Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Jul 1, 2019.

  1. globali Registered Senior Member

    Do you really want Write4U to start analyzing what he means with the term quasi-intelligent again?LOL
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Haha. I know.

    I am painfully aware that refuting his ideas is nothing more than an opportunity for him to wax at great length about his ideas. He preaches, wearing the trappings of discussion.

    globali likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    no it isn't. Is a Daisy's Fibonacci growth pattern an intelligent design? Who is the designer? The Daisy, God?
    A mathematical growth function? Bingo!
    wrong definition. Should read; "Act's like - but isn't".
    Yes, to the uninitiated it looks like it's intelligently designed, but that is because it is a quasi-intelligent function of mathematics. It doesn't lose "designed features", they are just not designed by a motivated supernatural creator being.

    Just because it is not intelligently designed doesn't mean it has no design, it means that the universe as a quasi-intelligently functioning geometry is able to create patterns via quasi-intelligent mathematics.

    The mathematical physical functions of the universe create patterns, patterns are designs. The universe is not intelligent but it creates "regular patterns". So we have spontaneously emerging mathematical designs which "look" intelligent, or as defined, is "quasi-intelligent" in form and function.

    And just to get the definition of Quasi in context.

    I see the universe as a geometric pattern, acting via quasi-intelligent mathematically ordered relative values and functions, which we have discovered and named "universal mathematical values functions" (constants).

    Once you accept that functional pespective everything becomes a lot less confusing.
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    No. It isn't. Full stop.


    Key word: "isn't".

    So, drop the "acts like" equivocation implicit in the useless prefix "quasi-", and you still have the same cohesive statement without the fluff:

    The universe isn't intelligently designed. Full stop.


    So stop conflating the two.

    As just agreed, you see the universe as a geometric pattern, acting via not intelligent ordered relative etc., etc.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Care to take a stab at it? Or are you denying the existence of the term in relation to universal functions?
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    You just asked if someone denies the existence a term you made up.
  10. globali Registered Senior Member

    To me its all semantics. Semantic tricks that help you jump into conclusions and make leaps of logic that sound sensical (to you, given that probably your biology knowledge is highschool level. I don't know your physics level).
    I am still waiting for you to tell me how many years you will need to make a simple organism from scratch, lets say an archaeobacterium. Describe in a few words what kind of technology you will need, and how will you technically approach it?
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You asked for it, here it is.
    Is it a mathematical design?
    Right it isn't intelligent, but it acts as if it were intelligent.
    Right, it's quasi-intelligent, which is not designed but creates designs (patterns).
    You need to learn to see common denominators.
    Right the universe is a geometric pattern, acting in a quasi-intelligent manner via mathematically ordered relative values etc.

    You are conflating intelligence with living brains only. You are wrong!
    I find it strange that you are seriously discussing Artificial Intelligence, but you reject Quasi-intelligence, which is really the proper definition of AI !

    And just to remind of the definition of an "adjective"

    And lastly a reminder of the definition of "Quasi"
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And pray tell what does quasi-intelligent design require?

    You keep harping on the term "intelligent" in context of motivated intelligence, i.e. God.
    I see no such restriction at all. You are creating your own "obstacles" to understanding the workings of universal relative values and functional mathematical interactions.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Well. we know that this happened after the BB, so any time within the past 13~ billion years? Close enough for you?
    But you have already committed a false analogy. The universe did not create a simple organism from scratch.
    There is no universal cook-book with recipes for creation of biology from scratch.

    Biochemical compounds are a result of chemical interaction of fundamental chemical elements. The emergent complexity is formed during the evolutionary process of assimilation of additional chemicals and establishment of internal chemical processes, which eventually leads to intelligence.

    Note; there are millions of quasi-intelligent patterns in nature. The single celled slime-mold is but one of them.
    At the other end of the evolutionary intelligence scale are humans.

    But then humans need a compass to travel north. Geese and pigeons just know where north is from the earth's magnetic fields. How would you rate that on the scale of intelligence. Quasi-intelligent, a little intelligent, a specialized intelligence, fully formed intelligence?

    Help me out here, how many versions of biological patterns (creatures) with different intelligences and behaviors are there in nature?

    Explain to me the nature and function of mathematical equations.

    You complain about my hightened expectations of universal potentials, but it is you who is displaying "lowered expectations" of universal potentials and have to invent a completely fantastical story of intentional creation by some extra-universal being, as told in the biblical story of "Genesis". Give me a break.

    I like my version of a dynamical mathematical universe, where logical self-referential mathematics can account for everything we see. No BS of any kind. Just the mathematical interplay of natural relative values and functions.

    How? Watch Hazen, he shows you how.
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Yup. And the sun acted as if it were a chariot riding across the sky.

    Now we know better. We are no longer so gullible as to think that two things that act similar do not necessarily have a root case.
    That's science over superstition.

    Right, it's not intelligent, which is not designed but creates designs (patterns).

    Exactly the same statement - without the obfuscation of what it seems to be to the naive.

    And there's your problem.

    False conflation.

    This thing behaves in a way I naively associate with intelligence.
    Therefore this thing has an intelligence as a root cause.

    This six-petaled flower looks like a snowflake.
    Therefore flowers and snowflakes have a common denominator.

    I danced. It rained.
    Therefore dancing means rain.

    Exactly the opposite of science.

    That is the crux of your folly.

    Remove the nonsense term "quasi", and you get:

    Dancing does not mean rain.

    Flowers and snowflakes do not have a common denominator.

    This thing does not have an intelligence as a root cause.
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You want me to explain in a few words what has been dubbed insurmountable intellectual obstacles in the formation and evolution of the universe and the inanimate and animate matter contained therein?

    OK, biologically its all chemistry and all natural laws of chemistry apply. Geometrically its all mathematical and all mathematical constants apply. There you have it. Simple enough?

    God did it, is just not quite good enough for me....a little too simple, IMO.
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    It is good enough for you, you just substitute the weasel-word "quasi-intelligence" for "God".
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Not surprised that you are so infatuated with his story since you are a committed IDer.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Yet along with your supposed "close look" at the issues, you also indulge in conspiracy nonsense, and nonsensical claims about GR being wrong.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. globali Registered Senior Member

    lol! The question is how. Thats the whole point. That you are running into conclusions using pseudoscientific arguments. You lack the rigour in your thought that is needed.

    This is too vague. Can you see the leaps you are making? Can you see why this is a pseudoscientific argument?
    Oh and i never advocated ID.
  20. globali Registered Senior Member

    Simple, only i didn't understand anything. You speak more like a cult leader.
    I can give you trillions of years. You still haven't given me technical details, since you claim that you know how to make life.
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    You are obfuscating Yazata...Any and all attempted exxplantions via supernatural and/or paranormal reasons, are by definition unscientific. And the last time I looked, this is a science forum.
    Let me also repeat what I said to James, while we maybe ignorant of the exact methodology or pathway to how life emerged from non life, all of the suggested hypothetical methods come under the banner of Abiogenesis, the so far indisputable only scientific answer.
    Let me also say that I cringe at being labeled an Atheist or any other label, and simply see myself as a admirer of science and the scientific methodology, as by far the best discipline the human race has ever devised.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No not my view in particular, the view of mainstream science in general and that which I am in agreement with.
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    To the early versions of homo sapiens it looked that way. That's why they assigned intelligence to the heavens and heavenly phenomena.
    Right, and that's why we identified a qualifier in the term "quasi-".
    Right my science is based on natural mathematics of relative values (potentials) and functions, over the superstition of supernatural interference.
    Right, quasi-intelligent is the properly qualified term for spontaneous creation of mathematical designs.
    But isn't given that we have a perfectly suitable qualifier which modifies the strict definition of motivated "intelligence".
    Absolutely, they have a common denominator in mathematical fractality. Except the term quasi- is not correctly used in context here.
    Please, you are derailing badly here. You want quasi-dancing raindrops?

    Really, then you give me the science without the mathematics. I challenge you.

    I've laid out my case based on natural mathematical properties (potentials), which you reject.
    Now it's your turn to go out on a limb and expose yourself to critique.

    Oh, in a few short words, please. The subject is too complicated for long explanations, don't you agree? Too many physical obstacles in the way of evolution.
    But then according to you Evolution (self-assembly and functional efficiency) is not sufficient to explain all the mysterious wonders that must have been designed by some form of intelligence.

    Of course it cannot be truly intelligent, so I guess that even religion refers to God as a quasi-intelligence (God has no brain) who designed the universe in accordance with mathematical laws and physical behaviors.

    I wonder why God had to use mathematics to make it all work.......please explain....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019

Share This Page