Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

I think retro-causation has tremendous problems, but if someone can really solve them* this sounds like an idea worth investigation. Of course at this stage I think any examination of issues w/r/to evolution is the preliminary step.

*For an example of someone who I think fails utterly to solve them, see Eric Wargo.

Well, I have been reading Eric Wargo's book, though I have got a bit stuck about 2/3 of the way through it.

I think the idea that all psi can be reduced to retro-causation is problematical. But I think that a lot of what he says about retro-causation makes good sense. Whether one accepts his ideas or not, I think they are based on a thorough consideration of the issues and are carefully thought out.

With regard to evolution, surely the key question is whether there is a problem of there not having been enough time for random mutation to do the job. I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't know whether anyone knows it.

Well, I have been reading Eric Wargo's book, though I have got a bit stuck about 2/3 of the way through it.

I think the idea that all psi can be reduced to retro-causation is problematical. But I think that a lot of what he says about retro-causation makes good sense. Whether one accepts his ideas or not, I think they are based on a thorough consideration of the issues and are carefully thought out.

I never got a sense he understood the problems at their base level, and what it means to have time loops and/or backward causation. Time Loops for example introduce infinite regression issues, so we should - regardless of our metaphysical "ism" - be wary of any claim to their existence. Similarly with forward and backward arrows of causation the kinds of problems that get introduced make me skeptical any solution exists.

But I'll give the book a chance, perhaps he's put further thought into the issues. I followed his blog as he dwelt deeper into his ideas re: Time, but never felt he was looking at the fundamentals properly.

With regard to evolution, surely the key question is whether there is a problem of there not having been enough time for random mutation to do the job. I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't know whether anyone knows it.

This would indeed be a hard question to answer, though we seem to be inching closer to potentially new factors. Anomalous Information Transfer in bacteria samples, due to some quantum biology or field effects, could provide an answer.

In fact I think one would be hard pressed to make the case for retrocausation when information could simply be stored in a field of some kind? Whether this similarly eliminates the need for a top-down designer at some level I honestly can't say. I'm hoping those who feel ID => God/gods/spirits might say more.

But I'll give the book a chance, perhaps he's put further thought into the issues.

I think it's definitely worth reading.

That perhaps is what you think you are saying... but what actually comes across to me is something much more closed minded, a crushing/heavy non-permission to have a different opinion...  Personally, I think there is plenty of room for other opinions... and I think it would probably go a long way on here if you sometimes validated other posters opinions, even if you also disagree with them.

What seems to be sorely lacking are informed opinions amongst psi sympathizers as to what the truth is.  I won't validate anyone's opinion not even my own if it's not based upon fact. So don't expect me to tiptoe lightly. Consider where do all of these opinions lead? Does it lead to  knowledge amongst members? Nope. Does it light a fire under members arses to experiment? Nope. The only thing it does is spark members to opine. And more to the point opine as if they and they alone know the truth. I find some similarity  between the psi sympathetic and the devoutly religious. Both are certain of the truth and neither wants to recieve non affirming discourse. With this in mind I'm fairly confident that on the day of psi sympathizer's last breath they will not know what the truth is anymore then they know right now. I feel the sympathetic are more comfortable with believing they are right rather than the precise knowledge of knowing they are right. Frankly, such a perspective leads nowhere.

What seems to be sorely lacking are informed opinions amongst psi sympathizers as to what the truth is.  I won't validate anyone's opinion not even my own if it's not based upon fact. So don't expect me to tiptoe lightly. Consider where do all of these opinions lead? Does it lead to  knowledge amongst members? Nope. Does it light a fire under members arses to experiment? Nope. The only thing it does is spark members to opine. And more to the point opine as if they and they alone know the truth. I find some similarity  between the psi sympathetic and the devoutly religious. Both are certain of the truth and neither wants to recieve non affirming discourse. With this in mind I'm fairly confident that on the day of psi sympathizer's last breath they will not know what the truth is anymore then they know right now. I feel the sympathetic are more comfortable with believing they are right rather than the precise knowledge of knowing they are right. Frankly, such a perspective leads nowhere.

Years (a decade?) ago you ran off to JREF to cowardly insult Maaneli behind his back. You went b/c Maaneli was studying physics at the university level and you had no study of science/math beyond high school (or perhaps a class or two in college). So you apparently knew he was, as you put it, "a woo monger of the worst kind" even though you lacked the knowledge to actually dispute him which is why you had to beg for help.

Then about a year or so ago you attacked field effects as something Psi-related not realizing they are to be found in generally accepted physics, showing that years could pass with you not gaining even a conversational level of physics knowledge.

So it seems skeptics can also opine while learning nothing.

In any case, I believe I've learned physics from Maaneli / Iyace / Ethan in the Skeptiko forums, learned more about the varied sciences from Skeptiko interviews and forum discussions, learned a good bit about philosophy/history/religion. 

I think all of this has also made people morally better and happier in their lives. I doubt one could ask for more than that from Skeptiko or a forum like this, where it seems at most you have a few hundred people (probably less) visiting.

Years (a decade?) ago you ran off to JREF to cowardly insult Maaneli behind his back. You went b/c Maaneli was studying physics at the university level and you had no study of science/math beyond high school (or perhaps a class or two in college). So you apparently knew he was, as you put it, "a woo monger of the worst kind" even though you lacked the knowledge to actually dispute him which is why you had to beg for help.

Then about a year or so ago you attacked field effects as something Psi-related not realizing they are to be found in generally accepted physics, showing that years could pass with you not gaining even a conversational level of physics knowledge.

So it seems skeptics can also opine while learning nothing.

In any case, I believe I've learned physics from Maaneli / Iyace / Ethan in the Skeptiko forums, learned more about the varied sciences from Skeptiko interviews and forum discussions, learned a good bit about philosophy/history/religion. 

I think all of this has also made people morally better and happier in their lives. I doubt one could ask for more than that from Skeptiko or a forum like this, where it seems at most you have a few hundred people (probably less) visiting.

This about sums up the state of play here.

We have two missionaries, one accusing us of not having the mental capacity to avoid "filling our heads" with nonsense and the other accusing us of being uninformed (meanwhile suggesting that he knows "what the truth is"). 

Two names (among others) have already been mentioned which lend some support to the views being considered by those of us here who question the dogma, those two being Josephson and Nagel: a Nobel Prize winner and a respected atheist philosopher (respected, at least, until he too dared to question neo-darwinism and suggest that Meyer might have a point). As for the forums (this and Skeptiko), discussions about this subject have been long and greatly informative - other than contributions from those who have nothing to offer but some crude insult or attempted put-down. At least Paul was willing to take on Lone Shaman almost point for point during that long running debate on the Skeptiko forum. I happen to think he was fighting a hopeless rear-guard action because LS had so much relevant information at his fingertips but that is my opinion - and it is not an expert one. On the other hand, I learned a lot from both of them (and others, including Michael L and David B). 

So, we have Steve claiming that he will not consider opinion, only fact. Yet who is the arbiter of what is fact? We have already mentioned a couple of prominent thinkers who disagree with Dawkins and his ilk, so who is right and why? What is the truth about the Cambrian Explosion, for example, and what makes it true? We might even welcome some informed input rather than empty assertions.

EDIT: By the way, is it stating the obvious to point out that this is a discussion forum? We discuss opinions, don't we? Can a fact be up for discussion? A fact is a fact, end of discussion.

This about sums up the state of play here.

I think everyone has things they want to be true, that they consciously or subconsciously advocate for. Why it's better for everyone to be open about the world picture they are trying to promote.


It's why I find it more interesting to assume the criticisms given by ID advocates are correct and then ask, "Is this Psi? Is this top-down? Is this just some naturalistic final causation playing out in the universe" (The last one being Nagel's idea)

The truth/falsity of any contentious topic likely won't be decided on small forums, but lots of thought-provoking conjecture can be had. I'm personally more interested at this point in world-pictures that accommodate some of what proponents want (which is a wide spectrum!) than contention over the data.

Curious - why do you feel some kind of Psi effect at, say, the bacterial/viral/cellular level is not enough to account for the argued-for holes in the accepted theory?

Look at the clues furnished by the actual biological systems whose origin is the concern. These are intricate irreducibly complex mechanisms like the bacterial flagellum or even more complex, the intricate integrated organ systems of the first Cambrian invertebrate animals.  It seems to me that these evidently required some sort of focused sentient conscious intelligent agent or more likely agents, rather than some sort of collective intelligence formed by bacterial or viral cells. Concerning psi, psi as we presently know it is a phenomenon exclusively associated with conscious sentient beings namely humans.

This about sums up the state of play here.

We have two missionaries, one accusing us of not having the mental capacity to avoid "filling our heads" with nonsense and the other accusing us of being uninformed (meanwhile suggesting that he knows "what the truth is"). 

Two names (among others) have already been mentioned which lend some support to the views being considered by those of us here who question the dogma, those two being Josephson and Nagel: a Nobel Prize winner and a respected atheist philosopher (respected, at least, until he too dared to question neo-darwinism and suggest that Meyer might have a point). As for the forums (this and Skeptiko), discussions about this subject have been long and greatly informative - other than contributions from those who have nothing to offer but some crude insult or attempted put-down. At least Paul was willing to take on Lone Shaman almost point for point during that long running debate on the Skeptiko forum. I happen to think he was fighting a hopeless rear-guard action because LS had so much relevant information at his fingertips but that is my opinion - and it is not an expert one. On the other hand, I learned a lot from both of them (and others, including Michael L and David B). 

So, we have Steve claiming that he will not consider opinion, only fact. Yet who is the arbiter of what is fact? We have already mentioned a couple of prominent thinkers who disagree with Dawkins and his ilk, so who is right and why? What is the truth about the Cambrian Explosion, for example, and what makes it true? We might even welcome some informed input rather than empty assertions.

EDIT: By the way, is it stating the obvious to point out that this is a discussion forum? We discuss opinions, don't we? Can a fact be up for discussion? A fact is a fact, end of discussion.

I thought you couldn't determine what a fact is and yet you see them when they support your point of view. That's one problem your side, meaning the average reader, has no facts, therefore nothing has ever become established truth. The other is your side rarely at best take it upon themselves to perform rigorous scientific experiments. That's how truth is found by testing assumptions to see which standup to prior observations.
You asked: What is the truth about the Cambrian Explosion? Such a question suggests you've never read up on it or you reject it outright because it allows no room for spirituality. Which is it? 
So you learned a lot from Paul and LS obviously you learned more from LS why?