Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Let's look again at the idea of 'random mutations resulting in change from natural selection'. If this is said to be the only principle involved in the development of life, it reduces the whole engine of existence to chance.

There are some real misconceptions here that need to be cleared up. EXISTENCE, i.e. the ontology of life, has NOTHING to do with mutations, and this statement is completely 100% in line with evolutionary biology.

The only basic thing you really need to know about "mutations" is that the driving force of population change over time is genetic variability. This may lead to different traits, it may lead to survival, and it may lead to terminal differentiation (i.e. specialization that makes a species completely dependent on certain transient conditions). Ultimately it may lead to diversification, i.e. altogether different species.

So mutations are the driving force of EVOLUTION, which is how species change over time, and how they diversify from common ancestry.

As for EXISTENCE, that's a different matter. It's not evolution. It's abiogenesis. Yes, this is not entirely separable from evolutionary biology, but it's not synonymous either -- it's like the difference between planetary astronomy (how planets come into being) and geology (how the structure of planets changes over time).

Mutations did not create life out of nothingness. Presumably (and logically) from a scientific standpoint, the origin of LIFE comes from certain chemical and energetic conditions in which nucleic-acid based cells assembled, and developed mechanisms of self-replication. That's a purely mechanical thing. It's not genetic, and it certainly has nothing to do with mutation except insofar as the mutations ultimately led to the preservation of the most fit and stable subsets.

[richard_mcnair]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

I don't know.

But I don't know how to build a plane either, and 500 years ago I might well have thought mechanically powered flight a total impossibility.

But it would have been hubris to state that that was a given thing.

As the Wright Brothers proved.

I think the two things are entirely different. Sure someone may have said 500 years ago that people will never fly, but it wasn't objectionable on any philosophical grounds, because if nothing else a simple observation of a bird shows that flight is possible, and that the way they fly is purely mechanical. Let's put it this way: a machine is built with our knowledge of science. Science (the natural sciences) is an investigation into the external objective world ie the world of experience. The world of experience contains nothing that exists independently of any conscious being, it is merely organised according to the formal conditions of the mind.

Do you agree with this so far?

So the natural sciences are merely an investigation into, not any sort of ultimate reality, but merely that which lies within space and time, ie that which in its totality only exists in our own minds. Clearly if mind is to create this then it can't be a part of it, it has to be above it, ie it transcends the world of experience. Whatever subjective experience itself is, must also transcend not just the world of experience, but also be on a higher plane than 'mind' also.

I think I repeat myself for about the fifth time.

I don't know.


But until you can exhaustively prove it cannot be done - requiring:

• a definition of consciousness and subjectivity we can all agree on
• arguments to show that all the philosophical arguments that doubt such things even truely exist are comprehensively invalidated
• proof that a healthy human mind is truely capable of such a thing
• proof to show no mechanical mind could ever be capable of such a thing despite the exponential increase of complexity and sophistication of computer minds and AI as recently as the last decade.

... then to be emphatic about it just not being possible is hubris too. Who knows what tomorrow may bring?

• It might be impossible.
• It might be possible but we never find out how.
• It might occur soon that there is no way to distinguish between the sensitivity, decision making power, learning power and all other aspects of what gets labelled 'conciousness' apparent in a biological system such as the human brain (with working sense organs and nervous system) and the software and hardware setup of a powerful computer.

Hence you ASSUME it can't be done.

I'm not saying that such an assumption isn't a safe bet - but an assumption it remains.

Consciousness is subjective experience itself. It surely cannot be known of defined by its own nature because that would require it to become an object of itself, and how can subjectivity itself present itself before itself as an object? (although actually this may actually be what all reality an everything that exists actually is) BUT, I experience therefore I am. I know this. In fact I know this more than I know anything else. You know it too, however much you may try to pretend to yourself that you don't exist.

But there are people better read, and more experienced than you who think differently.

And they might be utterly wrong.

Have you read Turing?

No i havent read turing. But this reminds me of an important point. You say there are people more experieced than myself who think differently, and of course somewhere Im sure there is, but this of course isnt the usual pattern. It is a fairly reliable generalisation that atheists and staunch philosophical materialists are the people in the world who have lived the least: the people who have had nice comfortable lives, without much struggle or suffering, and that the people who havent had nice comfortable lives, and have struggled and suffered in general do not have atheistic, or philosophically materialistic views. Undoubtedly you can find me exceptions, but this is a pretty reliable guide as to what sort of people believe what. Why do you think this is?

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by Aedes

There are some real misconceptions here that need to be cleared up.

There may well be, but they are not my misconception. There are many books written on the basis of the very proposition I have quoted, including those I have referred to in this thread.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Presumably (and logically) from a scientific standpoint, the origin of LIFE comes from certain chemical and energetic conditions in which nucleic-acid based cells assembled, and developed mechanisms of self-replication. That's a purely mechanical thing. It's not genetic, and it certainly has nothing to do with mutation except insofar as the mutations ultimately led to the preservation of the most fit and stable subsets.

How can it be mechanical? I think this is a poor choice of analogy, if that is what it is, because, aside from anything else, nothing mechanical is self-replicating.

[QuinticNon]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

...nothing mechanical is self-replicating.

What is self-replicating?

[jeeprs]

Able to replicate without outside assistance. Any cell can do this, and no machine can.

[l0ck]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Able to replicate without outside assistance. Any cell can do this, and no machine can.

But we can imagine a machine that can, and thus we can create it.
Nano-Molecular Assembly.
How is this concept really not possible?
Based off of our previous trends in creativity, what is out of bounds? All fields grow complex until they are replaced by new ones.

What is consciousness then limited to? Is there a single unit we can break it down to? This is something we do not know. But if we are to define consciousness, what would you say it is? That which is capable of will? That which can willingly create? What is our definition? What is then the case of our electron? As it can slip back and forth in time, speed up, slow down, it seems it 'wills' itself to cohere our form together at every instant at the speed of light, pulsing in and out of existence, we add up the amplitudes, and we get the wavelength. What is the difference between consciousness here as well? As most of us who imply the logic of the physical sciences can probably agree that our electron is not conscious. But does consciousness reside in the roots of particles or waves? Have we seen a form of consciousness without a anatomical brain?

It was my intent earlier to demonstrate, that I think therefore I am. All is thought FIRST. Paradigm, and gestalt patterns are what allow us to perceive, and thus pick out what we NEED out of all that is already there. I think therefore I am. Thinking is first. Paradigm is developed. Finite logic, is NOT first. Logic comes from paradigm, and so does language. Paradigm is what we as humans develop pattern recognition in our minds, it is a development of stimuli and response, and thus we sense together and think together form, I think therefore I am, and thus with our paradigm we pick out the patterns of the 'here and now' from the infinite waves of all that is before us.

Now, under the assumption, that consciousness resides to a anatomical brain, and thus is of finite proportion, how then do we experience the infinite quality of love? compassion? tolerance? and everything else that cannot be measured. If we are to employ a form of logic where nothing can exceed capacity (even when superheated, we have capacity), then how is our form of consciousness encompassed to a finite form? If this is true, then our logic is flawed, or fallacious. If it is false and consciousness resides in a state of infinite proportion, then the brain (a finite device) is nothing more than a pattern recognition system, that can incorporate different forms of pattern recognition, and thus resist the infinite flux of all that is before us and pick out what it needs from the entire set of everything that is already there. At least this is how I see it. As I too (you may not believe it) have a brain.

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by l0ck

But we can imagine a machine that can, and thus we can create it.

Go ahead. You will win the Nobel Prize and more money than you ever dreamed of.

[jeeprs]

I think the philosopher, and the scientist, (and also the magician, but I won't bring that up here) assume that everything operates according to principles. It is a matter of discerning them and learning how, on the one had, to operate in accordance with them, and secondly, to use them to our advantage if we possibly can.

So in some ways, anything is possible, provided we understand the principles. And this is often a very difficult thing to do.

[l0ck]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

I think the philosopher, and the scientist, (and also the magician, but I won't bring that up here) assume that everything operates according to principles. It is a matter of discerning them and learning how, on the one had, to operate in accordance with them, and secondly, to use them to our advantage if we possibly can.

So in some ways, anything is possible, provided we understand the principles. And this is often a very difficult thing to do.

If it is only a matter of understanding, it is only a matter of time.

[jeeprs]

Not everything is a matter of time.