If George Wald can get away with referring to time as a hero, I hope I can get away with playing with the metaphor a little. Let's take a not entirely serious look at time as hero. Yes; it's another episode of the Grammarian detective.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. [1.]
- In saying 'time is the hero' Wald admitted, despite himself, that the 'miracle of life' required intelligence and personhood (i.e. to turn inert matter into a living organism) Only human beings (persons) are heroes, neither inanimate matter or time can qualify. I think we can safely say that there are no heroes on a dead world.
Why might he have let the word hero slip? Was he thinking of Prometheus (I notice that atheists still love some myths.) If he was, that doesn't fit, because there were people around when Prometheus supposedly did his thing, there would have been no people around when our hero time brought life into being.
So why say hero? There were no bad guys to slay, no wrongs to right. Wasn't he admitting that it would take the miraculous; i.e. something myth-like for this to happen?
Isn't hero just another word for god when used in this fashion?
Time can't do anything of course; expecting time to accomplish anything is like digging a well with the idea of a shovel, or escaping from a jail cell with the idea of a hacksaw.
As I see it, time is just what we mean by motion; without motion there's no time. So; can motion accomplish miracles? Not that I've heard of.
Where does the word hero come from? It comes from mythology.
To say time is the hero is to bring mythology into the picture; it amounts to saying we need a mythological answer to our problem. (You no doubt remember that Plato would enlist myths to resolve unanswerable problems in cosmology or metaphysics... so this kind of thing has a long history.)
In mythology the hero is often (if not usually) of divine parentage or origin. To say 'time is the hero' is to say the answer must almost certainly be of divine origin. The hero often possesses divine gifts (supernatural gifts). We can see the fit, as it would almost certainly require divine gifts of some kind to turn a rock into a living organism, and then turn that proto-cell into a human being (i.e. a creature capable of inventing heroes; turning mere paper into a living
creature.)
A hero is usually someone favored by the gods. This allows him to pull off some of the superhuman stunts he becomes famous for. You can see why (in our scenario) he might need some divine favor. He didn't merely have to slay a dragon, he had to create one.
Heroes are known for risking their lives. I'm not sure this fits here, as there was no life. Can you risk your life when you're not alive?
I don't know of anyone who thinks time is alive. They might think time is a hero but I don't know of anyone who thinks time is alive. (What time would look like in this plot I don't know. Would it have a cape? I'm not sure.
I've looked hero up in the dictionary, but I don't see time listed as a representative. Funny. Is it possible Wald was wrong?
Heroes are known for their great strength, so perhaps it was the strength possessed by Time that did the trick. Perhaps it squeezed the life out of a stone or something.
A few heroes are known for their intellectual prowess, but I don't think Time qualifies.
Hero;
1. 'A real or mythical person of great bravery who carries out extraordinary deeds.
- the question we need to ask is this; was time a real hero or a mythical one? (Answer carefully; the fate of science may depend on your answer.)
Turning inert matter into a living organism (whether once or several times the oracles do not say) certainly qualifies as an extraordinary event. It was certainly out of the ordinary; as inert matter rarely comes together to create life forms.
A hero is sometimes a protaganist in a work of fiction. Yes; that might work... but where is the contest, and what is it about? In a dead world what is there to contend about? There won't be maidens for a long time to come. Who are there to contend over the maiden who isn't there?
The hero is sometimes the leader of a cause, but it's hard to see Time in this light isn't it? Why would life be a cause in a dead world? Who would there be to fight for this cause, and why would they enlist?
In modern terms we might refer to Time as the leading actor in a drama. We have to admit that since Gamow knighted Time as the great hero, it certainly has gained a lot of honors, and gained a lot of added power as well.
A hero is sometimes a mere mortal who gets raised to godhood after death. It's certainly true that Time has only recently been granted godhood, and given the power to accomplish miracles, and it's true that Time now sits with the gods on Olympus... but of course Time never was alive, so I don't know if this fits.
Summary;
Without an almost endless amount of time, evolution becomes an obvious miracle; but a miracle with no one to perform it.
In the words of someone more eloquent than myself;
'An important aspect of the standard evolutionary geological time table is the urgent necessity for countless millions of years to dilute the miracles of evolution and make them seem 'natural.' It is assumed that changes that are impossible or else miraculous when pinpointed in time can be rendered plausible and natural when blanketed with millions of years.' [2.]
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. 'Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.
2. The mythology of science - R.J. Rushdoony p.52
'An important aspect of the standard evolutionary geological time table is the urgent necessity for countless millions of years to dilute the miracles of evolution and make them seem 'natural.' It is assumed that changes that are impossible or else miraculous when pinpointed in time can be rendered plausible and natural when blanketed with millions of years.'
- This book (a brief review of evolutionary science circa 1965) is available online, and is well worth reading; especially for a comparison with the current scene. [Chalcedon]
- Rushdoony points out that if the supposed events of evolution took place over a short period of time (e.g. 6000 years, or even 60,000) they would have to be called miracles. For some reason people believe or accept the idea that if these miracles happen over millions of years they're not miracles. We're supposed to believe that 'time' makes all these miracles possible.
So what is this miracle maker time? Isn't it an immaterial force? Isn't it a mere abstraction? Is there such a 'thing' as time? Can time DO anything? Not that I can see. As far as I can see, time is just a name given to entropy. I think people confuse time with motion.
Let's be agreeable and assume time = motion. How can motion accomplish miracles? How motion can create life from non-life?
If you want a true picture of evolution, imagine a picture of a rock turning into a human being, all with no outside help. That's the kind of miracle we're talking about. (i.e. imagine it as an animated film)
Showing posts with label OOL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OOL. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Notes on emergence; or, an alien love story; starring Carl Sagan
The closing down of the Allen telescope array was a sad event for SETI fans. The whole search for extraterrestrial life (with its speculations about aliens) is an intriguing one; and one I think reveals a lot about human psychology.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Bob McDonald, commenting on CBC News, feels SETI is worth a lot more than the tens of millions spent on the royal wedding. Just two to three million could have been used to keep SETI going. “That tiny sum pays for a group of very intelligent and highly accomplished people to look for the answer to a fundamental human question, while many times that amount will be spent on security alone for the wedding of two people who have not really accomplished that much.” [2.]
2. 'One of the fundamental unanswered questions in science is whether there is life beyond Earth. [2.]
- I'm interested in why he (or anyone) thinks this is a 'fundamental human question'. Is it? Why is it? How do we explain this? If nothing makes sense apart from evolution (and of course pizza) what's the evolutionary explanation for SETI? What could this possibly have to do with reproduction success rates? Give a slight tug on evolution theory and it unravels. E. theory can't explain this odd human passion; nor can it explain most of the important things in human experience.
If all is merely matter in motion how do we explain that a bit of matter here on earth cares about bits of matter in outer space, in the rest of the universe. That makes no sense to me. Matter doesn't care about anything. The fact McDonald cares about finding aliens is all the evidence he needs to know materialism is a fallacious idea. Materialism is as illusory as green tentacled aliens. If he'd analyze what he said he'd see this.
The materialist can't account for human experience, but instead of curing him of his delusion he pays no attention to this damning bit of knowledge. What he does instead is to say; well, I do care, therefore this creationist is wrong. i.e. he doesn't doubt his materialism, just takes it for granted as true.
If pressed he offers up the idea of emergence. i.e. "yes, it's true Mr. creationist, that matter doesn't care, but people do, and people have emerged from matter and are (obviously you twit) different from matter." The concept of emergence is used to knock down all arguments against materialism.
The concept of emergence is just a ruse in my opinion; nothing but a label on ignorance; a meaningless concept when used in this matter. What we aren't given is an account of how it is philosophical concern (not to mention obsession) can happen in a materialist universe; ie. how does the impersonal become personal. To merely say ''well it emerged I guess'' is to say nothing at all.
3. "The chances of aliens finding the Voyagers in the vast emptiness of space are small—some say infinitesimal—but we took our jobs seriously," recalls team member Ann Druyan. "From the moment when Carl first broached the project to Tim Ferris and me, it felt mythic." [3.]
- It felt mythic she says. I'm not sure what mythic feels like, but how is it a bit of matter can feel 'mythic' about aliens? I don't know how people can believe the theory of cosmic [Cosmos] evolution. The theory demands that a rock transform into a living organism capable of feeling 'nostalgic' for remote life forms it has never seen. I see no way that's possible. The endless stories on how this might have happened (i.e. OOL research) don't impress me in the slightest; one might say they're mythic. (Actually I take back what I said earlier. I do know what it feels like to experience the mythic; I experience it when I read OOL stories.)
Materialism can't give a cogent account for the Voyager love story. (It can't give a good account of much at all when it comes to human experience.) How is it such a worldview is so popular when it fails so badly to offer foundational explanations? Why is it people don't care about this? Why do they care more about phantoms called aliens and nothing about philosophical consistency or cohesion?
4. "I remember sitting around the kitchen table making these huge decisions about what to put on and what to leave off," recalls Druyan. "We couldn't help but appreciate the enormous responsibility to create a cultural Noah's Ark with a shelf life of hundreds of millions of years." [3.]
- They didn't seem to take their responsibility all that seriously when you consider they might have given some alien race the opportunity to wipe out the entire human race. They violated a basic principle; namely don't take a needless risk. What right did they have to put everyone at risk by their publicity stunt?
Remember; these people are merely bits of matter in terms of materialism; a good materialist has to explain all this behavior (thought, etc.) solely in terms of physics. (No wonder they want to contact aliens, no mere human is up to the above task :=}
Maybe the SETI quest isn't really about finding aliens per se; but about finding someone who can explain OOL; someone who can give a believable account of what is now only a miracle. (Though I would argue that a rock [planet earth] managing to build and send out a space ship would be a miracle in itself.)
Among the gifts Voyager bears is 'the brain waves of a young women in love.' (No SF magazine cover of an alien attacking a bimbo? What a missed opportunity.)
5. "I had this idea," recalls Druyan, "that we should put someone's EEG on the record. We know that EEG patterns register some changes in thought. Would it be possible, I wondered, for a highly advanced technology of several million years from now to actually decipher human thoughts?" [3.]
- It doesn't get wackier than that (he said hopefully). How anyone can conflate squiggles on a page with thought I don't know. (Thus reductionism makes fools out of anyone who comes in 'contact' with it.
6. "My feelings as a 27 year old woman, madly fallen in love, they're on that record,” says Druyan. "It's forever. It'll be true 100 million years from now. For me Voyager is a kind of joy so powerful, it robs you of your fear of death." [3.]
- I won't pretend I understand that, but I see evidence here that the SETI project is somehow connected with the idea of immortality, and or the fear of death.
I don't know how she can conflate an image of brain wave patterns with her feelings of being in love. I guess we could call this an example of Reductionism playing the trickster.
7. 'It has been pointed out that the most probable finders of Voyager will be … us. Eventually, technology may allow humans to overtake and recover the distant probes. In that case, they will be reduced to mere time capsules from the year 1977. [3.]
- If we do catch up with it, maybe we could switch the Beatles for the Rolling Stones, or some Dylan :=}
8. 'Arthur C. Clarke recognized this possibility and suggested adding a note to the Golden Record: "Please leave me alone; let me go on to the stars." [3.]
- I note that he said leave 'me' alone. i.e. this is evidence people into SETI are projecting their own psychologies onto Voyager (etc.) It's not really about aliens but about them. It's about their search for something.
Apparently some people want materialism to be true so badly that they're not 'capable' of critically examining the theory, of accepting the sheer impossibility of it, or of examining the oddity of a bit of matter caring about other bits of matter. (Is it that they want materialism to be true? or is it that they don't want God to exist? What's the stronger drive? Maybe they're so connected that it's impossible to say.)
Whatever the love story here is, it's not love for God. It's love for self or love for aliens; since there are no aliens as far as we know, it can only be love for self.
Maybe that's not it; maybe what's going on here is a desire to defend materialism, a desire to defend the act of rejecting God. Maybe the SETI types want to discover aliens to prove to themselves (and everyone else) that they are right about a-theism. Maybe they get involved out of guilt.
9. ''Notwithstanding the low odds of interception, the Voyager Record served as a statement of earthlings to earthlings. The video clip from NASA ends, “What are the odds of a race of primates evolving sentience, developing spaceflight, and sending the sound of barking dogs into the cosmos? Expect the unexpected indeed.“ [1.]
- How do you 'evolve' a passion for ETs? That would appear to be impossible would it not?
What are the odds? Zero; (or as close to zero as you can get).
Summary;
What I think we see in the search for extraterrestrial life, is the search for a substitute for God. We see this search played out in the pages of sf, with its myriad of 'god machines' (called such by the authors themselves) and awesome relics, and awe inspiring aliens. [4.] Evidence for the Bible's claim (echoed by Calvin) that all men know god is the fact aliens have all the attributes of God. e.g. they're at least nearly omniscient; nearly omnipotent; can read minds, send thoughts telepathically, predict the future, etc.
Augustine said 'all men are restless till they find thee' and that man had a God shaped vacuum in his heart. How big the hole in man's heart is, can be seen by the fact it takes the whole universe to even begin to get the job done. I suspect the project to find aliens will only be successful as long as its unsuccessful; that if aliens are found man will still be restless, still need something to fill the hole in his heart.
Cosmic evolution doesn't come remotely close to being able to explain this search for God (or for a god substitute). There's no possible reason man needs such an ability and capacity of this kind, if he's just an animal. (I can't imagine animals care about the SETI project; I can't imagine any of them are sad one of the projects got shut down.)
Men scan the skies for signs of ET, when they'd be better off scanning their own consciousness. The SETI project is all the evidence anyone could need that Materialism is a false metaphysics.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. SETI in Reverse Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/29/2011
April 29, 2011 — The SETI Institute has had to close down its search with the Allen Telescope Array (08/12/2010) due to lack of funds.'
2. Big questions and big weddings - Bob McDonald
- the money wasted (surely not) on the Royal wedding could have been better spent on the Allen project complained McDonald.
- how could he say these people haven't done very much? They wave beautifully, they wear clothes well, they smile wonderfully. I could name any number of things they do.
3. Voyager, the love story, April 29, 2011 By Dr. Tony Phillips
- there's nothing like the love for an alien to arouse the human imagination, and send his emotions soaring.
4. Much SF is concerned with presenting the reader with an object or being that the reader can be in awe of. As humans we hunger for the awesome. Here's an example of this 'awesome' storytelling; from 'Alone' by Robert Reed [Godlike Machines ed. J. Strahan]
'The hull was gray and smooth, gray and empty, and in every direction it fell away gradually,
vanishing where the cold black of the sky pretended to touch what was real.
What was real was the Great Ship. Nothing else enjoyed substance or true value.
Nothing else in Creation could be felt, much less understood. The Ship was a
sphere of perfect hyperfiber, world-sized and enduring, while the sky was only
a boundless vacuum punctuated with lost stars and the occasional swirls of
distant galaxies.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Bob McDonald, commenting on CBC News, feels SETI is worth a lot more than the tens of millions spent on the royal wedding. Just two to three million could have been used to keep SETI going. “That tiny sum pays for a group of very intelligent and highly accomplished people to look for the answer to a fundamental human question, while many times that amount will be spent on security alone for the wedding of two people who have not really accomplished that much.” [2.]
2. 'One of the fundamental unanswered questions in science is whether there is life beyond Earth. [2.]
- I'm interested in why he (or anyone) thinks this is a 'fundamental human question'. Is it? Why is it? How do we explain this? If nothing makes sense apart from evolution (and of course pizza) what's the evolutionary explanation for SETI? What could this possibly have to do with reproduction success rates? Give a slight tug on evolution theory and it unravels. E. theory can't explain this odd human passion; nor can it explain most of the important things in human experience.
If all is merely matter in motion how do we explain that a bit of matter here on earth cares about bits of matter in outer space, in the rest of the universe. That makes no sense to me. Matter doesn't care about anything. The fact McDonald cares about finding aliens is all the evidence he needs to know materialism is a fallacious idea. Materialism is as illusory as green tentacled aliens. If he'd analyze what he said he'd see this.
The materialist can't account for human experience, but instead of curing him of his delusion he pays no attention to this damning bit of knowledge. What he does instead is to say; well, I do care, therefore this creationist is wrong. i.e. he doesn't doubt his materialism, just takes it for granted as true.
If pressed he offers up the idea of emergence. i.e. "yes, it's true Mr. creationist, that matter doesn't care, but people do, and people have emerged from matter and are (obviously you twit) different from matter." The concept of emergence is used to knock down all arguments against materialism.
The concept of emergence is just a ruse in my opinion; nothing but a label on ignorance; a meaningless concept when used in this matter. What we aren't given is an account of how it is philosophical concern (not to mention obsession) can happen in a materialist universe; ie. how does the impersonal become personal. To merely say ''well it emerged I guess'' is to say nothing at all.
3. "The chances of aliens finding the Voyagers in the vast emptiness of space are small—some say infinitesimal—but we took our jobs seriously," recalls team member Ann Druyan. "From the moment when Carl first broached the project to Tim Ferris and me, it felt mythic." [3.]
- It felt mythic she says. I'm not sure what mythic feels like, but how is it a bit of matter can feel 'mythic' about aliens? I don't know how people can believe the theory of cosmic [Cosmos] evolution. The theory demands that a rock transform into a living organism capable of feeling 'nostalgic' for remote life forms it has never seen. I see no way that's possible. The endless stories on how this might have happened (i.e. OOL research) don't impress me in the slightest; one might say they're mythic. (Actually I take back what I said earlier. I do know what it feels like to experience the mythic; I experience it when I read OOL stories.)
Materialism can't give a cogent account for the Voyager love story. (It can't give a good account of much at all when it comes to human experience.) How is it such a worldview is so popular when it fails so badly to offer foundational explanations? Why is it people don't care about this? Why do they care more about phantoms called aliens and nothing about philosophical consistency or cohesion?
4. "I remember sitting around the kitchen table making these huge decisions about what to put on and what to leave off," recalls Druyan. "We couldn't help but appreciate the enormous responsibility to create a cultural Noah's Ark with a shelf life of hundreds of millions of years." [3.]
- They didn't seem to take their responsibility all that seriously when you consider they might have given some alien race the opportunity to wipe out the entire human race. They violated a basic principle; namely don't take a needless risk. What right did they have to put everyone at risk by their publicity stunt?
Remember; these people are merely bits of matter in terms of materialism; a good materialist has to explain all this behavior (thought, etc.) solely in terms of physics. (No wonder they want to contact aliens, no mere human is up to the above task :=}
Maybe the SETI quest isn't really about finding aliens per se; but about finding someone who can explain OOL; someone who can give a believable account of what is now only a miracle. (Though I would argue that a rock [planet earth] managing to build and send out a space ship would be a miracle in itself.)
Among the gifts Voyager bears is 'the brain waves of a young women in love.' (No SF magazine cover of an alien attacking a bimbo? What a missed opportunity.)
5. "I had this idea," recalls Druyan, "that we should put someone's EEG on the record. We know that EEG patterns register some changes in thought. Would it be possible, I wondered, for a highly advanced technology of several million years from now to actually decipher human thoughts?" [3.]
- It doesn't get wackier than that (he said hopefully). How anyone can conflate squiggles on a page with thought I don't know. (Thus reductionism makes fools out of anyone who comes in 'contact' with it.
6. "My feelings as a 27 year old woman, madly fallen in love, they're on that record,” says Druyan. "It's forever. It'll be true 100 million years from now. For me Voyager is a kind of joy so powerful, it robs you of your fear of death." [3.]
- I won't pretend I understand that, but I see evidence here that the SETI project is somehow connected with the idea of immortality, and or the fear of death.
I don't know how she can conflate an image of brain wave patterns with her feelings of being in love. I guess we could call this an example of Reductionism playing the trickster.
7. 'It has been pointed out that the most probable finders of Voyager will be … us. Eventually, technology may allow humans to overtake and recover the distant probes. In that case, they will be reduced to mere time capsules from the year 1977. [3.]
- If we do catch up with it, maybe we could switch the Beatles for the Rolling Stones, or some Dylan :=}
8. 'Arthur C. Clarke recognized this possibility and suggested adding a note to the Golden Record: "Please leave me alone; let me go on to the stars." [3.]
- I note that he said leave 'me' alone. i.e. this is evidence people into SETI are projecting their own psychologies onto Voyager (etc.) It's not really about aliens but about them. It's about their search for something.
Apparently some people want materialism to be true so badly that they're not 'capable' of critically examining the theory, of accepting the sheer impossibility of it, or of examining the oddity of a bit of matter caring about other bits of matter. (Is it that they want materialism to be true? or is it that they don't want God to exist? What's the stronger drive? Maybe they're so connected that it's impossible to say.)
Whatever the love story here is, it's not love for God. It's love for self or love for aliens; since there are no aliens as far as we know, it can only be love for self.
Maybe that's not it; maybe what's going on here is a desire to defend materialism, a desire to defend the act of rejecting God. Maybe the SETI types want to discover aliens to prove to themselves (and everyone else) that they are right about a-theism. Maybe they get involved out of guilt.
9. ''Notwithstanding the low odds of interception, the Voyager Record served as a statement of earthlings to earthlings. The video clip from NASA ends, “What are the odds of a race of primates evolving sentience, developing spaceflight, and sending the sound of barking dogs into the cosmos? Expect the unexpected indeed.“ [1.]
- How do you 'evolve' a passion for ETs? That would appear to be impossible would it not?
What are the odds? Zero; (or as close to zero as you can get).
Summary;
What I think we see in the search for extraterrestrial life, is the search for a substitute for God. We see this search played out in the pages of sf, with its myriad of 'god machines' (called such by the authors themselves) and awesome relics, and awe inspiring aliens. [4.] Evidence for the Bible's claim (echoed by Calvin) that all men know god is the fact aliens have all the attributes of God. e.g. they're at least nearly omniscient; nearly omnipotent; can read minds, send thoughts telepathically, predict the future, etc.
Augustine said 'all men are restless till they find thee' and that man had a God shaped vacuum in his heart. How big the hole in man's heart is, can be seen by the fact it takes the whole universe to even begin to get the job done. I suspect the project to find aliens will only be successful as long as its unsuccessful; that if aliens are found man will still be restless, still need something to fill the hole in his heart.
Cosmic evolution doesn't come remotely close to being able to explain this search for God (or for a god substitute). There's no possible reason man needs such an ability and capacity of this kind, if he's just an animal. (I can't imagine animals care about the SETI project; I can't imagine any of them are sad one of the projects got shut down.)
Men scan the skies for signs of ET, when they'd be better off scanning their own consciousness. The SETI project is all the evidence anyone could need that Materialism is a false metaphysics.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. SETI in Reverse Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/29/2011
April 29, 2011 — The SETI Institute has had to close down its search with the Allen Telescope Array (08/12/2010) due to lack of funds.'
2. Big questions and big weddings - Bob McDonald
- the money wasted (surely not) on the Royal wedding could have been better spent on the Allen project complained McDonald.
- how could he say these people haven't done very much? They wave beautifully, they wear clothes well, they smile wonderfully. I could name any number of things they do.
3. Voyager, the love story, April 29, 2011 By Dr. Tony Phillips
- there's nothing like the love for an alien to arouse the human imagination, and send his emotions soaring.
4. Much SF is concerned with presenting the reader with an object or being that the reader can be in awe of. As humans we hunger for the awesome. Here's an example of this 'awesome' storytelling; from 'Alone' by Robert Reed [Godlike Machines ed. J. Strahan]
'The hull was gray and smooth, gray and empty, and in every direction it fell away gradually,
vanishing where the cold black of the sky pretended to touch what was real.
What was real was the Great Ship. Nothing else enjoyed substance or true value.
Nothing else in Creation could be felt, much less understood. The Ship was a
sphere of perfect hyperfiber, world-sized and enduring, while the sky was only
a boundless vacuum punctuated with lost stars and the occasional swirls of
distant galaxies.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The slow miracles of materialism
In chapter 12 of his book 'The Information' James Gleick offers us some speculation about the origin of life.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Whatever the basic processes involved, physical or biological, something is under way that begins to resemble computation. [1.]
- Whatever is underway? This is an admission no one (in OOL research) has a clue.
Computation? As far as we know intelligent agents are the only ones capable of computation; either they are the ones who compute, or they are the ones who give this ability to other objects.
So we ask how it is that inert matter can begin to compute? How is it that mere matter can do computations like e = mc2? This appears to be nothing but wishful thinking by the materialist. He can give us no explanation of how this is possible. This is akin to saying a rock can learn to do calculus.
2. 'He applied the idea of logical depth to the problem of self-organization: the question of how complex structures develop in nature. Evolution starts with simple initial conditions; complexity arises, apparently building on itself. [1.]
- Complexity arises? He writes this as if it means something, when it means nothing at all. It's meaningless. This isn't science; no one observed or observes this. This is merely theory dependent speculation. e.g. if materialism is true, we suspect initial conditions must have been simple.
We know how complex structures develop, we don't need to speculate about it. Complex structures develop by the expression of genetic code; the code comes first and the structure after. We know the only source code comes from; intelligence. The great 'problem' that materialists talk about is no problem at all; it's only a 'problem' if you reject God and creation.
3. Let's take a look at the word Compute;
1. 'To determine by mathematics, especially by numerical methods: e.g. computed the tax due.
- As far as I know, rocks have no need to compute anything, and have been left curiously exempt from paying taxes.
Gleick knows how absurd it is to say matter computes things, so he qualifies (in good Fabian fashion) by saying matter 'begins' to compute. This allows the materialist miracle to occur you see. Apparently any miracle is possible if it happens slowly, in stages.
Notes;
1. The Information - James Gleick p. 342
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Whatever the basic processes involved, physical or biological, something is under way that begins to resemble computation. [1.]
- Whatever is underway? This is an admission no one (in OOL research) has a clue.
Computation? As far as we know intelligent agents are the only ones capable of computation; either they are the ones who compute, or they are the ones who give this ability to other objects.
So we ask how it is that inert matter can begin to compute? How is it that mere matter can do computations like e = mc2? This appears to be nothing but wishful thinking by the materialist. He can give us no explanation of how this is possible. This is akin to saying a rock can learn to do calculus.
2. 'He applied the idea of logical depth to the problem of self-organization: the question of how complex structures develop in nature. Evolution starts with simple initial conditions; complexity arises, apparently building on itself. [1.]
- Complexity arises? He writes this as if it means something, when it means nothing at all. It's meaningless. This isn't science; no one observed or observes this. This is merely theory dependent speculation. e.g. if materialism is true, we suspect initial conditions must have been simple.
We know how complex structures develop, we don't need to speculate about it. Complex structures develop by the expression of genetic code; the code comes first and the structure after. We know the only source code comes from; intelligence. The great 'problem' that materialists talk about is no problem at all; it's only a 'problem' if you reject God and creation.
3. Let's take a look at the word Compute;
1. 'To determine by mathematics, especially by numerical methods: e.g. computed the tax due.
- As far as I know, rocks have no need to compute anything, and have been left curiously exempt from paying taxes.
Gleick knows how absurd it is to say matter computes things, so he qualifies (in good Fabian fashion) by saying matter 'begins' to compute. This allows the materialist miracle to occur you see. Apparently any miracle is possible if it happens slowly, in stages.
Notes;
1. The Information - James Gleick p. 342
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
The Invasion of the replicators
Although I think Gleick's book [The Information] is informative, and well worth reading, I have problems with the approach he decided to take. When discussing the origin of life on earth he ignores the seeming unanswerable objections to this happening by some chance accident. I feel he's being dishonest here, as he just pretends it's no big deal. He doesn't even admit no one know how this could have happened. He simply pretends one of the many OOL scenarios is correct. End of story.
I don't feel ignoring problems is a proper way to write science. He just ignores the problem of where all the information (complex, specified) for living organisms came from. I find this odd to say the least, coming in a book about information.
Quotes and comments on 'The Information' by James Gleick;
1. 'The history of life begins with the accidental appearance of molecules complex enough to serve as building blocks—replicators.' [1.]
- Gleick accepts the idea that all life on earth is a chemical accident. Complexity happens by accident in this account. I thought science was supposed to be about finding laws. I don't see how anyone can believe living organisms 'emerged' from inert matter by accident.
He states this as a fact. It's not a fact, it's a story. No one was there. No one can know this. If this passage were written honestly it would read; 'according to the most popular and current neo-darwinian thinking, life began with the accidental appearance...'
The ability to replicate (reproduce) has it's source in random chance and accident in this scenario. This is an amazing miracle if true. Where does the information come from for this astounding ability? There's a great mystery here, and the average e. just skips merrily over it; pretending as if he's explained it, when all he's done is tell us it happened. (Apparently no explanation for this miracle is needed.) What we have here (in this scenario) is the accidental production of a complex molecule; a molecule that contains both information and information on how to replicate. Am I the only one who sees this as impossible? We don't get a hint (in the textbooks) of how this happened. Not a whiff. Writers just pretend it's all a simple matter and an undeniable fact. (Is this a good way to write science?)
Now I assume this mythical molecule contained DNA, so that it could replicate. So where did the DNA come from? Where did the code come from? What wrote the code? You'd think these would be questions that need to be discussed, but no, they're ignored. I guess this is all a rhetorician can do when they can't answer a question. You'd think any writer with integrity would at least admit they have no idea how this could happen, but I guess that's too much to ask in our politicized culture.
- I guess the idea is that some molecule emerged that didn't require DNA to replicate; but this still doesn't explain where DNA came from, where the coding system came from.
Replicate;
1. To reproduce or make an exact copy or copies of (genetic material, a cell, or an organism).
2. 'Replicators could exist long before DNA, even before proteins.' [1.]
- Could they? Is that a fact or another story? I don't see any way this can be proved. Certainly no one saw it.
Can you have proteins without DNA? I thought DNA held the code (instructions) for creating proteins?
The warrant for this 'fact' of evolution is a scenario dreamt up by
Alexander Cairns-Smith. So his story depends for its warrant on another story. Apparently this is how Darwinism works. (It's stories all the way down folks.)
He gives some alternate scenarios and then says 'either way' it all happened. ie. as if one of these stories Has to be true; as if there couldn't be another explanation (ie. ID) The idea one of a collection of scenarios has to be true is a simple fallacy. (Does Gleick not realize this?)
This whole OOL scenario requires huge amounts of complex, specified information, and the materialists never tell us how this information came about. It's a taboo subject apparently. (i.e. ''we know it happened, so it doesn't matter how it happened...")
- That Gleick doesn't deal with the problems in the materialist OOL scenario, makes this a dishonest book. Materialists seem incapable of discussing and admitting the huge holes in their theory. (They're certainly unwilling to do so.) Is this any way to do science? This is taking the coward's way out. ("Mankind cannot bear much reality," the poet said.) We can't answer the critics so let's ban them, we can't answer them so let's pretend they don't exist... pretend we know how it happened, pretend it's an undeniable fact, pretend we're doing science and not just inventing stories. ("I am the great pretender, pretending that I'm doing well...") This is sad, stuff. Why is it these people can't be honest? Are they going to go to their graves telling these lies, never admitting the truth?
3. 'The body is a colony of genes.' [2.]
- Is it? This is the chicken and the egg story again. [5.] This isn't a fact, it's an interpretation... a way of looking at things. In my opinion it's simply false to say the body is a colony of genes. Even for an evolutionist it's obvious the animal is also a single unit... so it's simply a fallacy to say it IS a colony of genes. This claim is a denial of creation, where an animal is seen as having been designed.
E. theory claims body plans (different creatures) are accidental assemblages of once independent organisms... that somehow managed to find a way to work together. (God knows how; but we're certain it happened this way.) What the heart was before various parts came together (at some kind of heart conference I guess) I'd like to know. I find the idea the various organ systems in the body came together by chemical accident comical.
The above is not a scientific statement. (This is surprising for someone who's devoted themselves to writing on science.) We don't observe that a body is a colony of genes. What we observe, what the data consists of, are genes within the cell, within the body. The word 'is' in this sentence has nothing to do with empirical science. We don't see the 'is' part of this statement. The 'is' part is interpretation, and not scientific.
He talks as if genes were once independent organisms. I see no evidence for this. What we see today is that genes are never independent. I don't see any reason to believe things were ever any different. I believe genes were always dependent (body inhabiting) entities. I believe they were part of the original design of the original creation. ie. that animal kinds were created with genes (DNA) already intact. I can't prove it, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
4. “Selection favors those genes which succeed in the presence of other genes,” says Dawkins, “which in turn succeed in the presence of them." [3.]
- More nonsense from the grandfather of personification. The word favors in this statement has no scientific content. What we observe is that some genes succeed. That's all the data that's here. The rest is Darwinian spin.
There is no entity called selection, and there is no 'favoring' going on. Selection has been reified and given a magic wand. This is not empirical science. (For someone who claims to be defending 'true' science against creationist non-science; Dawkins cares little for being empirical, to restricting himself to actual observation. Most of his writing isn't scientific at all; it's merely a Darwinian spin on things.
e.g. To claim man is a robot slave of genes isn't remotely scientific. In fact it's anti-scientific. That's not an observation, but a Darwinian interpretation.
5. 'To say that a replicator manages to survive for eons is to define the replicator as all the copies considered as one. Thus the gene does not “grow senile,” Dawkins declared.
"It is no more likely to die when it is a million years old than when it is only a hundred. It leaps from body to body down the generations, manipulating body after body in its own way and for its own ends, abandoning a succession of mortal bodies before they sink in senility and death. [4.]
- This is fantasy, not science. No one observes this. Isn't science supposed to be about observation? He's merely defined his 'master of survival' gene into existence. It has no existence outside his definition.
This is gross personification... really ugly stuff. A gene leaping from body to body; a gene with goals or ends. Pure piffle; nothing but Darwinian storytelling.
6. 'This is where life breaks free from its material moorings. (Unless you already believed in the immortal soul.) The gene is not an information-carrying macromolecule. The gene is the information. [4.]
- This is what the materialist has to say isn't it? This is the only way he can deal with information within a materialist system. Since m. claims that only the physical is real (and part of science) he must claim information is physical, not immaterial. What Dawkins is doing with his fairy story is trying to save materialism (i.e. from the new threat of information theory). As always, his goal in 'science' is to defend atheism.
To do so he concocts a view of information that goes counter to all other views. His view of information isn't remotely scientific. He's not trying to understand the universe; he's trying to defend materialism. (I guess we could say that Richard Dawkins is atheism's way of preserving itself :=}
I have no idea how a materialist can claim 'life' (a reification) breaks free from its material moorings. That makes no sense to me. That's incoherent as far as I'm concerned.
7. 'The physicist Max Delbrück wrote in 1949, “Today the tendency is to say ‘genes are just molecules, or hereditary particles,’ and thus to do away with the abstractions.” Now the abstractions returned. [4.]
- Abstractions aren't physical are they? Therefore (according to classical materialism) they can't be a subject of science. So we have the comical spectacle of Dawkins defending materialism by the use of abstractions (reifications, personifications, etc.).
8. 'The quavers and crotchets inked on paper are not the music. Music is not a series of pressure waves sounding through the air; nor grooves etched in vinyl or pits burned in CDs; nor even the neuronal symphonies stirred up in the brain of the listener. The music is the information. [4.]
- Really? I don't think so. Music isn't any one of these things, it's all of them. It's reductionistic and fallacious to say music IS the information. That's certainly not a scientific view. It's a limited and partial interpretation of music.
If you're going to say this about music, you'll have to say it about everything. You'll end up saying the world is information; the universe is information. Everything is information. This is a fallacy. You can't equate the universe with the information embedded in it. Life isn't that simple. The universe exists on many levels. There's the physical level, the level of energy, the level of information, the conscious level, the unconscious level, the microscopic level, the macroscopic level, the animal level, the human level, and so on.
If everything is information, then you have to say the universe consists of information replicating itself. This is a profoundly anti-human way of thinking. This is reductionism with a vengence.
Summary;
- If you know what Dawkins' goal is (to defend materialism) you can have a good idea what his take will be on any idea. It will be the take (spin) that best defends materialism. What he's done in his career is take the classic evidence for theism and try to formulate accounts of this evidence that make sense in terms of materialism.
e.g. take the subject of design; he defends materialism by saying what creationists think is design is merely the appearance of design. This isn't a scientific observation but merely a piece of rhetoric. (Something he's adept at.) You can't disprove his interpretation (at least not easily) and so he has what he considers a plausible account of design that defends materialism. (i.e. What appears to be design is simply the mechanical working out of natural selection.) He takes the concept of a (creative) natural selection from Darwin, and adds his bit of rhetoric to the mix.
These mythical replicators are more like the aliens in SF than they are real. They're products of the same culture specific imagination. The same kind of people who invent aliens invent replicators. There's a similar lack of rigor involved, a similar soaring on the wings of unfettered imagination. They invaded the earth and left behind a brood of monsters; monsters who have turned mankind into robot slaves. (So sayeth Richard Dawkins.)
Mike Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]
Notes;
1. The Information - James Gleick/p.294
2. p.295
3. p. 296
4. p. 298
5. According to Samuel Butler, a chicken is an egg's way of producing an egg.
6. I haven't finished the book so maybe he does address this issue later, but he should have addressed it in this section on Origins.
- There is quite a long list of materialists (within the scientific community) that have admitted that the origin of life remains a mystery, so Gleick can't claim he had no one he could quote.
7. I take the view genes don't propagate, organisms propagate. (You can't propagate if you don't have propagating equipment, can you :=} Neither this view, nor the view Dawkins espouses is strictly empirical, although mine is the more natural, the more intuitive.
8. When I'm talking of genes I'm referring to the human genes; the genes in the human genome.
I don't feel ignoring problems is a proper way to write science. He just ignores the problem of where all the information (complex, specified) for living organisms came from. I find this odd to say the least, coming in a book about information.
Quotes and comments on 'The Information' by James Gleick;
1. 'The history of life begins with the accidental appearance of molecules complex enough to serve as building blocks—replicators.' [1.]
- Gleick accepts the idea that all life on earth is a chemical accident. Complexity happens by accident in this account. I thought science was supposed to be about finding laws. I don't see how anyone can believe living organisms 'emerged' from inert matter by accident.
He states this as a fact. It's not a fact, it's a story. No one was there. No one can know this. If this passage were written honestly it would read; 'according to the most popular and current neo-darwinian thinking, life began with the accidental appearance...'
The ability to replicate (reproduce) has it's source in random chance and accident in this scenario. This is an amazing miracle if true. Where does the information come from for this astounding ability? There's a great mystery here, and the average e. just skips merrily over it; pretending as if he's explained it, when all he's done is tell us it happened. (Apparently no explanation for this miracle is needed.) What we have here (in this scenario) is the accidental production of a complex molecule; a molecule that contains both information and information on how to replicate. Am I the only one who sees this as impossible? We don't get a hint (in the textbooks) of how this happened. Not a whiff. Writers just pretend it's all a simple matter and an undeniable fact. (Is this a good way to write science?)
Now I assume this mythical molecule contained DNA, so that it could replicate. So where did the DNA come from? Where did the code come from? What wrote the code? You'd think these would be questions that need to be discussed, but no, they're ignored. I guess this is all a rhetorician can do when they can't answer a question. You'd think any writer with integrity would at least admit they have no idea how this could happen, but I guess that's too much to ask in our politicized culture.
- I guess the idea is that some molecule emerged that didn't require DNA to replicate; but this still doesn't explain where DNA came from, where the coding system came from.
Replicate;
1. To reproduce or make an exact copy or copies of (genetic material, a cell, or an organism).
2. 'Replicators could exist long before DNA, even before proteins.' [1.]
- Could they? Is that a fact or another story? I don't see any way this can be proved. Certainly no one saw it.
Can you have proteins without DNA? I thought DNA held the code (instructions) for creating proteins?
The warrant for this 'fact' of evolution is a scenario dreamt up by
Alexander Cairns-Smith. So his story depends for its warrant on another story. Apparently this is how Darwinism works. (It's stories all the way down folks.)
He gives some alternate scenarios and then says 'either way' it all happened. ie. as if one of these stories Has to be true; as if there couldn't be another explanation (ie. ID) The idea one of a collection of scenarios has to be true is a simple fallacy. (Does Gleick not realize this?)
This whole OOL scenario requires huge amounts of complex, specified information, and the materialists never tell us how this information came about. It's a taboo subject apparently. (i.e. ''we know it happened, so it doesn't matter how it happened...")
- That Gleick doesn't deal with the problems in the materialist OOL scenario, makes this a dishonest book. Materialists seem incapable of discussing and admitting the huge holes in their theory. (They're certainly unwilling to do so.) Is this any way to do science? This is taking the coward's way out. ("Mankind cannot bear much reality," the poet said.) We can't answer the critics so let's ban them, we can't answer them so let's pretend they don't exist... pretend we know how it happened, pretend it's an undeniable fact, pretend we're doing science and not just inventing stories. ("I am the great pretender, pretending that I'm doing well...") This is sad, stuff. Why is it these people can't be honest? Are they going to go to their graves telling these lies, never admitting the truth?
3. 'The body is a colony of genes.' [2.]
- Is it? This is the chicken and the egg story again. [5.] This isn't a fact, it's an interpretation... a way of looking at things. In my opinion it's simply false to say the body is a colony of genes. Even for an evolutionist it's obvious the animal is also a single unit... so it's simply a fallacy to say it IS a colony of genes. This claim is a denial of creation, where an animal is seen as having been designed.
E. theory claims body plans (different creatures) are accidental assemblages of once independent organisms... that somehow managed to find a way to work together. (God knows how; but we're certain it happened this way.) What the heart was before various parts came together (at some kind of heart conference I guess) I'd like to know. I find the idea the various organ systems in the body came together by chemical accident comical.
The above is not a scientific statement. (This is surprising for someone who's devoted themselves to writing on science.) We don't observe that a body is a colony of genes. What we observe, what the data consists of, are genes within the cell, within the body. The word 'is' in this sentence has nothing to do with empirical science. We don't see the 'is' part of this statement. The 'is' part is interpretation, and not scientific.
He talks as if genes were once independent organisms. I see no evidence for this. What we see today is that genes are never independent. I don't see any reason to believe things were ever any different. I believe genes were always dependent (body inhabiting) entities. I believe they were part of the original design of the original creation. ie. that animal kinds were created with genes (DNA) already intact. I can't prove it, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
4. “Selection favors those genes which succeed in the presence of other genes,” says Dawkins, “which in turn succeed in the presence of them." [3.]
- More nonsense from the grandfather of personification. The word favors in this statement has no scientific content. What we observe is that some genes succeed. That's all the data that's here. The rest is Darwinian spin.
There is no entity called selection, and there is no 'favoring' going on. Selection has been reified and given a magic wand. This is not empirical science. (For someone who claims to be defending 'true' science against creationist non-science; Dawkins cares little for being empirical, to restricting himself to actual observation. Most of his writing isn't scientific at all; it's merely a Darwinian spin on things.
e.g. To claim man is a robot slave of genes isn't remotely scientific. In fact it's anti-scientific. That's not an observation, but a Darwinian interpretation.
5. 'To say that a replicator manages to survive for eons is to define the replicator as all the copies considered as one. Thus the gene does not “grow senile,” Dawkins declared.
"It is no more likely to die when it is a million years old than when it is only a hundred. It leaps from body to body down the generations, manipulating body after body in its own way and for its own ends, abandoning a succession of mortal bodies before they sink in senility and death. [4.]
- This is fantasy, not science. No one observes this. Isn't science supposed to be about observation? He's merely defined his 'master of survival' gene into existence. It has no existence outside his definition.
This is gross personification... really ugly stuff. A gene leaping from body to body; a gene with goals or ends. Pure piffle; nothing but Darwinian storytelling.
6. 'This is where life breaks free from its material moorings. (Unless you already believed in the immortal soul.) The gene is not an information-carrying macromolecule. The gene is the information. [4.]
- This is what the materialist has to say isn't it? This is the only way he can deal with information within a materialist system. Since m. claims that only the physical is real (and part of science) he must claim information is physical, not immaterial. What Dawkins is doing with his fairy story is trying to save materialism (i.e. from the new threat of information theory). As always, his goal in 'science' is to defend atheism.
To do so he concocts a view of information that goes counter to all other views. His view of information isn't remotely scientific. He's not trying to understand the universe; he's trying to defend materialism. (I guess we could say that Richard Dawkins is atheism's way of preserving itself :=}
I have no idea how a materialist can claim 'life' (a reification) breaks free from its material moorings. That makes no sense to me. That's incoherent as far as I'm concerned.
7. 'The physicist Max Delbrück wrote in 1949, “Today the tendency is to say ‘genes are just molecules, or hereditary particles,’ and thus to do away with the abstractions.” Now the abstractions returned. [4.]
- Abstractions aren't physical are they? Therefore (according to classical materialism) they can't be a subject of science. So we have the comical spectacle of Dawkins defending materialism by the use of abstractions (reifications, personifications, etc.).
8. 'The quavers and crotchets inked on paper are not the music. Music is not a series of pressure waves sounding through the air; nor grooves etched in vinyl or pits burned in CDs; nor even the neuronal symphonies stirred up in the brain of the listener. The music is the information. [4.]
- Really? I don't think so. Music isn't any one of these things, it's all of them. It's reductionistic and fallacious to say music IS the information. That's certainly not a scientific view. It's a limited and partial interpretation of music.
If you're going to say this about music, you'll have to say it about everything. You'll end up saying the world is information; the universe is information. Everything is information. This is a fallacy. You can't equate the universe with the information embedded in it. Life isn't that simple. The universe exists on many levels. There's the physical level, the level of energy, the level of information, the conscious level, the unconscious level, the microscopic level, the macroscopic level, the animal level, the human level, and so on.
If everything is information, then you have to say the universe consists of information replicating itself. This is a profoundly anti-human way of thinking. This is reductionism with a vengence.
Summary;
- If you know what Dawkins' goal is (to defend materialism) you can have a good idea what his take will be on any idea. It will be the take (spin) that best defends materialism. What he's done in his career is take the classic evidence for theism and try to formulate accounts of this evidence that make sense in terms of materialism.
e.g. take the subject of design; he defends materialism by saying what creationists think is design is merely the appearance of design. This isn't a scientific observation but merely a piece of rhetoric. (Something he's adept at.) You can't disprove his interpretation (at least not easily) and so he has what he considers a plausible account of design that defends materialism. (i.e. What appears to be design is simply the mechanical working out of natural selection.) He takes the concept of a (creative) natural selection from Darwin, and adds his bit of rhetoric to the mix.
These mythical replicators are more like the aliens in SF than they are real. They're products of the same culture specific imagination. The same kind of people who invent aliens invent replicators. There's a similar lack of rigor involved, a similar soaring on the wings of unfettered imagination. They invaded the earth and left behind a brood of monsters; monsters who have turned mankind into robot slaves. (So sayeth Richard Dawkins.)
Mike Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]
Notes;
1. The Information - James Gleick/p.294
2. p.295
3. p. 296
4. p. 298
5. According to Samuel Butler, a chicken is an egg's way of producing an egg.
6. I haven't finished the book so maybe he does address this issue later, but he should have addressed it in this section on Origins.
- There is quite a long list of materialists (within the scientific community) that have admitted that the origin of life remains a mystery, so Gleick can't claim he had no one he could quote.
7. I take the view genes don't propagate, organisms propagate. (You can't propagate if you don't have propagating equipment, can you :=} Neither this view, nor the view Dawkins espouses is strictly empirical, although mine is the more natural, the more intuitive.
8. When I'm talking of genes I'm referring to the human genes; the genes in the human genome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
