is life about the survival of the fittest chemistry?

That "if". It's a big one.

And it is false.

There is no understanding and no language between non-living things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right, and if protected with breaker, any random power surge will trip the breaker and render the switch useless. Who tripped the breaker? Not the butler with a candlestick......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And that implies what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process#Terminology

Look at all the areas where stochastic mathematical processes determine which variable potentials are to become expressed in physical reality. Take fractal patterns. Looks almost intelligent, except it isn't. It's mathematically pseudo-intelligent....difference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Selection does not imply intent.

A coin sorter selects for the largest coins first, then the next largest etc.
There is no intent, yet selection occurs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

?? Right. So would a fire, or a meteor strike, or having a bomb dropped on it. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

You are claiming that the term "selection" implies intent, specifically with regard to stochastic processes. I provided two examples of selectors that did not imply intent and did not use stochastic processes.

 

No, the dictionary claims that "selection" implies intent. But for convenience it has also been given syntactic non-intentional meanings, such as selection made by nature.

1. https://www.google.com/search?q=sel...i65j69i60l3.2600j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

See 2.2 - the definition that is relevant to this thread. No mention of intent.

 

No, let's pick both. The dictionary defines both. One is a sentient act, the other is a non-sentient process (action).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selection

 

Right, then why do you bring it up as a problem? I didn't start this row. You guys are the cherry pickers, not me. If I understand the gist of the posit, no matter how poorly presented I will address the content, not dwell on the presentation.

All I ask that you afford me the same semantic leeway as you afford respected scientists, in presenting my case. If you insist that I use only scientifically appropriate terms, then it is you who is creating a dogmatic scientific Scripture.

I am not trying to create a new universal value/function system. Nothing I say is intended to be in conflict with mainstream science. I assume Penrose is mainstream? Nobel prize?

 

You posted a link to a dictionary definition. It did not contain the word "intent." It just described that it was the act of choosing, which is correct. Both the data selector and the audio/video selector choose one stream out of several. No intent.

 

Right, but the dictionary quote also cited an example "such men decided the selection of candidates", which clearly implies volitional "choice" and the formation of "intent" to select a specific candidate. Actually a very nice example.

As I said these terms do have multiple applications and it is up to the mental generosity of the reader to decide which definition to apply. Apply the wrong definition and we have chaos.

p.s. I don't think I have ever (in my entire life) said that there is an "intentional" (motivated) universal actor. How did this bizarre twist come about?

Oh, the slanderous statements by people who accuse me of practising religion have not helped my reputation, I'm sure.
(Have you heard about W4U? He is advocating the universe acts intentionally .....hehe....he doesn't even realize he is religious...poor soul).

The closest I have ever come to a "spiritual" concept is when using the law of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction", but again here the term "movement" is used in the abstract and not as an intentional act, motivated by conscious desire.

 

Precisely. So apply the right definition.

Yes. This.

(No, it doesn't. Any more than multiple meanings of the word "run" imply that MY sniffly nose could break the four minute mile.)

 

You are corrupting Penrose's words.
You are making an inductive leap that is not logically valid.

'A stems from B' does not imply that 'B stems from A'.

(To paraphrase, for clarity) 'Sentience comes from the quantum world' does not imply that 'anything manifest from the quantum world is sentient'.

 

But I did not say that, this is your imagination speaking. I said; "... the term "selection" is a similar verb that implies intent..." and later; "No, the dictionary claims that "selection" implies intent". That is if the selection process is performed by volitional sentient beings. Consciously selecting from among different choices is an intentional act.
"Intent" is not defined but implied in the verb "to select" (making a selection), when the selection is performed by a sentient self-aware being, but not if the "selection" is a mathematically probabilistic action (function).

I don't think I am corrupting Penrose's words. I believe Penrose says that but he does not mean sentience as intelligent awareness. but as a natural response mechanism when presented with energetic information sharing.[/quote]

 

It does when the "selector" is a volitional conscious being like humans.

Right, but then you are talking about a coin sorter, a non-conscious non-volitional machine, intentionally programmed by it's volitional motivated builder to sort coins.

OTOH, selection can be a result of a process of elimination and this can also be achieved unconsciously, as in "natural selection", but also in the slime mold, a brainless single celled organism (polyp) that can solve mazes by subtraction and can tell time and anticipate events. The slime mold is unconscious (no brain), but it is sentient, physically reactive to touch and chemicals. Yet, these simple attributes allow it to map its environment and spontaneously design a copy of a japanese hwy system. A neat trick.

My point is that there are two different computational models when making choices, decisions or selections. One is a motivated intelligent (volitional) conscious awareness (such humans), the other an unconscious but physically sentient (reactive) mathematical pseudo-intelligent universal function.

 

These are, by the way, requisites for something to be life.
Bacteria also do this.

 

Don't misunderstand - everybody here knows what your point is.

It's just not based on logic. Or an understanding of how dictionaries work. Or words.

It's frustrating. I know you're sincere, but your posts are rife with flawed logic and corrupted meanings that lead you - willingly - on flights of fancy. You could just as easily use similar logic to make the point that the universe is made of unicorns.

And none of it has anything to do with Biology or Genetics.


There is nothing further I can contribute here.

 

Your objection is of a semantic nature?

Thanks for recognizing my integrity in motivation.
But I think that on closer examination my logic is not just flights of fancy. I picked them up from various sources but recognized a common denominator in various independent proposals.

Yes it does, witness the collaboration between Stuart Hameroff (anesthesiologist) and Roger Penrose (physicist) is proof that both disciplines are connected at a much more direct level than previously suspected.

Obviously.

 

Right, and simplicity of structure goes down to very elementary levels of existence. Hazen estimates that humans consist of some 500 different bio-molecules and that life is likely to be abundant in the universe, but only locally depending on conditions.

Apparently it's not that hard to form life. All the proto materials necessary are abundant throughout the universe. It's just a matter of local conditions and a probability factor, which in time eventually becomes expressed in reality. Life is a result of the exchange of information in non-living bio-chemistry.

 

So now we can add "work" to the growing list of scientific terms that you misuse. Jolly good.

 

I appreciate the presentation of more assertions, analysis to which I can contribute.

None of which informs your assertion that the universe, itself, is semi-whatever.

Houses are made of bricks, but it does not follow that bricks must make houses.
Life may come in microscopic form, but it does not follow that microscopic things are therefore imbued with life.
Sentience may be rooted at the quantum scale, but it does not follow that quantum scale begets sentience.