Can nature itself create genetic engineering?

_{News
September 15, 2015

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Readers may recall that I (O’Leary for News) have been writing a series on how evolution can actually happen, and not the bumf people are forced to pay taxes for (Darwinism).

(Evolution does not necessarily produce really big changes, but that isn’t the same thing as saying it doesn’t happen.)

Anyway,here’s one theory that makes some sense:

—

But some entities in nature are not material at all: the number 7 comes to mind. Some philosophers have argued that we can construct a theory of items grouped by sevens without using a concept like 7. But whatever advantages these philosophers’ suggestion may offer, it does not represent what people do. We have an immaterial concept of 7 that organizes items and events, instantiated in various media at various times. It is natural without being material in any meaningful way.

Life forms seem to be somehow in between. They are material, but unlike stones, they don’t just exist. They want to exist, and to go on existing. They often seem to have a number of additional, related goals.

If Dr. Shapiro can account for the purposeful way in which life forms strive to sustain their own existence as part of a natural world, it is — as he clearly recognizes — a natural world that is far removed from the Darwinism of the science textbooks, which emphasizes the random nature of these processes.

—

See also: Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back

Comments

Nightlight,
BOX: However, what I do know is that there is no arrangement of matter-energy that causes consciousness.

NL: Therefore you have no basis to proclaim, as you kept doing in several posts, that any particular system has (such as human) or has not (such a ball) any consciousness.
You don’t get it. No particular system has consciousness. Consciousness is not something that systems have. Consciousness is primary.
NL: It is nothing more than your personal view (which I happen not to share).
No, it’s not. I have provided several arguments in our previous encounters.
As to whether there is “arrangement of matter-energy that causes consciousness” that’s an open question in the present science i.e. neither “yes” nor “no” is the correct answer as you are asserting, but all one can say is “the answer is presently unknown”. Hence, you have no scientific basis to make even that assertion either.
“Science” struggles with a severe naturalistic bias. Don’t pretend you don’t know this.Box_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

@26 However, what I do know is that there is no arrangement of matter-energy that causes consciousness. Therefore you have no basis to proclaim, as you kept doing in several posts, that any particular system has (such as human) or has not (such a ball) any consciousness. It is nothing more than your personal view (which I happen not to share). As to whether there is "arrangement of matter-energy that causes consciousness" that's an open question in the present science i.e. neither "yes" nor "no" is the correct answer as you are asserting, but all one can say is "the answer is presently unknown". Hence, you have no scientific basis to make even that assertion either.nightlight_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Nightlight: Neither you nor the “News” author of the top post know what arrangement of matter-energy is associated with consciousness (much less how) to make up pronouncements as you both did.
I don't care about "association". That's your thing. However, what I do know is that there is no arrangement of matter-energy that causes consciousness.Box_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

@24 It, i.e. the empirical evidence from quantum mechanics, (see post 10 and 13), is unambiguous in its conclusion that consciousness must be primary to matter-energy. No there isn't any such "evidence". There are informal stories told by people about them, though. But there is no "consciousness" in either Quantum Mechanics theory or experiment, or for that matter in any other branch of physics or natural science. Your resolution is unfortunately much too low to be able to tell the difference between experimental observations and subsequent informal sales pitch about them aiming to attract attention and funding. We already went over it at some length few times on UD e.g. in a long UD thread from 2013, starting with post #7 and post #155, plus several other posts there.nightlight_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

