longer be possible ..... because a phase shift/transition absorbs latent energy ... for no discernible output

This is what I mean by no ground. Assumptions are not allowed as ground in any science on or about Earth or the Universe. If you have hypotheses, you wish to discuss, you should state it as a hypothesis, and see if someone wants to participate, otherwise it just puts us both swimming in the big bad ocean, with no life-boat...

Gregs view of a Phase Transition Click

I read the link. Mostly standard chemistry and physics, which are both different aspects of the same subject, as I took them both in different classes, by the same professor/teacher...

But Please note ... from this point on I believe all else is explained as best it can be by current scientific opinion.

This leaves all the major scientific question areas avoided, just as Dave always wanted to do, and only talk about what we already know. There's nothing new to that since I first took high school chemistry, science and physics... That ain't what physics, chemistry, biology or any real investigative science is about, when addressing a ToE__It's about answering the Hard Questions, imo. Who needs to talk about what we already know, since youth...

I don't see a problem with 'Something' always having been in existence, it has the same probability as 'Nothing' having existed .... so I see 'Nothing' as a human measurement of a Zero Energy Field. I think the FS always existed.

And you don't see your blatant contradictions here between existing and not existing...? There's nowhere to go with this Greg__It's a blatent logical contradiction... Cake and eat it too... A zero energy field, can't be a dynamic FS with motion and mass potential__It can't be anything__except exaggerated meta-physical imagination...

Both you and Tim and Dave all have different explanations for this 'starting incident'. I suggest we leave it ... and if you like we can take it up again in the 'Something from Nothing' thread.

If you choose to include physics in your biological ideas, which I know you do, it can't be left out, as so many physics ideas either ground, or don't ground, in this very problem...

I suggest Bio-Evolution-Physics ? with whatever amount of 'meta' you deem necessary for teleological comprehension ??

Greg, teleology is not metaphysical, it's one of the four scientific branches of philosophy, and the only philosophy I use are its four science areas. Teleology is the same hypothesis, theory or imagination areas all science and physics uses. Most all contemplation is teleological, by nature Greg, or at the least requires teleological use to function...

For: I think it is more your interest ?
Against: I don't know a lot about philosophy ... meta ... [How many times I gotta tell you philosophy is both science and metaphysical. Science part applied to physics, and metaphysics part applied to areas science has no answers to, to bridge the gap__An absolute requirement of any extended dialogue...]
Against: I don't know all the correct terms [Common Sense... That's it...]
Against: I have not read any Philosophy for many years [You been on ToeQuest for years__It's better than 50% philosophy, and close to 49% psychology, and about 1% science...]
For: My belief is that we are biological and 'mind' is just a biological function of brain. If I'm right, then I should be able to defend it ... (I hope ... lolol)[No physics involved...? Which is it, as you mentioned using Bio-Evolution-Physics above...?]

Wish List: If we get hung on a semantic .... the person who used the word/phrase has the right to re-define (without changing the meaning) ... rather than be blanket-judged as incorrect ??

What starting parameters do you need as givens in order to proceed ?

genuine ... greg

Perameters __Define clearly the subject area, and clearly categorize, qualify and quantify as ideas develop...

Isn't the subject already: Darwin's Discovery: Design without a Designer ...? or do you wish it different, narrowed or widened...? It's your thread__Make your choices...

P.s.
Extrinsic and intrinsic forms and functions distinctions would also be useful, as perameter specifications of subject, as these create opposing meanings, i.e., where I may be talking about internal function, you may be talking about external function, etc...

[Graybeard]

Lets forget How the FS made the Universe ..... for this thread ??? Would that be OK ?? If there is something that you feel necessary and that has to be discussed to get past this ... then OK ... let me know.

Perameters __Define clearly the subject area

Parameter for Debate: Are we (Humans) special because of our apparent Intelligence and awareness ... in comparison to all other species. Discuss this in relation to Dawin's Theory of Natural Selection. (My viewpoint is No ... we are not special)

... and clearly categorize, ...

Category: Discuss the Assignment within the confines of the Hominid species. Reference may be made to other species for analogous purposes.

...qualify and quantify as ideas develop...

Basic Qualifications/Quantifications that may be further developed (they are non restrictive):

Is our affirmative perception of our inner self in relation to free will and free choice correct ...
or are we subject to the environment and driven where the wind blows.

I see the quantification of this statement best explained by Epiphenomenalism ... ( I see Epiphenomenalism as a newly emerging view and not fully developed) ....

Isn't the subject already: Darwin's Discovery: Design without a Designer ...? or do you wish it different, narrowed or widened...? It's your thread__Make your choices...

Hopefully I have answered this now ? Do you wish any inclusions/exclusions ...... ??

I have appended my viewpoint for this in Blue ..... could you please state yours in similar summary. (only as an opening for further discussion ..... in other words can you state where you will be coming from ?)

cool bananas ... greg

[labelwench]

Perhaps the only special thing about the human species, is that we seem to have evolved in our thinking a capacity for conceptual thought, including an ability to contemplate several ideas consecutively that may perceptually contradict each other.

I bring only my observations and have no interest in debating theory with theory. Neither waste your time in hanging any ideology on me, for I am always prepared to abandon one way of thinking for a more workable premise, so if you bet any money on how my mind works, ......you'll lose, lol....

This being a scientific thread, I would argue that observation has scientific merit, but if that's not adequate, then by all means banish me. 'Tis inconsequential in the greater scheme of things.

[Graybeard]

Perhaps the only special thing about the human species, is that we seem to have evolved in our thinking a capacity for conceptual thought

I would like to consider the 'conceptual thought' as imagination. To me it is 'imagination' that allows us to think not only what is possible .. but also what is not possible .... and I think this attribute is responsible for what we consider as free will and is possibly unique to Homo Sapiens .... others that possessed it having gone extinct.

cool bananas ... greg

[labelwench]

One of my applications of conceptual thought lies in problem solving.

I am able to visually place myself in several sets of circumstances, and then compare the outcomes, before determining which of these courses is preferable to proceed upon in pursuit of the desired outcome.

Just for chuckles, here's a link....

http://www.consciousentities.com/deadends.htm

[Graybeard]

To solve a problem ... you need to conceive of possible outcomes .... some bizarre and far from likely .. all the way to others most likely .... I think the word imagination serves.

Don't get me wrong ... conceptual thought is the same term to me ... but Lloyd wishes particular to develop a common set of terms ... or at least comparisons between terms.

fully agree with you

greg

[Graybeard]

lolol ... I can see that I will have need of that Link

Dualism is the belief that there are two different worlds, or two fundamentally different kinds of stuff, in existence: matter and spirit, for example. In spite of being the received wisdom for hundreds of years, it is actually unsustainable inits strict form. The problem arises when you consider how the two kinds of stuff, or the two worlds, interact.

If they interact directly, they are in effect parts of a single world after all, or different forms of essentially similar stuff.

greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lets forget How the FS made the Universe ..... for this thread ??? Would that be OK ?? If there is something that you feel necessary and that has to be discussed to get past this ... then OK ... let me know.

If the subject areas bring it up, I intend to go there, you can skip over, if you wish. I like my freedom, Greg, within limits...

Parameter for Debate: Are we (Humans) special because of our apparent Intelligence and awareness ... in comparison to all other species. Discuss this in relation to Dawin's Theory of Natural Selection. (My viewpoint is No ... we are not special)

Yes, end of story... We conceptualize future long term goals. We use a global communication system_the web__They can't. Other species instinctively hunt, or feed, they do not conceptualize, they see and feel only. Did you ever see a wild animal sitting around thinking...? If so, how would you know...? This question is not really answerable, and uninteresting... What does special mean...? You say you don't want philosophy, then first thing, you throw in a philosophical meaning issue... Special needs scientific defining by you to procede. Also intelligence needs defining, as I don't see humans any smarter than microbes__yet__due to 7,000 years of recorded history showing nothing but our creating poverty, crime and war. I think the microbes are smarter than that...

Category: Discuss the Assignment within the confines of the Hominid species. Reference may be made to other species for analogous purposes.

Greg, sorry to inform you, but I'm not going to study any of this. Present what you think, then we can speak. I'm not interested in discussing academic knowns. I want to know what you think, not what Darwin thought. I already read Darwin, years ago__Evolution works__So what... ? I think intelligence is un-definable__it's comparable within our own species, but absolutely undefinable in relation to other species. To define intelligence would require you to study epistemology, which is the science of the limits and contents of a brain/mind, of what can and can't be known...

Basic Qualifications/Quantifications that may be further developed (they are non restrictive):

Good then__A Big Bumble-Bee made and controls the entire Universe and all bio-evolution...

Is our affirmative perception of our inner self in relation to free will and free choice correct ...
or are we subject to the environment and driven where the wind blows.

Both...

I see the quantification of this statement best explained by Epiphenomenalism ... ( I see Epiphenomenalism as a newly emerging view and not fully developed) ....

I thought you didn't want to talk philosophy__Epistemological studies in this area are advancing rapidly, as I've posted many times on East Meets West. Btw Greg, this is an old study in epistemology, been around for centuries... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism So, what about it... ?

Hopefully I have answered this now ? Do you wish any inclusions/exclusions ...... ??

I think you have enough to deal with for now...

I have appended my viewpoint for this in Blue ..... could you please state yours in similar summary. (only as an opening for further discussion ..... in other words can you state where you will be coming from ?)

cool bananas ... greg

Greg, on my thread and elswere I expressed my views. It isn't you that's the problem. I just think, as I stated weeks ago, the fact there's no scientifically defined language to discuss this subject objectively. Until a language is developed, that doesn't have so many words and terms that are really scientifically undefinable, being used in it__I don't think it can sensibly be discussed... If you use bio-physics evolution or bio-chemistry evolution, where clearly there are some scientific knowns to attack natural selection's language deficiency, then it may be able to be discussed__but I see no way to use the standard language of the subject, to discuss it sensibly scientifically... Seriously, imo, there's just not enough hard scientific information known yet, about natural selection, to allow sensible scientific discussion, though it be true, with enough study of all it's disparate pieces, there seems no unified presentation to ground. I've never seen one...

If you think it is, then write your own personal post about it, so someone will have some meat to tackle. So far, your only giving far too small a bits and pieces of your own ideas, and a lot of others. I am only going to discuss yours__So where's you...?