"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

pH · 11-02-2013 02:59PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I am intrigued by this statement and would like to add some ponderings (I am, in no way, "qualified" to debate this specific point)....

Would it not be fair to say that "information" is a construct of the human experience? Does nature, either biologically/chemically/physically, hold "information"?

Yes - there is now a strong and formal relationship between information and entropy in modern physics - hence the resolution of Maxwell's Demon paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

doctoremma · 11-02-2013 03:11PM

pH wrote: »

Yes - there is now a strong and formal relationship between information and entropy in modern physics - hence the resolution of Maxwell's Demon paradox.

Thanks. Am unlikely to understand the info/entropy thing (but will have a closer look in a mo). Was struck by this sentence in the Wiki article:

Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.

So by this definition, I can of course see that nature contains lots of information. However, this is a definitional change for me, not a conceptual one. Perhaps, in my previous post, I should substitute "information" for "pattern"...?

I guess what I am trying to get at (badly) is that we - people who don't study information theory, like myself - tend to imagine "information" (in layman's usage) is some kind of encoded pattern and therefore intuit an intelligence behind it. In a circular argument, it's possible that the reason I questioned the concept of classical "information" in the genetic code is because I don't see intelligence behind it. That doesn't mean I haven't used "information" in the more general sense of the word, when talking about the genetic code.

I see pattern, I see chemical inevitability, I see complexity from simplicity. If that is to be legitimately labelled as "information", I'll go with that.

But my point to nagirrac still stands. If nature uses patterns to create the next generation of patterns (transmitting "information"), than I don't see any surprise in this process at all. After all, whether we seek "information" or "pattern", we are still applying our brains to identify it. And most patterns are simply a function of the laws of physics/maths?

nagirrac · 11-02-2013 08:28PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Would it not be fair to say that "information" is a construct of the human experience? Does nature, either biologically/chemically/physically, hold "information"?

Hi doctoremma. I have to also admit I am not an expert in information theory. In my opinion, I would say "intelligence" is a construct of the human experience rather than "information", so whether we can assign cognitive intelligence to something is a human concept. If we define intelligence (one definition of many) as "behavior influenced by learning", then it certainly appears intelligence is seen throughout the living world.

We can clearly see intelligent behavior in animals, but more and more studies show intelligent learned behavior in plants and even microbes. It appears everywhere we look in nature we are finding more evidence for interconnected intelligence. Who would have thought our gut is full of neurons and is such a <cough> complex information processing organ? I guess the expression "take care of your gut and your gut will take care of you" is true but in ways we didn't realize.

I would say information stems from mathematics. That brings us to the interesting question of whether humans invented or discovered mathematics? It seems logical to say we invented mathematics but not so logical when we consider that a lot of mathematics was described long before we had any scientific use for it and seems to predict future discoveries.

endacl · 11-02-2013 08:44PM

nagirrac wrote: »

I would say information stems from mathematics. That brings us to the interesting question of whether humans invented or discovered mathematics? It seems logical to say we invented mathematics but not so logical when we consider that a lot of mathematics was described long before we had any scientific use for it and seems to predict future discoveries.

The ubiquity of mathematics can be astonishing. Its suitability to describe just about everything makes me wish I'd continued beyond simple quadratic equations....

And its not just the 'concrete'. Here's an idea to bend the heads around on a miserable Monday evening. The unconscious mind as a series of infinite sets anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Matte_Blanco

nagirrac · 11-02-2013 09:08PM

Zombrex wrote: »

We have natural processes that account for life, why introduce an intelligence.

We don't have "known" natural processes that account for life so you should stop saying it as repeating it won't be true. I have no doubt that there are natural processes that account for life and expect that we will eventually understand them.

The reason to introduce intelligence is that everywhere we look in the natural world we see intelligence. How this intelligence arose is the interesting question, not whether it exists or not. I know its controversial to say on this forum but my belief is that all life is intelligent and uses intelligence to adapt to its environment. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the theory of evolution, other than the mechanisms that underlie it are not completely understood.

dlofnep · 12-02-2013 03:38PM

nagirrac wrote: »

The reason to introduce intelligence is that everywhere we look in the natural world we see intelligence.

That is not a reason to introduce an intelligent creator. Nor is intelligence visible everywhere we look in the natural world. Lots of raw instinct, which facilitates survival. But intelligence is not abundant. Although, you'd have to define what you mean by intelligence to really entertain that debate.

Sarky · 12-02-2013 04:58PM

Intelligence really is just the mess you get from a bunch of processes colliding together. If you don't believe me, try a few (legal, obviously) mind-altering drugs and see how they affect your overall conscious by changing some of the chemical processes that help create it. Even something as simple as a cup of coffee or a couple of whiskeys will change how tour mind works for a while.

There's nothing mysterious about it. We don't know everything about how it works not because of some spiritual component, but because it's a very complicated system to model.

legspin · 12-02-2013 05:26PM

Sarky wrote: »

Intelligence really is just the mess you get from a bunch of processes colliding together. If you don't believe me, try a few (legal, obviously) mind-altering drugs and see how they affect your overall conscious by changing some of the chemical processes that help create it. Even something as simple as a cup of coffee or a couple of whiskeys will change how tour mind works for a while.

There's nothing mysterious about it. We don't know everything about how it works not because of some spiritual component, but because it's a very complicated system to model.

Spoilsport.

Doctor Strange · 12-02-2013 05:41PM

Also, happy Darwin Day, fellow critical thinkers :P

nagirrac · 12-02-2013 05:51PM

Sarky wrote: »

Intelligence really is just the mess you get from a bunch of processes colliding together. If you don't believe me, try a few (legal, obviously) mind-altering drugs and see how they affect your overall conscious by changing some of the chemical processes that help create it. Even something as simple as a cup of coffee or a couple of whiskeys will change how tour mind works for a while.

Don't be silly

The human brain did not evolve to where it is today from a bunch of processes colliding together. This is one of the biggest challenges understanding evolution, which is thought to be an incredible slow process. It took 5 million years for the joint ancestor of chimps and humans to become homo sapiens sapiens, and yet in 10,000 years we have gone from hunter gatherers to what we are today. All of that is due to brain development, and the processes underlying such development are just being uncovered and poorly understood. This is one of the reasons why there is so much confusion on the data coming from the ENCODE project, it takes a lot of programming to build a human brain.

Atheists love to say there's nothing special about humans. To that I would say show me the other species on earth that has composed Beethoven's 9th symphony, written The Brothers Karamazov, painted Guernica, and gone to the moon and back. Its intelligence my dear Watson, not random banging together of molecules.

nagirrac · 12-02-2013 05:54PM

dlofnep wrote: »

That is not a reason to introduce an intelligent creator. Nor is intelligence visible everywhere we look in the natural world. Lots of raw instinct, which facilitates survival. But intelligence is not abundant. Although, you'd have to define what you mean by intelligence to really entertain that debate.

Instinct is inherited intelligence.

Ziphius · 12-02-2013 06:00PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Instinct is inherited intelligence.

What you term 'intelligence' just seems like plain old adaptation.

Although, perhaps, you should give us a clear definition of what you mean by the word and some real world examples.

doctoremma · 12-02-2013 06:05PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Atheists love to say there's nothing special about humans. To that I would say show me the other species on earth that has composed Beethoven's 9th symphony, written The Brothers Karamazov, painted Guernica, and gone to the moon and back.

Tell that to the meagre Staph. aureus, set to bring down humanity in a generation.

He spits on your Beethoven's 9th.

Roger_007 · 12-02-2013 06:06PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Don't be silly The human brain did not evolve to where it is today from a bunch of processes colliding together. This is one of the biggest challenges understanding evolution, which is thought to be an incredible slow process. It took 5 million years for the joint ancestor of chimps and humans to become homo sapiens sapiens, and yet in 10,000 years we have gone from hunter gatherers to what we are today. All of that is due to brain development, and the processes underlying such development are just being uncovered and poorly understood. This is one of the reasons why there is so much confusion on the data coming from the ENCODE project, it takes a lot of programming to build a human brain.

Atheists love to say there's nothing special about humans. To that I would say show me the other species on earth that has composed Beethoven's 9th symphony, written The Brothers Karamazov, painted Guernica, and gone to the moon and back. Its intelligence my dear Watson, not random banging together of molecules.

Amazing feats are not confined to humans. Birds migrate over huge distances, termites build vast complicated structures complete with air conditioning. All mammals can nourish their young without the need to attend breast-feeding classes. All forms of life in the wild can provide their own food and shelter and all they need to survive from their immediate environment. If humans are so clever, just leave a few of them stranded without outside help and they will not survive. How many human women would like to give birth unaided as most mammals do. Humans have a lot to learn.

oldrnwisr · 12-02-2013 06:10PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Don't be silly The human brain did not evolve to where it is today from a bunch of processes colliding together. This is one of the biggest challenges understanding evolution, which is thought to be an incredible slow process. It took 5 million years for the joint ancestor of chimps and humans to become homo sapiens sapiens, and yet in 10,000 years we have gone from hunter gatherers to what we are today. All of that is due to brain development, and the processes underlying such development are just being uncovered and poorly understood. This is one of the reasons why there is so much confusion on the data coming from the ENCODE project, it takes a lot of programming to build a human brain.

Atheists love to say there's nothing special about humans. To that I would say show me the other species on earth that has composed Beethoven's 9th symphony, written The Brothers Karamazov, painted Guernica, and gone to the moon and back. Its intelligence my dear Watson, not random banging together of molecules.

"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."

Douglas Adams

You're veering dangerously close to arguing that intelligence is somehow worthwhile, useful or desirable from an evolutionary perspective. Nature doesn't give a crap about impressionists or astronauts or composers. It simply favours those creatures which are well adapted to their environment. Like crocodiles for example. Here they are, pretty much unchanged for the last 300 million years because they're really good at exploiting the environment they live in. Do you think humans will still be around (in a manner similar to crocodiles) in 300 million years time?

Sarky · 12-02-2013 06:12PM

A pretty mess is still a mess. Don't forget it's the same species that composed Vengabus, wrote Mein Kampf, and committed more mass genocides than you could shake a stick at.

Brains are interesting, fragile things, they "evolve" from a generic stem cell to a network of millions of neurons in the space of a few years. They don't actually require all that much "programming", they mostly develop from learning and experiencing. That's why people who read a lot tend to have a good vocabulary or a broad base of knowledge, or that children raised to be good at chess can beat grand masters before they're old enough to vote. They're cells that respond to certain signals with signals of their own. They're complex networks with pattern-recognition buil in. Every brain is like this, from human brains down to the tiny clump of neurons in an ant's head. Human brains seem to be able to spot different patterns, and do more with them, but it's really just a question of scale and a few small differences in signalling patterns that make us act the way we do, thinking about things, and thinking about how we think about things.

But they're very susceptible to the slightest damage. If they weren't, there wouldn't be psychiatric therapy, mental illness, severe learning disabilities, and all the other things on a near-endless list of bad things that can happen a brain. To use your programming analogy, they're more full of bugs than any application ever released by a software company. If they're programmed by someone, they did a sloppy job of it.

So no, there's nothing particularly special about humans. Through a few interesting quirks we've become a hugely introverted species with some very odd forms of communication, but the processes that go on in our brains are little different to what happens in the brains of any other species.

Again, if you don't believe me, try altering some of the processes by taking a couple of legal drugs.

Edit: As oldrnwisr said, let's give humanity another hundred million years or so, THEN we can see if there's anything special about us or if we're just another layer in the fossil record.

kiffer · 12-02-2013 06:12PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Don't be silly The human brain did not evolve to where it is today from a bunch of processes colliding together. This is one of the biggest challenges understanding evolution, which is thought to be an incredible slow process. It took 5 million years for the joint ancestor of chimps and humans to become homo sapiens sapiens, and yet in 10,000 years we have gone from hunter gatherers to what we are today. All of that is due to brain development, and the processes underlying such development are just being uncovered and poorly understood. This is one of the reasons why there is so much confusion on the data coming from the ENCODE project, it takes a lot of programming to build a human brain.

Atheists love to say there's nothing special about humans. To that I would say show me the other species on earth that has composed Beethoven's 9th symphony, written The Brothers Karamazov, painted Guernica, and gone to the moon and back. Its intelligence my dear Watson, not random banging together of molecules.

In fairness most of the changes in the last 10,000 years have been cultural, technological and general behaviour...
We're not super massively smarter than say the people living in the Chalcolithic or even earlier, we just know more (and know how to teach our kids more, faster)...
We spent a long time just faffing about as huntergatherers before this whole modern era took off...

robindch · 12-02-2013 06:21PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Its intelligence my dear Watson, not random banging together of molecules.

Can you please define what you mean by the word "intelligence"?

Sarky · 12-02-2013 06:24PM

kiffer wrote: »

In fairness most of the changes in the last 10,000 years have been cultural, technological and general behaviour...
We're not super massively smarter than say the people living in the Chalcolithic or even earlier, we just know more (and know how to teach our kids more, faster)...
We spent a long time just faffing about as huntergatherers before this whole modern era took off...

I remember the Science of Discworld books used the word extelligence to describe how humans have changed in the last few thousand years.

It's more to do with the cultures and societies we've created and how they shape a person as they grow up, and how they interact with other cultures and societies, that has really sped up what we call our technological advancement. A society is to all intents and purposes a living creature all its own that competes with other societies, mates with some, gets infected with memes from the outside (or changed by memes from within in a sort of autoimmune disease analogy), and directs the purpose and function of the people within (Most people in a given society tend to have similar outloooks, and their knowledge is informed by their cultural heritage; a joke about Mohammed over here is grounds for bloodshed in another part of the world).

Culture shock isn't really much of a thing any more, not because people have evolved to deal with it, but because societies have intermingled so much that they all share some common "genes". Although, you take an isolated pygmy tribe and plonk them on, say, Oxford Street in the middle of London, you'll see plenty of culture shock. Their society is effectively a whole different species because it's stayed seperate for so long.

robindch · 12-02-2013 06:32PM

Ten interesting developments from the last few years in evolutionary science.

http://listverse.com/2013/02/05/10-significant-recent-evolutionary-discoveries/

dlofnep · 12-02-2013 06:34PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Instinct is inherited intelligence.

You still haven't defined intelligence for me.

nagirrac · 12-02-2013 06:43PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Tell that to the meagre Staph. aureus, set to bring down humanity in a generation.

He spits on your Beethoven's 9th.

You should have more faith in your profession than that:)

There is no question much of the human population could be taken down by an organism. At the unsustainable rate we are expanding our population however, is it not arguable that it could be the best thing for our longer term survival prospects?

mickrock · 12-02-2013 06:44PM

robindch wrote: »

Ten interesting developments from the last few years in evolutionary science.

http://listverse.com/2013/02/05/10-significant-recent-evolutionary-discoveries/

"The theory of evolution via natural selection completely transformed the world of science 150 years ago and its ramifications rippled across all aspects of life, including politics and religion. It is as well accepted in the world of biology as the Earth orbiting the Sun is in astronomy"

What a load of specious nonsence.

Ziphius · 12-02-2013 06:47PM

mickrock wrote: »

"The theory of evolution via natural selection completely transformed the world of science 150 years ago and its ramifications rippled across all aspects of life, including politics and religion. It is as well accepted in the world of biology as the Earth orbiting the Sun is in astronomy"

What a load of specious nonsence.

You're a geocentrist too mickrock?

mickrock · 12-02-2013 06:49PM

Ziphius wrote: »

You're a geocentrist too mickrock?

No, it's just the way I walk.

nagirrac · 12-02-2013 06:50PM

Ziphius wrote: »

What you term 'intelligence' just seems like plain old adaptation.

Although, perhaps, you should give us a clear definition of what you mean by the word and some real world examples.

In this case yes, but I believe adaptation is intelligent.

In general terms I would say intelligence is something that displays a cognitive process. I believe we see cognitive processes in all life, from the microbe on up. The human brain is the most obvious real world example.

kiffer · 12-02-2013 06:50PM

Sarky wrote: »

I remember the Science of Discworld books used the word extelligence to describe how humans have changed in the last few thousand years.

It's more to do with the cultures and societies we've created and how they shape a person as they grow up, and how they interact with other cultures and societies, that has really sped up what we call our technological advancement. A society is to all intents and purposes a living creature all its own that competes with other societies, mates with some, gets infected with memes from the outside (or changed by memes from within in a sort of autoimmune disease analogy), and directs the purpose and function of the people within (Most people in a given society tend to have similar outloooks, and their knowledge is informed by their cultural heritage; a joke about Mohammed over here is grounds for bloodshed in another part of the world).

Also snowcrash.

Don't read Darwin's Radio... actually do... it's crazy.

Culture shock isn't really much of a thing any more, not because people have evolved to deal with it, but because societies have intermingled so much that they all share some common "genes". Although, you take an isolated pygmy tribe and plonk them on, say, Oxford Street in the middle of London, you'll see plenty of culture shock. Their society is effectively a whole different species because it's stayed seperate for so long.

I think culture shock is a live and well... but many people have been inoculated somewhat so they only get a mild dose... I still can't get tipping right in the states, I spend days were I totally forget to tip and then the next day over tip and try to tip people who probably don't need tipping.
I see thread's on the tLL with women being told "why is you boyfriend making you dinner? Where I'm from women do all thr cooking, it doesn't matter that you've worked all day and he's been home... you're a bad GF"...
There's lots of crashing cultures and memes but the introduction of "Foreigners with ways different to our own, give them time to adjust" softens the impact.
Or am I crazy?

nagirrac · 12-02-2013 06:56PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You're veering dangerously close to arguing that intelligence is somehow worthwhile, useful or desirable from an evolutionary perspective. Nature doesn't give a crap about impressionists or astronauts or composers. It simply favours those creatures which are well adapted to their environment. Like crocodiles for example. Here they are, pretty much unchanged for the last 300 million years because they're really good at exploiting the environment they live in. Do you think humans will still be around (in a manner similar to crocodiles) in 300 million years time?

No, I think humans will be around in 300 million years but nothing like the humans we know of today. Just like the humans of today are nothing like the humans of 10,000 years ago, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Humans are evolving cognatively, not physically, although there will be a time and likely fairly soon where we will have to evolve physically but it will be by different mechanisms. Within a few decades we will understand completely how the human genome works and once that is complete we will be building replicas that are much more robust.

nagirrac · 12-02-2013 06:59PM

Roger_007 wrote: »

If humans are so clever, just leave a few of them stranded without outside help and they will not survive. How many human women would like to give birth unaided as most mammals do. Humans have a lot to learn.

How did huminids survive for a million years? How did human women give birth for 100,000 years before we had hospitals?

robindch · 12-02-2013 07:03PM

mickrock wrote: »

"The theory of evolution via natural selection completely transformed the world of science 150 years ago and its ramifications rippled across all aspects of life, including politics and religion. It is as well accepted in the world of biology as the Earth orbiting the Sun is in astronomy"

What a load of specious nonsence.

It's quite true -- amongst professional biologists and people who've studied biology, evolution is understood and accepted about as much as the Earth orbiting the Sun is accepted amongst professional astronomers.

The only people who've a problem with evolution are the people who don't make any effort to learn anything about it.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments