Psience Quest

(2017-11-08, 01:12 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]You don't understand Stephenw. You don't understand me. I might include Malf and Paul and Linda. Curious indeed.

I am deeply insulted, Steve. 
Working my ass of to be misunderstood by Kamerling, and I don't even a mention.

(2017-11-07, 10:53 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I'll give you this, stephenw: my uncertainty has just increased as I don't have a clue what you are talking about.  

When Claude Shannon set out to model the process of electronic communication he used "uncertainty" as a fundamental property of whether a message was received.  Reducing the uncertainty at the receiver, as to the symbols sent at the source, is measured 1 bit at a time.  We are taught about how physics works in school.  But not so much, as to the basics of information science.

The result is - immaterial structures of coding - are ignored, and even if they are taught - it is as a human technique and not as a natural part of reality.  Today as smart phones change the face of all human culture, our Physicalist context of teachings still block an understanding of the science.  "Knowing" is thought to be "human" and outside natural processes such as evolution.  When I say "gaining mutual information" its like I'm speaking a different language.  All it is - is the copy of the information made when a message is received.

It turns out that believing in information processing as real; opens the mind to understanding how living things communicate as a primary function of life.  An IT context is new to most --- but it is as simple as our intuitions and perceptions about physicality.  (to me anyway)  It is as math based as is physics and chemistry and as sure an understanding when viewed on a scientific level.



What is "paranormal" is not because of actual data collected by science - but only because of the false framework that information technology is like magic emerging from matter.  Wouldn't a person from 200 hundred years ago - think to burn you at a stake - for having little magic boxes that could grab information from the air?  It's all about context.

(2017-11-08, 12:39 PM)Sparky Wrote: [ -> ]I am deeply insulted, Steve. 
Working my ass of to be misunderstood by Kamerling, and I don't even a mention.

I'm sorry. That post has been edited.

(2017-11-08, 01:31 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]When Claude Shannon set out to model the process of electronic communication he used "uncertainty" as a fundamental property of whether a message was received.  Reducing the uncertainty at the receiver, as to the symbols sent at the source, is measured 1 bit at a time.  We are taught about how physics works in school.  But not so much, as to the basics of information science.

The result is - immaterial structures of coding - are ignored, and even if they are taught - it is as a human technique and not as a natural part of reality.  Today as smart phones change the face of all human culture, our Physicalist context of teachings still block an understanding of the science.  "Knowing" is thought to be "human" and outside natural processes such as evolution.  When I say "gaining mutual information" its like I'm speaking a different language.  All it is - is the copy of the information made when a message is received.

It turns out that believing in information processing as real; opens the mind to understanding how living things communicate as a primary function of life.  An IT context is new to most --- but it is as simple as our intuitions and perceptions about physicality.  (to me anyway)  It is as math based as is physics and chemistry and as sure an understanding when viewed on a scientific level.



What is "paranormal" is not because of actual data collected by science - but only because of the false framework that information technology is like magic emerging from matter.  Wouldn't a person from 200 hundred years ago - think to burn you at a stake - for having little magic boxes that could grab information from the air?  It's all about context.

OK, and thank you, but I'm still a little in the dark about what you are actually saying or where it leaves the general discussion. Are you saying that information is an example of the non-physical that physicalists would deny exist? And, further, are you saying that coded information appears in nature - such as DNA code being the obvious example? 

If so, do you think that such information, such code, appears randomly or is there an intelligent process producing the code? 

Profound apologies if I am still missing the point.

Top evolutionary scientists have recently admitted that neo-Darwinism is broken and may not be fixable. 

This was at a 3-day Royal Society meeting held in November 2016 in London, "New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives". A leading thoroughly mainstream scientific body (the Royal Society) openly acknowledged major problems with orthodox neo-Darwinian theory. Summarized from a review of the meeting at https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/david...ism-broken, https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/from_a_confiden/, and especially https://evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/: 

The opening presentation at the Royal Society was by world-class biologist Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller. Dr. Müller opened the meeting by discussing several of the fundamental explanatory deficits of the "modern synthesis”, that is, textbook neo-Darwinian theory. Müller said that the as yet unsolved problems include those of explaining:

- Phenotypic complexity (the origin of eyes, ears, body plans, i.e., the anatomical and structural features of living creatures);
- Phenotypic novelty, i.e., the origin of new forms throughout the history of life (for example, the mammalian radiation some 66 million years ago, in which the major orders of mammals, such as cetaceans, bats, carnivores, enter the fossil record, or even more dramatically, the Cambrian explosion, with most animal body plans appearing more or less without antecedents); and finally
- Non-gradual forms or modes of transition, where you see abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record between different types.

Since these are some of the most important features of life and the fossil record, the theory just doesn't work. The meeting offered little, if anything, by way of new solutions to those longstanding fundamental problems.

Of course, the media barely mentioned this conference. Guess why. Such things are to be discussed only behind closed doors; it's not for the public. After all, all the textbooks would have to be changed, and multiple generations of educational brainwashing would need to be reversed.  And it would be too embarrassing to the leading zealots of scientism.

(2017-11-08, 08:39 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]OK, and thank you, but I'm still a little in the dark about what you are actually saying or where it leaves the general discussion. Are you saying that information is an example of the non-physical that physicalists would deny exist? And, further, are you saying that coded information appears in nature - such as DNA code being the obvious example? 

If so, do you think that such information, such code, appears randomly or is there an intelligent process producing the code? 

Profound apologies if I am still missing the point.

You have it!!  The intelligent process (mentality) is the information processing of living things.  DNA/RNA/Ribosome communication appears to be a natural language.

I don't think that physicalist deny the phenomena of information, they just think that is a "magic" property of matter somehow.  I would be an Informational Realist (meaning it is a level of action distinct frorm chemistry/physics).  Living things utilize what information processes affords them and as mental capabilities they have evolved in tandem with physical traits.

Most folks are surprised to hear that C. Darwin believed and promoted mental evolution.  Neo-Darwinism with its physicalist metaphysics doesn't.

IR (informational realism) is science based, does not include or exclude a position on spiritual ideas and address natrual events via data driven methodology.   It is pragmatic in its regard to both empirical and logical structures in nature.

Living things designed themselves - can be found to be supported by a number of The Third Way of Evolution scholars.  Chemistry is not goal-driven, it is driven to equilibrium.  Living things process information so that their point of view can be realized through adaptive behavior.

(2017-11-08, 09:04 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Top evolutionary scientists have recently admitted that neo-Darwinism is broken and may not be fixable. This was at a 3-day Royal Society meeting held in November 2016 in London, "New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives".
...

Of course, the media barely mentioned this conference. Guess why. Such things are to be discussed only behind closed doors; it's not for the public. After all, all the textbooks would have to be changed, and multiple generations of educational brainwashing would need to be reversed.  And it would be too embarrassing to the leading zealots of scientism.

This would be the very same Royal Society that demanded the resignation of Michael Reiss, the then RS Director of Education, because he suggested that students with questions about creationism should be engaged so that evolution could be explained as the better theory. So he wasn't advocating teaching creationism in schools, just answering questions when the subject came up. He, himself, is a committed Darwinist yet such is the paranoia that any heresy cannot be mentioned - even when it is to explain the Darwinist alternative.

Quote:The fertility specialist Lord Winston said: "This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists. This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science - something that the Royal Society should applaud."

(2017-11-08, 09:29 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]You have it!!  The intelligent process (mentality) is the information processing of living things.  DNA/RNA/Ribosome communication appears to be a natural language.

I don't think that physicalist deny the phenomena of information, they just think that is a "magic" property of matter somehow.  I would be an Informational Realist (meaning it is a level of action distinct frorm chemistry/physics).  Living things utilize what information processes affords them and as mental capabilities they have evolved in tandem with physical traits.

Most folks are surprised to hear that C. Darwin believed and promoted mental evolution.  Neo-Darwinism with its physicalist metaphysics doesn't.

IR (informational realism) is science based, does not include or exclude a position on spiritual ideas and address natrual events via data driven methodology.   It is pragmatic in its regard to both empirical and logical structures in nature.

Living things designed themselves - can be found to be supported by a number of The Third Way of Evolution scholars.  Chemistry is not goal-driven, it is driven to equilibrium.  Living things process information so that their point of view can be realized through adaptive behavior.

Thanks - I have a better idea of where you are coming from now. I'm not sure I have the same understanding that you do, however, when I maintain that there is intelligence in the system rather than claiming the role for an omniscient designer. I shall read more on the subject.

If anyone is interested in what really took place at the Royal Society meeting...

https://royalsociety.org/science-events-...y-biology/

Linda

(2017-11-08, 09:04 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Top evolutionary scientists have recently admitted that neo-Darwinism is broken and may not be fixable. 

This was at a 3-day Royal Society meeting held in November 2016 in London, "New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives". A leading thoroughly mainstream scientific body (the Royal Society) openly acknowledged major problems with orthodox neo-Darwinian theory. Summarized from a review of the meeting at https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/david...ism-broken, and https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/from_a_confiden/: 

The opening presentation at the Royal Society was by world-class biologist Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller. Dr. Müller opened the meeting by discussing several of the fundamental explanatory deficits of the "modern synthesis”, that is, textbook neo-Darwinian theory. Müller said that the as yet unsolved problems include those of explaining:

- Phenotypic complexity (the origin of eyes, ears, body plans, i.e., the anatomical and structural features of living creatures);
- Phenotypic novelty, i.e., the origin of new forms throughout the history of life (for example, the mammalian radiation some 66 million years ago, in which the major orders of mammals, such as cetaceans, bats, carnivores, enter the fossil record, or even more dramatically, the Cambrian explosion, with most animal body plans appearing more or less without antecedents); and finally
- Non-gradual forms or modes of transition, where you see abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record between different types.

Since these are some of the most important features of life and the fossil record, the theory just doesn't work. The meeting offered little, if anything, by way of new solutions to those longstanding fundamental problems.

Of course, the media barely mentioned this conference. Guess why. Such things are to be discussed only behind closed doors; it's not for the public. After all, all the textbooks would have to be changed, and multiple generations of educational brainwashing would need to be reversed.  And it would be too embarrassing to the leading zealots of scientism.

I looked over the link Linda provided for this conference. You've greatly exaggerated the status of TOE leading readers to believe it has fallen irretrievably into an abyss.

It's not covered because it's not news worthy to most people.