User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 78

  1. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Billions of years of evolution and the genetics that have been passed down as a result have eventually lead to the creation of the complex biological processor that is our brains. In short, it's written our DNA. The blue print has been perfected via trial and error and the coherence of our neurology is proof of it.

    We also take our higher cognitive capabilities for granted. If feral children have taught us anything, it's the importance of nurture in developing our potential.
    You took a different direction with that than I expected.

    Why was there even an evolutionary need for coherence? What about incoherence that would make it less fit than coherence?

    I am simply trying to gain my bearings in your reality, so please be patient with the questions.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #42
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    You took a different direction with that than I expected.

    Why was there even an evolutionary need for coherence? What about incoherence that would make it less fit than coherence?

    I am simply trying to gain my bearings in your reality, so please be patient with the questions.
    Evolution isn't about "need", it is about what works. Coherence worked with the first microbes that could sense light, it worked with the first worms, it worked with the first fishies, and on and on up until it got to us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Evolution isn't about "need", it is about what works. Coherence worked with the first microbes that could sense light, it worked with the first worms, it worked with the first fishies, and on and on up until it got to us.
    (A) Evolution is about fitness, however. There are more incoherent states than coherent states. Based simply on the law of thermodynamics, something pressured organisms towards coherence.

    Do you disagree with any of statement (A)?

    What made incoherence not work? Probablistically, incoherence is more likely than coherence, but something caused incoherence to be "unfit." What was it?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  4. #44
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    (A) Evolution is about fitness, however. There are more incoherent states than coherent states. Based simply on the law of thermodynamics, something pressured organisms towards coherence.

    Do you disagree with any of statement (A)?
    Evolution is formed from fitness. Fitness is how many offspring an organism can leave behind, however, if some mechanism in an organism is not effective, then it will leave behind less offspring if any. Hence why I said that evolution is about "what works". Also, humans don't exist in a closed system so I don't understand how thermodynamics is applicable.

    What made incoherence not work? Probablistically, incoherence is more likely than coherence, but something caused incoherence to be "unfit." What was it?
    Experience. The animals that faired well with their traits survived and had more offspring. The animals that did not fair well with their traits left behind fewer offspring or none at all. Coherence was naturally selected.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Evolution is formed from fitness. Fitness is how many offspring an organism can leave behind, however, if some mechanism in an organism is not effective, then it will leave behind less offspring if any. Hence why I said that evolution is about "what works". Also, humans don't exist in a closed system so I don't understand how thermodynamics is applicable.



    Experience. The animals that faired well with their traits survived and had more offspring. The animals that did not fair well with their traits left behind fewer offspring or none at all. Coherence was naturally selected.
    I'll try again: Why was coherence naturally selected over incoherence?

    Was it simply coincedence?

    Could natural history have continued in such a way that incoherence was naturally selected?

    BTW:Thermodynamics apply in open systems too. It is actually, a type of system with considerable study.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #46
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I'll try again: Why was coherence naturally selected over incoherence?

    Was it simply coincedence?

    Could natural history have continued in such a way that incoherence was naturally selected?.
    The environment provided the pressures for which the traits were selected. As the environment has changed, so have the traits.

    Is that the answer you are looking for?
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    The environment provided the pressures for which the traits were selected. As the environment has changed, so have the traits.

    Is that the answer you are looking for?
    IDK. Maybe. I don't think so. I was looking for common ground between our respective veiws...you know, as a common reference.

    But I seem to be walking around the question I really want to ask. I can only rephrase it, and try agian. This time I'll provide some of my views as well, and perhaps you can spot the common references.

    What in the environment forced coherence to be naturally selected over incoherence?

    My belief. There are more potential micro-states where organisms would have incoherent sensory integrations that coherent ones. If surviving organisms favor coherent sensory integration, then something must have selected for it. (Perhaps elfinchilde can correct/clarify for me).

    What in the environment selected for coherence?

    Again, my belief. Incoherent sensory integrations would lead to incoherent behavior w/ respect to gathering food, responding to threats, etc. However, reality is coherent. So incoherent behaviour is not fit.

    In short, a coherent environment/reality selected for coherent integration of sensory inputs.

    Food For Thought: The Evolution of Consciousness

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #48
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    IDK. Maybe. I don't think so. I was looking for common ground between our respective veiws...you know, as a common reference.

    But I seem to be walking around the question I really want to ask. I can only rephrase it, and try agian. This time I'll provide some of my views as well, and perhaps you can spot the common references.

    What in the environment forced coherence to be naturally selected over incoherence?

    My belief. There are more potential micro-states where organisms would have incoherent sensory integrations that coherent ones. If surviving organisms favor coherent sensory integration, then something must have selected for it. (Perhaps elfinchilde can correct/clarify for me).

    What in the environment selected for coherence?

    Again, my belief. Incoherent sensory integrations would lead to incoherent behavior w/ respect to gathering food, responding to threats, etc. However, reality is coherent. So incoherent behaviour is no fit.

    In short, a coherent environment/reality selected for coherent integration od sensory inputs.

    Food For Thought: The Evolution of Consciousness
    Um...I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. You are arguing that the environment is coherent? The environment is anything but coherent. It is dynamic and chaotic.

    Think about it this way. Many billions of years ago there was no life on this planet. Then, within clouds of gases, a bunch of amino acids formed proteins. The proteins came together into countless combinations and then broke apart, over and over for millions of years. Within all these combinations, one worked. It was the double helix and it is the basis for all life on this planet. Why did this combination work? It worked, because on this planet, with this atmosphere which filters UV light so organic structures don't break down, it was the most stable structure for which proteins could encode information and replicate. On any other planet, in any other atmosphere, a different structure could have formed.

    Now it wasn't coincidence, and it wasn't because the environment was orderly, it was because of time and trial and error that the necessary order for which all life originated, was created. Trillions of combinations were probably tried before the double helix came into being, just as billions of species inhabited this earth before us and died out, and just as how hundreds of millions of humans preceded us.

    Life formed to fit the environment, and with us, it has formed to change the environment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Um...I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. You are arguing that the environment is coherent? The environment is anything but coherent. It is dynamic and chaotic.
    Dynamic and chaotic does not preclude coherence. By coherence, I mean "not inconsistent with itself." That definition is used for theories and formalisms, I was using it for reality as well. I suppose we may go down a string of definitions here too (as is natural when two differing points of view meet). But I hope you see my meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Think about it this way. Many billions of years ago there was no life on this planet. Then, within clouds of gases, a bunch of amino acids formed proteins. The proteins came together into countless combinations and then broke apart, over and over for millions of years. Within all these combinations, one worked. It was the double helix and it is the basis for all life on this planet. Why did this combination work? It worked, because on this planet, with this atmosphere which filters UV light so organic structures don't break down, it was the most stable structure for which proteins could encode information and replicate. On any other planet, in any other atmosphere, a different structure could have formed.
    I think whatever structure that formed would have to be consistent with itself. It couldn't simultaneously exist and not exist, for instance. It could not be simultanously be 10-angstroms in its largest dimension, and 10-meters in its smallest... and so on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Now it wasn't coincidence, and it wasn't because the environment was orderly, it was because of time and trial and error that the necessary order for which all life originated, was created. Trillions of combinations were probably tried before the double helix came into being, just as billions of species inhabited this earth before us and died out, and just as how hundreds of millions of humans preceded us.

    Life formed to fit the environment, and with us, it has formed to change the environment.
    Although, I am not an evolutionary biologist, and cannot comment on the appropriate use of "millions," "billions," or "trillions" in the above statement, I agree with the basic meaning.

    I still don't see how an organism that simultaneously percieves objects as being near and far, big and small, hot and cold in the same spatial location, can survive in our "coherent" environemnt, which has objects that cannot be have its nearest point both near and far to the organism, cannot have its smallest dimension be big while having its largetst dimension be small, etc.

    Perhaps "consistent" is a better word, but "coherence" is more holistic, and still seems more appropriate to me.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  10. #50
    a white iris elfinchilde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    1,465

    Default

    Hang on. I believe you two are crossing wires.