nightlight, the experimental evidence I highlighted is not 'speculation' as you are falsely, and repeatedly, claiming. It, i.e. the empirical evidence from quantum mechanics, (see post 10 and 13), is unambiguous in its conclusion that consciousness must be primary to matter-energy. Since material reality does not exist until conscious observation is made, (i.e. until measurement is made - see post 13), then that necessarily dictates that there is something about our conscious observation that takes precedence over material reality. There simply is, no matter how much you desire the conclusion to be otherwise, no other conclusion available from the evidence. Only Theism offers the correct solution to the enigma of quantum wave collapse in that not only is God postulated to have created all of material reality, but Theism also holds that God breathed the 'breath of life' into man so that man became a 'living soul'.
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.
Thus, the profound enigma of material reality not existing until conscious observation is made finds a ready solution in Theism and only Theism in that only Theism holds there to be something transcendent within us that precedes material reality..
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables - Scott Aaronson - MIT associate Professor Excerpt: "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness - January 18, 2012 Excerpt: (Proof # 2) If you believe in the theory of Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function. If consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence. Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes. Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true. http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/01/18/logical-proofs-of-infinite-external-consciousness/
Any other worldview, rather than Theism, that tries to place consciousness as emergent from, or co-terminus with, material reality simply completely fails to provide a coherent explanation for the empirical evidence, (i.e. real time evidence), we now have in hand from quantum mechanics.
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The main originator of Quantum Theory - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797) Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
of final note: Since I do not expect nightlight to ever be honest towards the evidence, this will be my last response to him on the subject. I simply have better things to do than pointlessly argue with a dogmatist for hours and hours who misrepresents the state of evidence.bornagain77_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

@21 Ok, and I have pointed out that you need causation — “association” gets you nowhere. That doesn't mean one should pretend to know and make things up, as the top post and your subsequent defense of it do. Neither you nor the "News" author of the top post know what arrangement of matter-energy is associated with consciousness (much less how) to make up pronouncements as you both did. NDE experiences firmly contradict a continuous “association” and so does hemispherectomy. It "contradicts" (in a somewhat ambiguous way) the assumption that human needs to be clinically alive for consciousness normally associated with particular body to exist. It doesn't contradict assumption that consciousness is associated with matter-energy in other states than clinically alive. To the degree that anything is implied by these kinds of ambiguous phenomena, they support more general nature of the association, including possibility that consciousness is associated with non-live matter-energy configurations i.e. panpsychism.nightlight_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

@20 Namely, your claim is completely science-free, evidence-free, speculation. (i.e. Exactly what you are now disingenuously accusing me of) There is no scientific claim to be made about consciousness since there is no science of consciousness, only thousands of years of speculations.nightlight_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Nightlight: I have consistently used term “associated” not “caused” and that is correct summary of the present state of knowledge. Nature of that association is still mystery for the natural science.
Ok, and I have pointed out that you need causation — “association” gets you nowhere. -- NDE experiences firmly contradict a continuous "association" and so does hemispherectomy.Box_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

nightlight, I don't remember your exact atheistic position and really don't care what it is since your current claim for consciousness is in the same league as neo-Darwinian claims. Namely, your claim is completely science-free, evidence-free, speculation. (i.e. Exactly what you are now disingenuously accusing me of) Of supplemental note to the Leggett and Wheeler style experiments that I have already cited that empirically back up my Theistic position in an over the top fashion:
Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of consciousness’s central role in the experiment: Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012 Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6·10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE Psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interactions with a double-slit interference pattern - Dean Radin, Leena Michel, James Johnston, and Arnaud Delorme - December 2013 Abstract: Previously reported experiments suggested that interference patterns generated by a double-slit optical system were perturbed by a psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interaction. Three new experiments were conducted to further investigate this phenomenon. The first study consisted of 50 half-hour test sessions where participants concentrated their attention-toward or -away from a double-slit system located 3 m away. The spectral magnitude and phase associated with the double-slit component of the interference pattern were compared between the two attention conditions, and the combined results provided evidence for an interaction,,,. One hundred control sessions using the same equipment, protocol and analysis, but without participants present, showed no effect,,,. The second experiment used a duplicate double-slit system and similar test protocol, but it was conducted over the Internet by streaming data to participants’ web browsers. Some 685 people from six continents contributed 2089 experimental sessions. Results were similar to those observed in the first experiment, but smaller in magnitude,,,. Data from 2303 control sessions, conducted automatically every 2 h using the same equipment but without observers showed no effect. Distance between participants and the optical system, ranging from 1 km to 18,000 km, showed no correlation with experimental effect size. The third experiment used a newly designed double-slit system, a revised test protocol, and a simpler method of statistical analysis. Twenty sessions contributed by 10 participants successfully replicated the interaction effect observed in the first two studies. http://deanradin.com/evidence/RadinPhysicsEssays2013.pdf
bornagain77_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

@15 You do not know that consciousness is caused by the arrangement of matter that constitutes your body. Recheck the posts, I never said that. You even twist the quote you yourself cited one line before. As you can plainly see, I have consistently used term "associated" not "caused" and that is correct summary of the present state of knowledge. Nature of that association is still mystery for the natural science. Since (a) is contradicted by counter-example (my own consciousness), the most economical position for me is (b) -- consciousness is associated with all arrangements of matter-energy i.e. panpsychism.nightlight_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

@16 Says the man who defends a science-free, evidence-free, neo-Darwinian view of reality. Surprised to see such absurd claim after that Marathon thread you and I debated the same topics. I never defended neo-Darwinism. Of course that doesn't mean I support Seattle ID (aka 'god of gaps' promoted by Meyer).nightlight_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

'Nature cannot produce codes and living organisms are ruled by codes.' - Virgil Cain @ #12 Don't confuse nightlight et al with q.e.d.-type, primordial facts, Virg, there's a good chap. In even a half-sane world, there would no longer be any atheists, would there? Amazing.Axel_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

as to: "You obviously can’t tell the difference between science and speculations by scientists." Says the man who defends a science-free, evidence-free, neo-Darwinian view of reality. A view of reality where completely unfounded speculations about how the jaw dropping complexity in life came about constantly take the place of real word empirical evidences and observations. To call neo-Darwinism a pseudo-science is an insult to astrologers and palm readers.
"Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s Finally, a Detailed, Stepwise Proposal for a Major Evolutionary Change? - Michael Behe - March 10, 2015 Excerpt: I would say its (Nick Matzke's 2004 proposal for the evolution of the flagellum) chief problem is that it's terminally fuzzy, bases most of its speculation on sequence comparisons, and glides over difficulties that would have to be dealt with in nature.,,, That's one reason I wrote The Edge of Evolution -- to say that we no longer have to rely on our imaginations, that we have good evidence to show what Darwinian processes are capable of doing. When we look to see what they do when we are watching, we never see the sorts of progressive building of coherent systems that Darwinists imagine. Rather, we see tinkering around the edges with preexisting systems or degradation of complex systems to gain short-term advantage. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/finally_a_detai094271.html The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria) 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation experiments it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis) 5. Darwinism, per Imre Lakatos, is found to be a ‘degenerating programme’ where ‘theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” 6. Darwinism hinders scientific progress by making fundamental false predictions (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc..), https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html Darwinian 'science' in a nutshell: Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate - April 20, 2015 Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution: 1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact. 2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution]. 3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory. 4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/jon-wells-on-pop-science-boilerplate/
bornagain77_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Nightlight: There are 2 propositions that require the least number of unproven assumptions: a) No arrangement is associated with consciousness. b) All arrangements are associated with consciousness.
I go with (a) .
Nightlight: Since I know that at least one arrangement is associated with consciousness (one that makes my own body), that observation falsifies (a), (...)
You do not know that consciousness is caused by the arrangement of matter that constitutes your body. Correlation (or “association”) doesn’t constitute causation. The observation of correlation does not falsify (a).Box_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

@13 You obviously can't tell the difference between science and speculations by scientists. We've been around this circle few times before.nightlight_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

nightlight,
Consciousness Does Not Compute (and Never Will), Says Korean Scientist - May 05, 2015 Excerpt: "Non-computability of Consciousness" documents Song's quantum computer research into TS (technological singularity (TS) or strong artificial intelligence). Song was able to show that in certain situations, a conscious state can be precisely and fully represented in mathematical terms, in much the same manner as an atom or electron can be fully described mathematically. That's important, because the neurobiological and computational approaches to brain research have only ever been able to provide approximations at best. In representing consciousness mathematically, Song shows that consciousness is not compatible with a machine. Song's work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie." Of note: Daegene Song obtained his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Oxford http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/consciousness-does-not-compute-and-never-will-says-korean-scientist-300077306.html Reply to Mathematical Error in "Incompatibility Between Quantum Theory and Consciousness" - Daegene Song - 2008 http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/download/176/176 Sentient robots? Not possible if you do the maths - 13 May 2014 Over the past decade, Giulio Tononi at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his colleagues have developed a mathematical framework for consciousness that has become one of the most influential theories in the field. According to their model, the ability to integrate information is a key property of consciousness. ,,, But there is a catch, argues Phil Maguire at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth. He points to a computational device called the XOR logic gate, which involves two inputs, A and B. The output of the gate is "1" if A and B are the same and "0" if A and B are different. In this scenario, it is impossible to predict the output based on A or B alone – you need both. Crucially, this type of integration requires loss of information, says Maguire: "You have put in two bits, and you get one out. If the brain integrated information in this fashion, it would have to be continuously haemorrhaging information.",,, Based on this definition, Maguire and his team have shown mathematically that computers can't handle any process that integrates information completely. If you accept that consciousness is based on total integration, then computers can't be conscious. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25560-sentient-robots-not-possible-if-you-do-the-maths.html#.U3LD5ChuqCe
as to your unfounded speculation that consciousness could possibly be emergent from, or co-terminus with, material reality,
"No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it." Larry Dossey
that completely unfounded materialistic speculation is now empirically falsified by the fact that material reality does not even exist prior to conscious observation. Leggett’s Inequality, the mathematics behind it, and the Theistic implications of it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:
Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449 Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system – Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: “This represents a violation of (Leggett’s) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results.” The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize. John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it. How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?” per Jimfit – UD blogger
Besides Leggett’s Inequality, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice was recently extended beyond merely photons to atoms and gave the same result as Leggett’s. Namely, ‘reality doesn’t exist without an observer’
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
To say these recent findings in quantum mechanics undermine materialistic presuppositions in regards to consciousness possibly being 'emergent' from a material basis would be a drastic understatement. Perhaps a more fitting description of what these finding do to materialistic presuppositions is illustrated in the following video:
Atomic Bomb blast with shock and effects in HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dflLFFZcZ0w
bornagain77_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

Nature cannot produce codes and living organisms are ruled by codes.Virgil Cain_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

@10 You're simply listing various personal speculations. The actual fact is that there is no quantity or variable C or some such standing for "consciousness" in Quantum Theory or in any other theory. Zilch. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you smoke and mirrors. Some people just love to tell/sell stories about it. I happen not to care for any of them.nightlight_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Excerpt: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
bornagain77_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

@8 - You seem to hold that from not knowing “what kind of arrangement of molecules and electromagnetic fields are associated with consciousness or mind”, it follows that there is a 50% chance that a ball is conscious. No, that doesn't follow. There are 2 propositions that require the least number of unproven assumptions: a) No arrangement is associated with consciousness. b) All arrangements are associated with consciousness. Since I know that at least one arrangement is associated with consciousness (one that makes my own body), that observation falsifies (a), hence the most economical and the most coherent position (for me) is (b), which is also known as panpsychism. Declaring that some particular proper subsets of all possible arrangements are conscious, while others are not (the present natural science has no way to identify such arrangements), requires that more unproved assumptions be taken for granted than for (b), hence that is a less economical (weaker) position. Isn’t it so that consciousness is related to brains by present science? That is a speculation, not a scientific fact or a falsifiable theory/conjecture. There is no natural law or equation that singles out some kind of arrangements of matter and fields as capable of "generating" or "producing" consciousness and others as not capable. Note that the plain fact that present science cannot make a scientific statement or even a scientific (falsifiable) conjecture about consciousness, doesn't imply that consciousness doesn't exist. It merely implies that present science is incomplete in this domain.nightlight_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

Nightlight,
NL: Effects of slope and gravity on a ball also propagate via electromagnetic fields between its molecules.
However there is no indication whatsoever that molecules are sensory organs.
NL: Present science can say nothing as to what kind of arrangement of molecules and electromagnetic fields are associated with “consciousness” or “mind” and what kind are not.
Present science says precisely “nothing”? Isn’t it so that consciousness is related to brains by present science? Does present science leave the option open that the arrangement of the molecules in a ball can give rise to consciousness? Can you provide some references?
NL: Hence, any “inside” knowledge anyone claims about “mind” being present here and not there or some such, is a personal speculation, not a scientific statement. The only factually correct view on the topic at present is agnosticism.
You seem to hold that from not knowing “what kind of arrangement of molecules and electromagnetic fields are associated with consciousness or mind”, it follows that there is a 50% chance that a ball is conscious. Which is as incoherent as saying that because we don’t know what the origin of black energy is, there is a 50% chance that a ball on a slope causes black energy. What it boils down to is that before you can make such a claim there must be some kind of positive indication — and in this case there is none.
NL: Not even knowing that you don’t know something is a deeper kind of ignorance than just not knowing something.
There is not knowing something and not knowing something — it comes in grades.Box_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

@6For one thing a ball doesn’t have sensory organs, therefor it cannot know where it is and cannot have a goal (or anything else) in mind. Your sensory organs generate electric pulses, which in turn generate other electric pulses in the brain. Effects of slope and gravity on a ball also propagate via electromagnetic fields between its molecules. Present science can say nothing as to what kind of arrangement of molecules and electromagnetic fields are associated with "consciousness" or "mind" and what kind are not. Hence, any "inside" knowledge anyone claims about "mind" being present here and not there or some such, is a personal speculation, not a scientific statement. The only factually correct view on the topic at present is agnosticism. Not even knowing that you don't know something is a deeper kind of ignorance than just not knowing something.nightlight_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

Nightlight,
Anthropic: Balls rolling down a slope are even less “purposeful”, unless you claim they “want” to obey gravity.

Nightlight: Even the “obeying” is anthropomorphism. Any physical system is minimizing quantity called “action integral”. Whether there is “consciousness” or “want” associated with that activity, no one knows.
I do. There isn't “consciousness” or “want” associated with that activity. For one thing a ball doesn't have sensory organs, therefor it cannot know where it is and cannot have a goal (or anything else) in mind.Box_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

@4 Computer programs do not have a purpose except insofar as they are programmed to have one by a mindful, purposeful intelligence. Or by another program, whether it's running on silicon computer or on a neural network making up human brain (a distributed self-programming computer). As for "mindful" -- that's your subjective opinion since no one has any idea what is it like to be any kind of computer, whether silicon or carbon based. You cannot access or say anything about any "mind" other than your own. No scientific argument can be made based on "mindful" since present natural science has no such concept. Balls rolling down a slope are even less “purposeful”, unless you claim they “want” to obey gravity. Even the "obeying" is anthropomorphism. Any physical system is minimizing quantity called "action integral". Whether there is "consciousness" or "want" associated with that activity, no one knows.nightlight_{September 16, 2015
September
09
Sep
16
16
2015
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

Night 1 "If Dr. Shapiro can account for the purposeful way in which life forms strive to sustain their own existence Ignorance showcasing itself. Computers (aka ‘machines’) can operate purposefully e.g. industrial robot, or chess playing program,… etc. In fact even a simple ball rolling down the slope is seeking to minimize its potential energy. More generally any physical system behaves purposefully, seeking to minimize its “action integral” (via the so-called “principle of least action”). ------------------------------------------------------ Nonsense. Computer programs do not have a purpose except insofar as they are programmed to have one by a mindful, purposeful intelligence. Balls rolling down a slope are even less "purposeful", unless you claim they "want" to obey gravity.anthropic_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Can nature itself create genetic engineering?
Not according to the law of conservation of information or the no free lunch theorem. All those claims about how "smart" the genetic apparatus is just pushes the question (of how such complexity could arise) further back in time. If you have a clever genetic system that can engineer itself, it's origin becomes harder to explain.Jim Smith_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Isn't Dr. Shapiro merely saying that life as a system has the capacity to alter is information based on stress and/or opportunity? > I don't sense that he's saying what the original source of natural genetic engineering is [but he has said that it appears to be very old]; i.e. he's not saying what process led to life being capable of natural genetic engineering.KurtJL_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

If Dr. Shapiro can account for the purposeful way in which life forms strive to sustain their own existence Ignorance showcasing itself. Computers (aka 'machines') can operate purposefully e.g. industrial robot, or chess playing program,... etc. In fact even a simple ball rolling down the slope is seeking to minimize its potential energy. More generally any physical system behaves purposefully, seeking to minimize its "action integral" (via the so-called "principle of least action"). Of course, no one has a clue what is it like to be a ball rolling down the slope, or a bear cub, or a child, doing the same. The present natural science is fundamentally incomplete since it lacks a model or even the basic concept corresponding to phenomenological consciousness (i.e. concept for 'what is it like to be' some system in some state).nightlight_{September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply