A simple start?

_{idnet.com.au
October 20, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In case we did not know, New Scientist confirms that at the base of the (postulated) tree of life is an extremely complex life form, much like a modern cell.

“There is no doubt that the progenitor of all life on Earth, the common ancestor, possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.”

It is easy (or not) to imagine something as simple as that arising by natural processes.

here

Comments

Mr BA^77, I accept that you are a devout Christian. Please accept that I am not.Nakashima_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Nak, you state "I do think you are sliding too easily from talking about the mind to talking about the soul." which made me remember this: I think therefore I am. i.e. What difference does it make Nak??? All this intellectual posturing you dance around with is of course pointless to the now established fact that we each do indeed have a soul/mind,,, A soul/mind which must give account to its Creator upon death!!! A truly fearsome event when taking into consideration this Creator created the entire universe with His spoken word!!!! A Creator so holy and powerful that we will be utterly unable to stand before His presence unless we have accepted the sanctification provided before us in Christ,,,I don't know about you but I take this matter very seriously,,,and have seen enough in this life to KNOW this is no game,,,,and I graciously accept the free gift of Christ's salvation into my heart so that I may be able to stand in that day I am called to give account to God,,, I can only hope that you would reach out to Him as well,,,bornagain77_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Mr Vjtorley, Yes computational halting did come up in that thread, and you can see that my questions were the same back then! I will see if Mr Abel will be interested in joining our discussion here.Nakashima_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Thank you for the links to NDE stuff, I know very little about this area. I do think you are sliding too easily from talking about the mind to talking about the soul.Nakashima_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Here is a poem and a few songs for you Nak, Wake Me O Lord Wake me O Lord from this sleep of mine To the living wonders of creation that are so fine With a "Oh, that’s nice" I shall not content NO, only when You speak shall my heart be spent Others may suffice their cravings of Awe With an "Oh Well" shrug of the wonders they saw But I know You are in each piece of reality Yes, in the wind, the stars, and even the sea So this vow to You I make No rest in me my heart will take Till Your face and hands again I see In the many waters of reality For the truth be known to You indeed That if I see You not with my heart and head I’m not really born again, but instead am dead Evanescence - "Bring Me To Life" - Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3ORuIBjjBU Brooke Fraser- "C S Lewis Song" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHpuTGGRCbYbornagain77_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Mr. Nakashima (#45) I'm not an out-and-out interactionist dualist, but I would call myself a hylomorphic dualist. I don't think the soul acts on the brain as a separate substance, but I do think that some of our mental acts (especially acts of reasoning, understanding and free choice) are non-physical acts. The fact that the SMA receives input from another part of the brain doesn't bother me, so long as no-one tries to make the scientifically unsubstantiated claim that this input determines the subsequent activity of the SMA. The neural inputs to the SMA are causes, but not determining causes. It is the individual's free will that determines how the individual acts, by selecting from a range of available neural pathways. But this selection is done from within, not without. There isn't a spooky entity 10 centimeters above my head, pushing the neurons around. If you had a look at the wiring of a monkey brain and a human brain around the SMA, I'd expect to find qualitative differences in organization between the two, accounting for the fact that the latter is a non-deterministic system. Free will is a hypothesis with testable consequences at the neural level. If you want to have a look at some recent scientific articles refuting the claim that all our behavior has to be determined, then I suggest you have a look at my Web page at http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve2.html#soul-answers and scroll down to "Refutation of Neurological arguments against the possibility of free will." After that, you might like to have a look here at links to articles refuting materialism: http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve2.html#soul-arguments Happy hunting.vjtorley_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

in further note: The Brain is Non-Materialistic In Its Organizational Structure thus strongly suggesting the brain is designed by a "living transcendent Being" instead of an accident of the random actions of "dead material particles" of which life supposedly accidentally emerged from: Brain Innately Separates Living And Non-living Objects For Processing http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813142430.htm Category-Specific Organization in the Human Brain Does Not Require Visual Experience: Distinct regions within the ventral visual pathway show neural specialization for nonliving and living stimuli (e.g., tools, houses versus animals, faces). The causes of these category preferences are widely debated. http://www.citeulike.org/user/PaperCollector/article/5443232 The preceding fact is a very curious thing to know when seeing how people react to statements about the "Living" God: To The Brain, God Is Just Another Guy Grafman says there were some differences between religious and nonreligious people. Those who said they believed in God had a negative emotional response to statements like, "There is no higher purpose." Nonbelievers had the same reaction to statements that assumed God exists. http://current.com/items/89919809_to-the-brain-god-is-just-another-guy.htm The Mind and Materialist Superstition - Six "conditions of mind" that are irreconcilable with materialism: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.htmlbornagain77_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Take away the brain Nak? I could say something but I'm trying (real hard) to be nice to materialists/atheists,,, A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs Pim van Lommel Excerpt: So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body. http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The NDE of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA37uNa3VGU It should be noted: All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian, culture NDE studies, I have looked at, have a extreme rarity of encounters with "The Being Of Light". The following study is shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE's: Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt: The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm So Nak,,, What have you got to support your materialistic philosophy??? Nothing!!! Summary of paper: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9bornagain77_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Mr. Nakashima (#44) I see that the topic of computational halting has come up in an earlier thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-eric-anderson-david-chiu-kirk-durston-mentioned-favorably-in-id-sympathetic-peer-reviewed-article/ May I make a practical suggestion? If you want to know exactly what David Abel means by computational halting, then why don't you ask him? I'm sure he wouldn't mind. You can find his contact details here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19333445?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSumvjtorley_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, You could start with the wiki page for "Extended Phenotype", but the book is the thing to understand the concept. As fascinating as I'm sure quantum teleportation is, I'm not sure what it buys you as an explanation. Lets do the experiment and sever all connection between the SMA of these monkeys and the rest of their brains. That should reveal whether the information is arriving at the SMA via quantum teleportation or more conventional means. But lets assume it is arriving mirabile dictu, on the QT. A physical state at place A influences a physical state at place B. It could have been through smoke signals and the Pony Express, you started with a physical state, and you ended with a physical state. Perhaps you'd like to argue that the information instantiated as a state of being is arriving from something other than another physyical system, not another part of the brain. Lets do the experiment! Start taking out parts of the brain that are disconnected from the SMA. If you can take the whole brain away, and the SMA is still receiving signals from the ether to initiate voluntary actions, get your tuxedo ready for the Nobel ceremony. But I am predicting that is not the outcome you observe.Nakashima_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Nak, in trying to understand you reference to "SMA is connected to nothing, charged by nothing, and yet directs the voluntary muscles to move," The mind is held to be transcendent and to have dominion of the "material": To prove this point that "nothing", in the sense of something non-material, has dominion of the material, I reference quantum teleportation in which transcendent information exercised dominion of material,,,,to the point, I might add, of violating the first law in a controlled manner.bornagain77_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Nak, I ain't let you wiggle out of this one after all the work that has gone into refuting "hidden variables,,,explain exactly what you mean by "extended phenotype"bornagain77_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, I'm sorry, you're tilting at windmills. I don't hold that the mind is nothing. I don't even hold that the mind is only the individual's brain state. I accept the concept of "extended phenotype".Nakashima_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

further notes: I find it extremely interesting that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its "uncertain" 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that I exist? Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place,,, This is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence they seem to be having a extremely difficult time "unifying" mathematically (Einstein, Penrose). Yet, a unification which Jesus apparently seems to have joined together with His resurrection: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do2KUiPEL5U The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 - William Dembski Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature." St. Augustine Thus, much contrary to the mediocrity of earth, and of humans, brought about by the heliocentric discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus, the findings of modern science are very comforting to Theistic postulations in general, and even lends strong support of plausibility to the main tenet of Christianity which holds Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth." Of related interest, this following article is interesting for it draws attention to the fact that humans "just so happen" to be near the logarithmic center of the universe, between Planck's length and the cosmic horizon of the cosmic background radiation (10^-33 cm and 10^28 cm respectively) . The View from the Centre of the Universe by Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel R. Primack Excerpt: The size of a human being is near the centre of all possible sizes. http://www.popularscience.co.uk/features/feat24.htmbornagain77_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Well Nak, The overriding emphasis of the studies of seems to be The sequence of "firing in the brain" seems to be exactly opposite of what is expected of a materialistic presuppositions.... which forces me to ask "will you ever be fair with anything that supports the independence of mind?" But to refute your "the mind is "nothing" deception,,, In conjunction with the mathematical necessity of an "Uncaused Cause" to explain the beginning of the universe, in philosophy it has been shown that,,, "The 'First Mover' is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor - Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html#more I find this centuries old philosophical argument, for the necessity of a "First Mover" accounting for change occurring at each moment, to be validated by quantum mechanics. This is since the possibility for the universe to be considered a "closed system" of cause and effect is removed with the refutation of the "hidden variable" argument. i.e. There must be a sufficient transcendent cause (God/First Mover) to explain the quantum wave collapse to the "uncertain" 3D effect for "each moment" of the universe. This following study solidly refutes the "hidden variable" argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of this instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" found in quantum mechanics. Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for “spooky” forces, as Einstein termed them—forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) Why, who makes much of a miracle? As to me, I know of nothing else but miracles, Whether I walk the streets of Manhattan, Or dart my sight over the roofs of houses toward the sky,,, Walt Whitman - Miracles Moreover, the transcendent cause must be sufficient to explain the semi-unique effect of 3D centrality witnessed by each individual observer in the universe. Quantum Mechanics - The Limited Role Of The Observer - Michael Strauss - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elg83xUZZBs That the "mind" of a individual observer would play such an integral yet not complete "closed system role", in the instantaneous quantum wave collapse of the universe to "3D centrality", gives us clear evidence that our "mind" is a unique entity. A unique entity with a superior quality of existence when compared to the "uncertain 3D particles" of the universe. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Of more importance though, the "effect", of universal quantum wave collapse to each "central 3D observer", gives us clear evidence of the extremely special importance that the "cause", of the "Infinite Mind of God", places on each of our own individual minds over the "uncertain 3D particles. Psalm 139:17-18 How precious concerning me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you.bornagain77_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Eccles' opinion is neither here nor there. As the previous page quotes Porter and Brinkman, the SMA discharge precedes the voluntary muscle discharge, and the premotor cortex has a discharge that precedes the SMA discharge (that little 'except' phrase at the end of the sentence). If you'd like to claim that the SMA is connected to nothing, charged by nothing, and yet directs the voluntary muscles to move, then I would admit that you've found a locus in the physical brain that may act as a connection point bewtween physical brain and immaterial mind. Alas, that is not the case. The charge of the SMA which is discharged arrives from some other physical part of the brain.Nakashima_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

correction: should read ,,,,"insuperable" difficulty,,,,bornagain77_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Nak, that is gross cherry picking on your part, Are you being intentionally deceptive? Or do you truly think you are right?,,,, please Read the preceding pages of the link carefully. Specifically this quote which immediately precedes the link: "As I remarked earlier, this may present an "insuperable" for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain." Ecclesbornagain77_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, The quoted text just shows that the firing of some neurons precedes the activation of nerves out to the muscles. That is a better proof that the mind is the brain than the oposite.Nakashima_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Mr Vjtorley, Thank you for those references. In the blog comment, computational halting is used at is in mathematical discussions of Turing Machines. If Abel is the same as David Abel is unclear from that small sample of his writing. The book chapter I had previously found. While it makes the interesting claim that function can be defined as computational halting, it also doesn't stop to define the term, so we are even worse off than before. Obviously, Abel is free to define a technical vocabulary for his own work, a la the Red Queen of Lewis Carroll. But it is a serious problem to equate "function" and "computational halting". Taking these terms in their common values, a program that computes the digits of pi that halts is not functioning. There are many real time systems in health care and defense applications for which halting = failure, not function. The program inside an iPod, or similar appliance, is probably an infinite loop. But in the vocabulary of Abel himself, perhaps these counter-examples are meaningless. Without clear definitions it is hard to tell.Nakashima_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Seversky: At least they are trying to work out an explanation of how ... I agree, this is progress toward an explanation of undirected abiogenesis, if we assume in advance that some form of undirected abiogenesis is responsible. (When I say "some form" it sounds like there are a few to pick from, when in fact none are known.) There's a massive assumption factored into your conclusion. ... rather than sitting back lazily content with an assertion of who. Leaving aside the "who" which I'm sure you know does not pertain to ID, your use of the term "lazy" is curious. Are you suggesting that, having determined intelligence as the probable cause, one's work ethic should motivate him to abandon that conclusion in favor of a more challenging one?ScottAndrews_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Cabal:
I don’t (or maybe I do) understand why the brain consume so much energy?
Your brain is made up of mostly neurons (nerve cells). In order to send signals down a neuron pumps have to activated and inactivated in sequence. These pumps carry the signal down the neuron. After each signal is sent the neuron must be reset in order to be ready for the next. Now think of that happening to 100 billion neurons and you will understand where the energy goes/ is required.Joseph_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Doomsday thanks for pointing out the edit,,,should have known better than to trust wiki for a source,,, Yet to be honest,,,in looking at the papers,,,whomever originally wrote the wiki article must have seen something in the papers that stood out to him as a violation to the second law (conforming to Landauers principle in that no memory is erased). In fact on closer examination, I think the original author of the wiki article may be on to something, in his hunch of the study conforming to Landauer's Principle, in that it seems the merging of two rhythms (computational paths) is not performed in the brain to achieve a third rhythm (an answer), (see original ref.) specifically this excerpt: Temporal Interactions between Cortical Rhythms: Excerpt: With a ratio of c.1.6 not only can gamma and beta2 rhythms concatenate to form a beta1 rhythm, but beta2 and beta1 rhythms may concatenate to form an alpha rhythm and alpha and beta1 rhythms concatenate to form a theta rhythm etc. Thus a hierarchical arrangement of frequencies may exist through concatenation in a similar manner to that seen for nested rhythms, but on a finer temporal scale. Such an arrangement fits the hierarchical organisation of network anatomy in the brain very well (Sporns et al., 2004), and has been inferred from the dynamic profile of human EEG data (Weiss and Weiss, 2003). This pattern of inter-relationships between discrete rhythms may provide a possible network dynamic substrate for multi-scale, parallel processing of sensory information over a range of temporal (Wiskott and Sejnowski, 2002) and spatial scales (Smith et al., 2006). However, to date, experimental evidence for such an association is not available. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622758/ Does such evidence for rhythms maintaining their discreteness (nonerasure of information by a "merging" of paths) qualify as computation based on Landauer's principle??? Well the similarity to what would be expected for a "computation in the brain" based on Landauer's principle is simply uncanny in that regard, and I will have to say the original authors hunch, that the brain processes information based on Landauer's principle, is not without substantial merit! But as so far as a direct and strict correlation to "bits of information", as Landauer's is rigorously defined, I have to side with you on this matter and say that the inference falls far short of a rigid proof that Landauers Principle requires. But to defend the main overriding postulation that Mind is a separate entity from brain ,I hold that that particular postulation is indeed shown to be true! I provide this one reference for one proof of many: In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether. http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28 "Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder." Heinrich Heine - in the year 1834bornagain77_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

I don't (or maybe I do) understand why the brain consume so much energy? (At least mine, I don't know about others.)Cabal_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews @ 17
If it’s even possible that such a once-in-a-billion-year miracle could occur, it seems likely that it would end within seconds. And even that initial possibility is only a hypothesis.
Actually, we can demonstrate the results for them. Simialr to what Jonthan Wells proposed, we can take living cells, cut them open and stuff the material into a rock pore. Even eleiminate any harmful radicals that might cause interfering cross reactions, add some nutrients, emerase it back into the water. Come back next year and see how many of the other pores are loaded with "chemical life". :P I know where I'm placing my bets!JGuy_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

BA^77 @ 24
Landauer’s principle In 2003 Weiss and Weiss came to the conclusion that information processing by the brain has to be based on Landauer’s principle. In 2008 this has been empirically confirmed by a group of neurobiologists.,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....._principle
I've seen you (and another poster who also likes using multiple sequential commas for no apparent reason) post this multiple times in the past few days. Here's the thing: it's apparently completely untrue. The Wiki article no longer includes that paragraph, the reason given for the edit being "Neither article makes direct reference to this principle." So, checking around, I found a free version of the Weiss and Weiss paper, and also of the paper which supposedly confirms that the "brain processes information in violation of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy)", as you have put it. Sure enough, neither one has anything to say about Landauer's Principle. Not a single mention. I don't know where you acquired this notion of the brain violating the laws of thermodynamics from or why you thought these papers supported it, BA^77, especially given that the Wiki article itself clearly states that "Landauer's principle can be understood to be a simple logical consequence of the second law of thermodynamics" (bolding mine), but it's utterly unfounded. Probably best to stop posting about it at every opportunity, given the facts.Doomsday Smith_{October 21, 2009
October
10
Oct
21
21
2009
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

vjtorley I've seen those anti-Atwill sites and I'm underwhelmed, since they artuflly dodge Atwill's main points, but this is not the place to discuss it. (Suggestions as to where?)Interstelar Bill_{October 20, 2009
October
10
Oct
20
20
2009
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

Mr. Nakashima (#34) Perhaps this paper might explain what Abel was getting at. (Incidentally, I have absolutely no idea whether the "Abel" referred to in the article is the same Abel as David Abel, who is commonly cited in recent ID literature.) A Short Note on the Halting Problem by Kurt van Etten. David Abel and Jack Trevors have written an article which explains fairly clearly what they mean by "computational halting," in my opinion. I suggest you start from page 5: http://books.google.com/books?id=GvRmYbN3n6UC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=Abel+computational+halting&source=bl&ots=-ZMadZJtiu&sig=p02TB5PxYsCDr2czb_JIj9d7fJQ&hl=en&ei=Go_eSsPABtmDkAXWkcUU&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Abel%20computational%20halting&f=false I hope that helps.vjtorley_{October 20, 2009
October
10
Oct
20
20
2009
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

Interstellar Bill (#11, #14, #23) I found your remarks on the Russell-Martin hypothesis very interesting. It certainly merits a lot more respect than any other hypothesis that has been proposed to date regarding the origin of life. I've been having a look at the New Scientist link, How life evolved: 10 steps to the first cells accompanying the article on Rusell & Martin's pioneering research work. I had a problem with Step 5:
Thermal currents and diffusion within the vent pores concentrated larger molecules like nucleotides, driving the formation of RNA and DNA – and providing an ideal setting for their evolution into the world of DNA and proteins.
I have to say that this sounds a bit like hand-waving. If it really happened that way, well and good. But the point I'd like to make here is that if it did, then the natural chemical pathways leading to the formation of proteins must have been rigged in advance by God, the Author of nature, as mindless processes could never have generated the information in an average protein without some intelligent assistance. Perhaps this is your own position - you write that you believe "God made all those pores, by arranging the laws of nature, to be sure life would arise with no Divine intervention." Fair enough. But I cannot follow you when you write that "[o]pponents of abiogenesis used to argue the impossibility of any natural process ever producing usable concentrations of nucleic acids or proteins." Now, if you are defining "natural process" to include chemical pathways set up by God, then i'd say that's certainly possible. However, the point I'd like to make here is that there are some pretty solid grounds for believing that an Intelligence was required to account for the emergence of proteins on the primordial earth. Instead of linking to a ton of different papers, I'd like to focus on just one: Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life? by K. D. Kalinsky (2008). Interestingly, the author does not argue that natural selection was incapable of producing the first living things; rather, he argues that if it did so, then the "fitness landscapes" which natural selection presupposes must have been designed by some Intelligence. Proteins are one of the central illustrations used by Kalinsky of structures requiring intelligent design. After rigorously defining "functional information," he examines two particular proteins, SecY and RecA, which are found in all living things, and would therefore be required in a minimal genome. Kalinsky cites calculations estimating that the functional information in the two proteins is 832 bits and 688 bits for RecA and SecY respectively, and concludes that the average 300-amino acid protein has around 700 bits of functional information. He calculates that "ID is 10^155 times more probable than mindless natural processes to produce the average protein," and concludes that "if natural selection is invoked to explain the origin of proteins, a fitness function will be necessary that requires intelligent design." He goes on to estimate that the simplest life form would have had 267,000 bits of functional information. At the end of his article, he writes:
If life is the product of natural selection and an extremely complex fitness landscape, then we can conclude that it is extremely likely that intelligent design was required to configure the fitness function... Intelligent design would also be the most probable explanation for any fitness function operative in natural selection that could successfully locate the folding proteins required for life.
I'd like to know what you think of Kalinsky's article.vjtorley_{October 20, 2009
October
10
Oct
20
20
2009
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

My Google-fu has failed me again. I can find no reference other than Abel himself that uses "computational halting" in the same way he does, as in the phrases "acheive computational halting" or "produce computational halting". But this is a term Abel never defines in his papers. Does anyone have a clue what Abel actually means?Nakashima_{October 20, 2009
October
10
Oct
20
20
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply