is life about the survival of the fittest chemistry?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by globali, Jan 29, 2018.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,411
    Obtuse is exactly the right word.

    Though what you meant was not obtuse but abstruse.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,859
    A reasonable request. I recommend a quick view @ 7:00, @ 56:00 and @ 1:00:00 Penrose mentions "mathematical understanding", "proto-consciousness", and "consciousness" specifically in reference to quantum mechanics.

    If I misunderstand his posits in any way, I would appreciate clarification.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,859
    Well, let's put it this way, you seem to have real trouble in understanding what it is I am trying to say, or perhaps you are not making the effort at all.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,411
    It is the second.

    Look, I am always willing to discuss science with you or anyone, but I am thoroughly sick and tired of your obsessive pushing of this Shapiro/Tegmark mathematical universe and now this Penrose nutty microtubules nonsense. The guy is nearly ninety.

    As I have said on other threads, you are hijacking all manner of subjects and boring the arse off us all with this stuff. For God's sake find something else to talk about.
     
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,526
    Up and down are not color charges, so I don't know why you'd bring those up. Remember, don't go killing people in the streets!
    (Also, calling them "states" is iffy at best.)

    But I'm glad you agree with me that you pointing to color charge as support for color existing on a subatomic level was completely wrong.

    (And I'm not surprised you once again ignore your own "three fundamental frequencies" idea.)
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,439
    That is not what you're doing.

    You are corrupting Penrose's meaning to your own ends.

    Penrose's statement - to paraphrase - is "all A starts with B" (A is sentience, B is quantum scale).
    IT does NOT, in any way, follow that "If B exists, then A logically follows".

    You are either inadvertently - or deliberately - starting with a quote from a famous person that in no way supports your agenda, and mangling it to further your own off-topic ideas.

    As I said before, it's similar to a bot that picks up on keywords, but doesn't understand their meaning or context; it merely tries to keep a conversation going.

    SciFo: "...in short, the vacuum of power in Upper Volta is serious."
    W4U: "Vacuum? Did you know that Brian Greene says that the vacuum is full of quantum tunnels? It logically follows that we could use those tunnels to travel around the universe."
    SciFo: "OK, for starters, Greene's hypothesis does not imply that at all. For two, do you understand the different meanings of 'vacuum'?"
    W4U: "Greene is a famous scientist. Also, Green is my favorite colour. Here is a link to an article about the origins of green."
     
    exchemist likes this.
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,411
    Brilliant! Made me roar with laughter.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,859
    Except this is a fictitious story. Can't you even cite something I actually wrote??

    I expect more from SciFo.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,859
    Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.
    I thought that misunderstanding was also cleared up.

    Can we get back to the OP?
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,859
    We? You are speaking for who?
    I find your unwarranted critiques boring. Why don't you find something else to talk about?

    If I seem to hijack the thread, that means there are responses to my posts, no?
    Many responses make for lively conversation about and around the subject. That's a good thing.

    If my posts are irrelevant, why do people comment at all? If I see something I have no interest in, I don't waste my time responding. And I don't make disparaging comments about poster's intellectual deficits.
    "Ain't nuttin' wrong with my intellect......"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ability to view something from different perspectives makes for "understanding" (Roger Antonsen)
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 11:33 PM
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,439
    I did.

    I addressed the Penrose reference directly (posts 105, 106).

    You said "'sentience begins at quantum scale' which would make the universe at least semi sentient, or pseudo intelligent."
    The latter does not logically follow from the former.


    You didn't get it. I simplified it for you.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018 at 12:54 AM
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,859
    Can you explain your reluctance to agree with that very simple observation?
    What information processing does the universe have trouble with? Entanglement? Pi? Phi?

    Is the science of physics not the observation and recording of the inherent values and functions of physical objects? There seems to be a lot of information out there. What does the physical universe do with all that physical information sharing? Evolve?

    The Earth alone has witnessed (performed) some "2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion" simple chemical reactions (information sharing) during its lifetime.

    Note: the earth itself is not alive but it is host to a thriving dynamic and dynamical ecological system.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018 at 5:01 AM
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,439
    The universe does not process information.

    You are continuing to misuse words.

    This is not going to end well.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,859
    Then please do tell what the correct wording is in context of describing information sharing among universal values and functions.

    Everything in the universe processes information? Better? But what does that mean?

    Just saying no, no, no, does not get us anywhere at all, no?

    If you do know how this should be expressed in a clear and coherent manner, please show me!
    I'd be really grateful.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,526
    Glad I could help!

    Was it though?

    By all means! I only replied to correct an obviously wrong statement made in the science-section, nothing more.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,859
    No, you did not quote me at all verbatim or otherwise. You invented a wholly fictitious story and assigned it to me and some anonymous SciFo participant.
    This is not honest debating, Dave. Not a word of that "quote" was factual! And there is absolutely no need to invent a "metaphor" when you have my posts at hand.
    Yes it does, and I'll make my case.
    Quantum Mechanics is the fundamental (essential) information sharing mechanism of the universal medium, it makes the universe a coherent unified whole. And makes entanglement at great distances possible.

    If quantum mechanics is a two-way exchange of information sharing and this involves a transfer of quanta (a compound packet of energy) a form of language, understood by both parties then one can make a case for a form of pseudo- or proto-sentience. That is how I interpreted Penrose. And if this is true, a case for non-intelligent or pseudo-intelligent mathematical sentience can be made IMO.

    Actually I learned that the quantum wave collapse takes time. Kind of briefly ringing a doorbell at speed of light. As I understand it, quantum is a threshold event at nano scale, a dynamic "ding" triggering a "dong" response in the receiver...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Each "ding" in the "rrringgg" being a part of the sequentially collapsing oscillating wave packet. That's what I saw in Penrose's presentation. An abstract universal functional mathematical pattern.

    And as the saying goes, "once a thing has begun it is that way". The rest is just evolutionary stages of refinement and adaptation for functionality in specific areas of sensory acuteness.
    No you didn't. You slandered me...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018 at 7:07 AM
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,411
    Because almost everything you say is wrong, and because you are hijacking all the time.

    If you go through the replies to your posts on this thread, I think you will find virtually all of them are either commenting on mistakes or misunderstandings of yours, or objecting to your practice of hijacking threads.

    In fact, why don't you list for me the post numbers of the replies to you on this thread which are not doing either of these things? That could be an eye-opening exercise.
     
  21. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,379
    I would put it that the Universe DOES NOT PROCESS ANY INFORMATION

    Processing, to me implies,
    • receiving information
    • giving said information consideration
    • deciding on a course of action
    • implementation of that action
    Since the laws of physics are fixed THERE ARE NO CHOICES

    Apart from the Universe being non sentient hence has no ability to make choices

    Entanglement? Noooooo

    Us mere human Minions have a problem with entanglement, because us dumb Minions don't understand it

    Universe does not even know entanglement exist

    That's because us dumb Minions found some process we didn't understand and gave it the name entanglement

    Incidentally the Universe does not know about us dumb Minions existing

    (3rd edit) Uncertainty Principal?

    We again dumb Minions are the ones uncertain

    And dumb Universe again does not know anything about uncertainty (or certainty)

    All things considered the dumb Universe runs fairly smoothly with fixed physics

    And dumb Minions do pretty well figuring out what they don't know

    I need coffee and stop doing 4 things at once

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018 at 9:56 AM
    Write4U likes this.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,859
    OTOH I can also count the likes I get and be reasonably certain that I am contributing something agreeable to the general conversation.
    The critiques I get from a few are not about substance but form of presentation, I can understand that but that only requires clarification, not endless complaints about semantics.
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,411
    OK well here are the stats for responses to your posts on this thread:

    Likes: zero
    +ve responses: 2
    neutral responses: 2
    -ve responses: 32

    I rest my case.
     

Share This Page