    If i'm not mistaken, Kiddo is defining coherence as an ordered state of being. Which fits in perfectly with the Darwinian principle, in that the organisms which are most ordered (ie, most have their act together: in terms of instincts and perceptions for feeding, mating, thinking etcetc) would be most 'fit' for survival.

    So in that sense, incoherent organisms (ie, nonsense DNA, if you're reducing it to the molecular level) would not survive, because they would not have the genes/capability to survive in a chaotic, dynamic environment.

    It is a complement we are talking about: The more chaotic the environment, the more streamlined, and coherent an organism has to be, in order to survive.

    To put it in a human analogy:

    A villager living in a rural agrarian village, solely on subsistence farming, would not need to know much of finance, or electricity, or multiple languages, or universities to survive. What he does need to know though, is farming, the weathers, the seasons. In that sense, he is coherent for the chaos of his environment.

    However, in a big city, say Wall Street, New York. You'd need to know finance, politics, wheeling and dealing, in order to survive in the banking industry. A farmer would falter here, as he would be incoherent for his environment. Just as a banker would falter in the farming environment.

    In that sense, that is how adaptability occurs. One is coherent for one's specific environment, because that is what best enables survival.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke of York View Post
    What do you mean by a square-circle? Is this supposed to be something we cannot comprehend literally?
    In the stock markets, we call it the Theory of the Black Swan. Just because you do not see it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Puhzah! To everyone else!

    Experience is based on observations, observations are based on perceptions, perceptions are based on senses, and senses are the neurological interpretation of signals from our external environment.
    Can i throw you a curve, kiddo?

    What determines our neurological interpretations? Isn't it our desire? Which is why humans never quite see another as they are, but who they want the other to be.

    Isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    What makes it so that all the sensations based on experience that come into our neurons create a coherent experience?

    We know that there are pathways that are delayed (sometimes by as much as half a second). But what gives our experiences coherence? IOW, by what "mechanisms" do we avoid experiencing a jumbled mess of sensations?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Billions of years of evolution and the genetics that have been passed down as a result have eventually lead to the creation of the complex biological processor that is our brains. In short, it's written our DNA. The blue print has been perfected via trial and error and the coherence of our neurology is proof of it.

    We also take our higher cognitive capabilities for granted. If feral children have taught us anything, it's the importance of nurture in developing our potential.
    Perhaps a digression, but to illustrate Kiddo's point in concrete terms: A lot of us is indeed in our DNA.

    the way newborn babies instinctively reach for symmetrical faces (the definition of beauty) as opposed to assymetrical ones. The distance a mother holds her child from her face: because babies see best about 20 cm from their eyes. The instinctive dislike for bitter taste: because most of what is bitter is poison in nature--which explains why children usually hate to eat vegetables. There is so much of us that is genetically predispositioned, that people do not even realise it. From their choices of their mates, to the food they prefer, the colours they prefer, etc. A lot is in the genes.

    Nurture is what modifies what is in the genes.

    In that sense, nature can be read as the id of Freud, while nurture is the superego.

    In between that is the person himself, as he negotiates between his primal instincts, and his higher, learnt morals: that is the ego.

    btw: thanks ygolo for telling me about this thread.
    You gave me hyacinths first a year ago;
    They called me the hyacinth girl.
    Yet when we came back, late, from the Hyacinth garden,
    Your arms full, and your hair wet, I could not
    Speak, and my eyes failed, I was neither
    Living nor dead, and I knew nothing,
    Looking into the heart of light, the silence.

    --T.S Eliot, The Wasteland

Similar Threads

  1. Is language essential for rational thinking?
    By nightning in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 03-12-2014, 07:38 PM
  2. MMORPG's (WoW, Guild Wars, etc.) and MBTI types
    By Maverick in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 09-29-2013, 10:18 AM
  3. Words of Wisdom, Inspiring Quotes, etc
    By rivercrow in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-21-2008, 06:39 PM
  4. Childfree: The Rational Spawn of a Rant Thread
    By Totenkindly in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 07-14-2007, 10:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO