The new science - Information Integration

Cooky · Jul 13, 2019

ecco said:
Perhaps you can point to something in his 1993 book The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution that has found its way into ToE.

So new potentials not already a part of ToE, are woo, and should be dismissed immediately? Even if they may fit wihin the parameters?

...Maybe you've created your own abstract of what science, and the ToE is supposed to look like, and it should remain that way, unchanged?

shunyadragon · Jul 14, 2019

Landon Caeli said:
So new potentials not already a part of ToE, are woo, and should be dismissed immediately? Even if they may fit within the parameters?

New potentials?!?! Too vague, and need to be defined or your 'arguing from ignorance.' If you are talking about philosophical/Theological information or beliefs that are not falsifiable by objective verifiable evidence than they are out of consideration or integration in the science of evolution,.

...Maybe you've created your own abstract of what science, and the ToE is supposed to look like, and it should remain that way, unchanged?

At its foundation the science of evolution will very very unlikely change, but new information, abd research will very likely always change.

Cooky · Jul 14, 2019

shunyadragon said:
New potentials?!?! Too vague, and need to be defined or your 'arguing from ignorance.' If you are talking about philosophical/Theological information or beliefs that are not falsifiable by objective verifiable evidence than they are out of consideration or integration in the science of evolution,.

At its foundation the science of evolution will very very unlikely change, but new information, abd research will very likely always change.

Yes, new information to add... I think we should not be afraid of new information, or ideas that have yet to be demonstrated. That's why I refer to it as a "potential"...

Instead, we should be eager to demonstrate or disprove ideas using the scientific method.

sealchan · Jul 14, 2019

ecco said:
Thank for posting a synopsis. Many people in these forums post links and it quickly becomes clear that they do not really understand what they are talking about. You, on the other hand, obviously do.

To here, I see little that would "transform how we think about evolution".
However, there are parts...

A system exists in a space divided into orderly and chaotic regions.
Systems that can find this critical zone are stable and creative.
...that, in context, sound like they border on woo.

Your last sentence makes it quite clear that Stuart Kauffman has stepped over the line and is fully into woo. As such, I doubt his views will have any effect on how we think about evolution and consciousness.

Perhaps you can point to something in his 1993 book The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution that has found its way into ToE.

I dont have access to my books (moving between homes) but I will read the following article and suggest you do as well:

A simple guide to chaos and complexity

This woo is founded on mathematical, computer modeling, is promoted by Nobel prize winning scientists, is being pursued in dedicated research labs and is being applied or looking to be applied in a rich array of fields to scientific and practical advantage.

I will look for more video content...maybe make a new thread to capture this in for future reference.

In the realm of ToE this topic will help show how abiogenesis happened and how the way it happened facilitated evolutionary processes as well as help to explain evolutionary processes as having some typical systemic attributes in common with ecosystems themselves.

ecco · Jul 14, 2019

ecco said:
Your last sentence makes it quite clear that Stuart Kauffman has stepped over the line and is fully into woo. As such, I doubt his views will have any effect on how we think about evolution and consciousness.

Landon Caeli said:
Why do you say that?

Here is the sentence in question...

sealchan said:
As such it represents implicit knowledge, wisdom or information in the system that makes it appear to be more intelligent than a random system.

When ~~you say~~ he said that some systems have "implicit knowledge", that is woo.

For context, here is the part I was addressing...

sealchan said:
Certain planets such as the Earth allow for chemical interactions to emerge into progressively more complex and adaptive behaviors because their environments are conducive to the existence of critically balanced order and chaos.

I should add that the self-organizing behavior produces adaptations faster than random response does. As such it represents implicit knowledge, wisdom or information in the system that makes it appear to be more intelligent than a random system.

ecco · Jul 14, 2019

sealchan said:
Certain planets such as the Earth allow for chemical interactions to emerge into progressively more complex and adaptive behaviors because their environments are conducive to the existence of critically balanced order and chaos.

I should add that the self-organizing behavior produces adaptations faster than random response does. As such it represents implicit knowledge, wisdom or information in the system that makes it appear to be more intelligent than a random system.

ecco said:
Your last sentence makes it quite clear that Stuart Kauffman has stepped over the line and is fully into woo. As such, I doubt his views will have any effect on how we think about evolution and consciousness.

Perhaps you can point to something in his 1993 book The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution that has found its way into ToE.

sealchan said:
I dont have access to my books (moving between homes) but I will read the following article and suggest you do as well:

A simple guide to chaos and complexity

OK. You dont' have Kauffman's book and you now want us to move on to a different article. So let me restate: perhaps you can point to something in your new link that agrees with Kauffman and has found its way into ToE.

As I mentioned earlier, I have no intention of chasing links when the poster cannot summarize the content and point to those parts that allegedly support his argument.

shunyadragon · Jul 14, 2019

Landon Caeli said:
Yes, new information to add... I think we should not be afraid of new information, or ideas that have yet to be demonstrated. That's why I refer to it as a "potential"...

Instead, we should be eager to demonstrate or disprove ideas using the scientific method.

This as I indicated in the previous post is welcome, and the history of science, but only within the objective verifiable limits of science.

sealchan · Jul 15, 2019

ecco said:
OK. You dont' have Kauffman's book and you now want us to move on to a different article. So let me restate: perhaps you can point to something in your new link that agrees with Kauffman and has found its way into ToE.

As I mentioned earlier, I have no intention of chasing links when the poster cannot summarize the content and point to those parts that allegedly support his argument.

That's fine...I was just being enthusiastic about the OP and proclaiming my confidence in this new area of scientific research. if you look at the content of the research it is fairly self evident how it will augment the Theory of Evolution. I'm not in a position to expound further at this time but brushing up on some terminology may get me there.

We all have limits to our time and interests.

Cooky · Jul 15, 2019

sealchan said:
That's fine...I was just being enthusiastic about the OP and proclaiming my confidence in this new area of scientific research. if you look at the content of the research it is fairly self evident how it will augment the Theory of Evolution. I'm not in a position to expound further at this time but brushing up on some terminology may get me there.

We all have limits to our time and interests.

It is exciting.

ecco · Jul 16, 2019

sealchan said:
That's fine...I was just being enthusiastic about the OP and proclaiming my confidence in this new area of scientific research. if you look at the content of the research it is fairly self evident how it will augment the Theory of Evolution. I'm not in a position to expound further at this time but brushing up on some terminology may get me there.

We all have limits to our time and interests.

You want me to look at the content to see if it supports your contention.

You would do it, but don't have the time.

I guess that's just another way of saying:

Yes, I posted nonsense and I was hoping you would blindly accept it and wouldn't call me out.

sealchan · Jul 16, 2019

ecco said:
You want me to look at the content to see if it supports your contention.

You would do it, but don't have the time.

I guess that's just another way of saying:

Yes, I posted nonsense and I was hoping you would blindly accept it and wouldn't call me out.

It's only nonsense if it is nonsense not if a particular person fails to make a clear argument. I would avoid judging the content if the messenger has failed.

It isnt my work but the work of others and I endeavored to make it known to others.

ecco · Jul 16, 2019

ecco said:
You want me to look at the content to see if it supports your contention.

You would do it, but don't have the time.

I guess that's just another way of saying:
Yes, I posted nonsense and I was hoping you would blindly accept it and wouldn't call me out.

sealchan said:
It's only nonsense if it is nonsense not if a particular person fails to make a clear argument. I would avoid judging the content if the messenger has failed.

It isnt my work but the work of others and I endeavored to make it known to others.

How many people in these forums do you think are going to waste their time looking at an article you linked to when you don't have the time to make the effort to refer to it and discuss it?

Yeah. I'd say the messenger has indeed failed.

sealchan · Jul 16, 2019

ecco said:
How many people in these forums do you think are going to waste their time looking at an article you linked to when you don't have the time to make the effort to refer to it and discuss it?

Yeah. I'd say the messenger has indeed failed.

In a world...where people spend inordinate amounts of time complaining about stuff they could just simply ignore...

Cooky · Jul 16, 2019

sealchan said:
In a world...where people spend inordinate amounts of time complaining about stuff they could just simply ignore...

Sometimes people feel obligated to rid science of philosophical thought altogether. I just wonder what would happpen if the philosophical field of metaphysics established a supportable scientific theory by their findings.

...It's not like the two fields don't already blend into one another. I guess that would be a hard to swallow dose of reality for some.

Good thing science has never been influenced by philosophy before...

Cooky · Jul 16, 2019

...To each his own, I guess.

shunyadragon · Jul 16, 2019

Landon Caeli said:
Sometimes people feel obligated to rid science of philosophical thought altogether. I just wonder what would happpen if the philosophical field of metaphysics established a supportable scientific theory by their findings.

...It's not like the two fields don't already blend into one another. I guess that would be a hard to swallow dose of reality for some.

Good thing science has never been influenced by philosophy before...

The belief in philosophical naturalism or materialism is of course a philosophical decision and not science.

As I believe in God I wonder also, but at present the evidence of Methodological Naturalism wisely does not go there, because of the lack of objective verifiable evidence. I will hold with the Harmony of Science and religion that considers the knowledge of science in harmony with God's Creation.

ecco · Jul 17, 2019

ecco said:
How many people in these forums do you think are going to waste their time looking at an article you linked to when you don't have the time to make the effort to refer to it and discuss it?

Yeah. I'd say the messenger has indeed failed.

sealchan said:
In a world...where people spend inordinate amounts of time complaining about stuff they could just simply ignore...

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps some people cater to posters who are too lazy (or too ignorant) to comment intelligently on the own points of view and just post links in the hope that someone will click the link and be astounded at the awesome insight of the poster.

However, if that is your mindset, you don't have much of a case to make when people just ignore your links. Coming back later and screaming: YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ THE ARTICLE I LINKED TO, would be a really lame assertion.

ecco · Jul 17, 2019

Landon Caeli said:
I just wonder what would happpen if the philosophical field of metaphysics established a supportable scientific theory by their findings.

That can happen any day now just as soon as anything metaphysical shows promise of having a basis in science.

shunyadragon · Jul 17, 2019

shunyadragon said:
The belief in philosophical naturalism or materialism is of course a philosophical decision and not science.

As I believe in God I wonder also, but at present the evidence of Methodological Naturalism wisely does not go there, because of the lack of objective verifiable evidence. I will hold with the Harmony of Science and religion that considers the knowledge of science in harmony with God's Creation.

To add: I am not an advocate of wishful thinking as far as science as science is concerned.

sealchan · Jul 18, 2019

Landon Caeli said:
Sometimes people feel obligated to rid science of philosophical thought altogether. I just wonder what would happpen if the philosophical field of metaphysics established a supportable scientific theory by their findings.

...It's not like the two fields don't already blend into one another. I guess that would be a hard to swallow dose of reality for some.

Good thing science has never been influenced by philosophy before...

With complexity science there are interesting limits being shown on scientific understanding. The mathematical modelling of systems, especially those complex ones that are also "sensitive to initial conditions" makes reproducing behavior a more inherently statistical thing. Literally, physical behavior may be impossible to precisely reproduce the more we understand the "simple laws" governing that behavior just because of this. Chaos theory and complexity science bring with them a new sense of our looking at the "walls" of our understanding in a way similar to how modern physics has done this.

The more heavily science leans on mathematical and computer modelling of physical behavior the more we may be left to have to contemplate metaphysical understandings.

The new science - Information Integration

Veteran Member

shunyadragon

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

shunyadragon

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

shunyadragon

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

shunyadragon

Well-Known Member