Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #30 on: 2003-10-05 16:51:52 »
Quote:
Not necessarily. Create also means "to cause to exist; bring into being, to give rise to; produce". Evolution does in fact create new species.
The context of the verb to "create" is one of totality. Anything that is created is spontaneously rended from NOTHINGNESS into COMPLETENESS. Ergo the use of the term "creation-ism" in "Christian Science," and other attempts to reign in knowledge to the support of belief.
Evolution, the dynamic process, is not an agent of its own volition. It has no mind, it has no choice. Evolution is. Evolution does not do.
"Evolution" is the semiotic icon for a concept that is in fact quite elegant. "Evolution" is a semiotic linguistic icon that is so elegant that it is imperiously misused on an habitual basis, here, at "CoV." Evolution is a label that is used to describe the set of scientifically derived theorems which explain the processes by which life, in its multivariate forms, comes into existence.
I am not going to describe the precepts of EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; it is old hat and REQUIRED READING here at CoV. I am pointing out that, once again, a meme has fallen into hypocritical disuse here.
Call it by its proper name Evolutionary Theory. This alleviates this asinine habit of using a gerund in place of a proper term. Let us stop "doing" Evolution. When a person falls into the trap of concatenating a name, the person is very likely to concatenate the knowledge associated with the name. This is all too obvious the case with Evolutionary Theory and its pedestrian attempt at a synonym, Evolution. Once the habit of using the misnomer "Evolution" has subsided, then the problem of taken its precedents out of context can be addressed.
I appreciate your call to use scientific language. But I think science has to make the next logical step.
In the beginning there were rocks, water, chemicals and no life. A little bit later there were people hacking at their computers wondering how to name that process that made them come into existence.
We all know that things fall down, we can calculate their acceleration, jet nobody knows why. We could call it theory of gravity, or gravitational(?) theory, which doesn't make our disknowledge about a little bit better, but we call it gravity.
On the other hand, science has studied the Theory of Evolution for quite some time now, it has been simulated on computers, shown to apply to economics as well, life and our personal experience is full of it (just think of dog breeders). The inner workings of the Theory of Evolution are much better known than the inner workings of gravity, which is pure speculation up to now.
The Theory of Evolution is a fact. There is no alternate to it. It is an unconscious process which creates and changes life or, in other words, Evolution is the process of chance and feedback creating and altering the meta-structure of matter.
I appreciate your call to use scientific language. But I think science has to make the next logical step.
[kirk] It is called "precise" language. Science doe not take the step. People assert that a reified entity, vis-a-vis, "science" or "evolution" or "government" do something. like "take the next logical step." What is really being done here is the person(s) doing the asserting are commiting a fallacy of argumentation. What they should "logically" be stating instead is something like: "I feel that your position is incomplete." And then tell the person why they feel it is incomplete. AND SUPPORT IT.
In the beginning there were rocks, water, chemicals and no life. A little bit later there were people hacking at their computers wondering how to name that process that made them come into existence.
[kirk] Again, the misuse of language persists. The processes described by the Theory of Evolution do not do anything. To "do" is to imply volition. It implies that there is a volitive causal determinism in the process. Evolutionary processes are spontaneous in origin.
We all know that things fall down, we can calculate their acceleration, jet nobody knows why. We could call it theory of gravity, or gravitational(?) theory, which doesn't make our disknowledge about a little bit better, but we call it gravity.
[kirk] op cit
On the other hand, science has studied the Theory of Evolution for quite some time now, it has been simulated on computers, shown to apply to economics as well, life and our personal experience is full of it (just think of dog breeders). The inner workings of the Theory of Evolution are much better known than the inner workings of gravity, which is pure speculation up to now.
[kirk] non sequitor
The Theory of Evolution is a fact. There is no alternate to it. It is an unconscious process which creates and changes life or, in other words, Evolution is the process of chance and feedback creating and altering the meta-structure of matter.
Let's call it Evolution.
[kirk] There has been no consistant assertion of support above. Wonko asserts, (I paraphrase for clarity) "The term Evolution is a consitent use of language when it is used to delineate the processes that are described by the Theories of Evolution."
[kirk] He has offered no salient or consistent support of this assertion.
Let's call it completely lacking of critical discourse.
Would you please refrain from personal insults and teacher-like behaviour. And please don't paraphrase for clarity, as my English is quite clear, though it is not my native language.
By the way, consistant is consistently written consistent. Even in Texas. :-) See, you don't like teacher-like behaviour - nor do I.
Those like you, who don't understand Evolution, make one big mistake: you assume that "volitive causal determinism" exists, as it has been preached by religion.
Free will does not exist, we're just some molecules clinging together and acting according to rules of Evolution: chance and feedback determine our thoughts. The same Evolution created life, us and our thoughts. Artificial intelligence will show it better: no free will, even if as intelligent and creative as we are.
Evolution is the only process which is worth of the word create. Evolution is creating and creating is done only through Evolution.
Kirksteele has a point in that 'creation' implies something from nothing.
Especially given the love of Chaos Theory nowadays, I think it would be much more accurate to say "reorganized" instead of "created."
A species that is the product of Evolution was not formed from scratch, it was reorganized from a previously existing species and ended up being either better or worse at its job of survival.
To go all the way back to the original theme of the topic, the secular religion idea is entirely off-base. Even with theories like the Big Bang, no scientist has ever truly stated that anything was created. The Big Bang didn't arise out of oblivion, there must have been something to cause it. So, religious hardliners that want to claim science as secular religion are flat wrong in that science has failed to determine any form of Ultimate Origin that makes godlike figures obsolete.
Re:Evolution as a secular religion
« Reply #36 on: 2003-10-25 16:49:07 »
Science was never designed to prove or disprove the existance of a god/gods, or to determine an Ultimate origin as you call it, if anything science has proved the opposite, there was no ultimate origin, by thinking about this rationally there was no creation in the sense of something being made from nothing.
Besides do religious nuts actually say that a God created the universe/whatnots out of nothing...no, and dont say that it implies that, because that is subjective.
So talking about creation in the sense that it is creating something from nothing is wrong any way you look at it, call it *poof* if you like, but not creation.
Creation is where one thing is made from another thing, or many things, whether it is in a biblical terminology or not.
Creation implies no such thing. No one would dispute that an artist can create a portrait from materials such as paints and a canvas.
What is created? I'm sure you're aware of the concept of a gestalt, a nonsensical array of pigments becomes to the beholder a picture. The viewer 'creates' the portrait by all standards of reality. Without perception, it is nothing more than paint smeared on canvas, and thus is no different from paint in a tube (aside from the location of it, of course). All that is done is an act of reorginization, moving substances about in space. No creation, none at all.
Creation implies no such thing. No one would dispute that an artist can create a portrait from materials such as paints and a canvas.
What is created? I'm sure you're aware of the concept of a gestalt, a nonsensical array of pigments becomes to the beholder a picture. The viewer 'creates' the portrait by all standards of reality. Without perception, it is nothing more than paint smeared on canvas, and thus is no different from paint in a tube (aside from the location of it, of course). All that is done is an act of reorginization, moving substances about in space. No creation, none at all.
The paint is the words, and the canvas is your mind. What is created in these images is the idea or thought that it strikes, crafted by the artist. You look at a gestalt, and say "Homer Simpson". And you would be correct in saying that it's not really Homer Simpson, and "this is not a pipe", and therein lies the craftsmanship. A series of pigments has struck in you feelings or thoughts that are reminisce of a previous experience or idea. This is the creation, not the arrangement of the matter on the canvas, but the skill and intellect which goes into arranging this matter such that thoughts are coerced into being inside your mind.
You would be correct in saying that even still, there is nothing new being generated, so therefore it is not creation, or anything that can be likened as such, and this is an umbrella that can be draped over everything that has ever existed since the inception of matter and energy. One could argue that since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, everything is a case of rearrangement of matter/energy, thus nothing is created. If this is the case, why do we have or even use the word creation? I would argue that creation is a term we use to describe the birth of a new arrangement of existence (that would be new to our perceptions, as that's all we really have), be it paint on a canvas or thoughts in your head. A solar flare that strikes the earth creates for us many issues, from worry, to electronic interference and naturally, many other things. The sun however, is not a cogitative being, so how does it create anything?
It seems to me that I've argued to myself that creation is a perception, and therefore subjective. Obviously there are common denominators which we all agree upon as a definition of creation, but in more abstract terms, some of us make distinctions which are basically chosen to most fit our precepts.
Perhaps creation lies only in our minds, and nowhere else.
Well, I've lost myself somewhat in words, and work keeps distracting me. Sharpen your knife and eviscerate my musings. How else will I sculpt perfection?
The paint is the words, and the canvas is your mind. What is created in these images is the idea or thought that it strikes, crafted by the artist. ...One could argue that since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, everything is a case of rearrangement of matter/energy, thus nothing is created. If this is the case, why do we have or even use the word creation? ...It seems to me that I've argued to myself that creation is a perception, and therefore subjective...Perhaps creation lies only in our minds, and nowhere else.
I apply these lines of yours to Big Bang Theory, Evolution and any other secular, scientific idea of how the Universe exists, life emerged and we can sit here on a data construct and pass ideas to and fro.
Matter and energy are paint upon a canvas, and like paint, lie to us. We see a gathering of matter and energy over there :points: and say, "That is the sun." When in truth there is no sun. We created the sun by looking at a gathering of matter and believing it had a meaning.
We created the world and universe as we know it. To study the Universe, to study Life, we study our works. We study ourselves by reflection. Don't lose me here.
Do you learn about yourself by gazing into a mirror? No, only how you appear. To know thyself, you must examine thyself, not thy appearance. Delve deep into your own psyche and find what stirs there. Science is attempting to do this by crashing through the other side of perception. Zen monks have beaten them to the punch. The answers to all your questions lie inside yourself. No need to study the Big Bang, because we made it. Study us instead and you might learn something useful.
Those like you, who don't understand Evolution, make one big mistake: you assume that "volitive causal determinism" exists, as it has been preached by religion.
I know of no religion that preaches any such thing. Most religions believe that we possess the power of volition because our sense of self emanates from something immaterial.
Quote:
Free will does not exist, we're just some molecules clinging together and acting according to rules of Evolution: chance and feedback determine our thoughts.
That has nothing to do with the rules of evolution. Biology maybe, but not evolution. Evolution only deals with the change in genetic frequencies of organisms over generations. Free Will, if it is to be discussed within any science, is within the field of cognitive science. Even so, the qeustion of free will v.s. fatalism is very much confined to the realm of philosophy.
Quote:
The same Evolution created life, us and our thoughts. Artificial intelligence will show it better: no free will, even if as intelligent and creative as we are.
Evolution did not create life, you're looking for abiogenesis. As for the second free will assertion, Artificial Intelligence shows no such thing. I'll refer you to the book Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett. Dennet is one of the leading A.I. practitioners our there (along with John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky, and both praised his book). If artificial intelligence concluded your claim then the above men would have arrived at the same conclusions by now. However, they haven't, for reasons that Dennett makes clear in his book.
(BTW, I'd appreciate it if you read the book before accusing me of making an argument from authority. Dennett's arguments for a compatibilist free will are quite sound and original and I don't feel like typing out book leingth arguments online and chewing up bandwidth, the mods would not appreciate that.)
Quote:
Evolution is the only process which is worth of the word create. Evolution is creating and creating is done only through Evolution.
Even the dictionary definition of evolution would prove this wrong. As I explained before, evolution deals with the change of life. As another forum participant has already noted, "reorganized" would be a better term for this than "created".
Evolution did not create life, you're looking for abiogenesis. As for the second free will assertion, Artificial Intelligence shows no such thing. I'll refer you to the book Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett. Dennet is one of the leading A.I. practitioners our there (along with John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky, and both praised his book). If artificial intelligence concluded your claim then the above men would have arrived at the same conclusions by now. However, they haven't, for reasons that Dennett makes clear in his book.
Dennett is one of the leading philosophers of mind (along with Paul and Patricia Churchland) but he is not an AI practitioner AFAIK. I would also strongly recommend Freedom Evolves, it is the best explanation of free will I have read to date.
Dennett is one of the leading philosophers of mind (along with Paul and Patricia Churchland) but he is not an AI practitioner AFAIK. I would also strongly recommend Freedom Evolves, it is the best explanation of free will I have read to date.
Yes, thank you for the correction (and the backing of my reccommendation, it's appreciated).
Dennett is one of the leading philosophers of mind (along with Paul and Patricia Churchland) but he is not an AI practitioner AFAIK. I would also strongly recommend Freedom Evolves, it is the best explanation of free will I have read to date.
I quoted your post because you were the second source and seem to make a greater distinction of the terms used, so maybe you can best answer my question.
How does one "practice" Artificial Intelligence? I'm probably just getting nit picky over semantics, but that terminology just bothers me.