This is a follow up to my previous OP Is Cosmic Consciousness responsible for reality?
There seems to be some confusion regarding the causes of collapse of wave function(which seems to creates reality) whether a conscious observer can collapse the wave function ONLY or can a designed robot/computer perform the same role. Instead of pointing out the facts, I’d like “the seekers of truth” to do it for themselves. Since apparently ‘a picture is worth 1000 words’, I attach 2 videos that cover 2 breakthrough experiments in the understanding of well known double-slit experiment and the implications of collapse of wave function by an observer on the nature of reality…
Things to watch for in the second video: At 13 min and 15 min mark the experiment identifies the difference between robot/Linux systems and humans’ effect on the double-slit experiment. At 32 min mark we can see the implications of the experiments on reductive materialism and materialistic philosophy as well as why the obvious change is necessary that resisted by the scientific community…
Things to watch for in the first video: At 2:30 min mark it is explained what exactly causes the collapse of wave function. Does an act of observing alone cause the collapse of wave function? Or rather, does the knowledge of which path determined by a conscious observer or knower do that?
The last part of the second video talks about implications of the experiment that are so mind boggling that I’m going to leave them out for another OP. For those who have curious minds, please pay a close attention to “behavior” of 2 entangled particles which either involves their knowledge of the future or we fully do not understand the concept of time…
Yes I do believe that I am more intelligent than an individual ostrich, but I also believe that I am less intelligent than the group intelligence of the species ostrich.
I think you have hit upon a truth here. It is not so much individual random mutations which determines the course of bird evolution, but their behaviour and lifestyle. The fact that flying birds are designed to fly restricts their brain development. Their niche is constrictive to further development in this regard.
Gordon Davisson,
First: Thank you for your comments. I don’t know at this point if this experiment is showing consciousness collapsing the wave function.
The negative press in Wikipedia means little to me. This is simply an ad hominem attack from a biased group IMO. Time will tell if this experiment is opening up a new gateway to reality.
Corneel,
It could represent two protein families isolated in sequence space. The ubiquitin system and the spliceosome would be examples two systems that require very different sequences and contain proteins that are highly conserved.
Trying to find a selectable random path between these two would be like trying to find a selectable random path between these two paragraphs.
In both cases we are dealing with exceedingly large sequence spaces.
Like the paragraphs, the sequences that build these protein groups require conscious intelligence to generate the observed function IMO.
If that is what gpuccio is trying to show, then his OP is irrelevant to protein evolution. Nobody is saying that the modern ubiquitin system evolved from the modern spliceosome or vice versa. They both evolved independently from simpler precursors.
You must either be blind or have a bad memory.
But your opinion is worth nothing. What you need are some good arguments and evidence, not just statements of opinion.
As soon as ubiquitin and spliceosome systems can be found within a single organism then they cannot be said to evolve independently.
In some respects that is true, in that their individual effects on the fitness of the host organism are tied together. If and when mutations occur in both systems simultaneously in the same carrier, the conjunction of their fitness effects will likely determine the overall fate of those mutants.
Though it is still entirely possible for either system to evolve for a time without any significant effects on the other, due to factors such as mutation rate, genome size, selection coefficient of mutants and so on, in the sense that it is generally unlikely for an organism to suffer mutations with significant fitness effect in genes encoding components of both systems simultaneously.
It is worth considering here that both systems are candidates for systems having evovled largely by constructive neutral evolution (CNE). Particularly the spliceosomal complex seems to have evolved mainly by a neutral ratchet of gene duplications. As more and more deleterious mutations occurred in spliceosomal proteins, duplications of supressing helper proteins became necessary to keep the system functioning and were thus retained. These in turn also became targets for further deleterious mutations, again leading to duplications of compensating supressor proteins being favored.
Rumraket,
These sort of speculations about protein evolution are all based on genes being mostly separate lumps of matter just like the components that comprise a machine. But things look very different from a point of view that think of fields as more fundamental than the conventional view of matter. IMO interacting, interpenetrating fields better explain the complex processes we find in inter-cellular and intra-cellular networks.
I believe that this point of view will become more recognised in the future. There are some initial signs of this
Corneel,
This is the story but there are several obvious holes in it.
-what simpler precursors
-how did the precursors fit together to form a single function
-Where did the DNA sequence come from that would allow these pieces to be assembled as a coherent whole.
How did that ubiquitin system evolve independently of the spliceosome as it contains proteins with splice variants.
How would something that is “simple” become complex on its own given complexity means additional genetic information?
Rumraket,
This is just duplication of the same information. Both the spliceosome and the ubiquitin system require gobs of new genetic information. Gpuccio’s post shows how difficult it is to generate new information from existing information.
Why assume that they ever had hands that function at all like our own?
What evidence do you have for that assertion?
Is it just his opinion that is worth nothing? Because I see a lot of people sharing their opinions.
Why does he need are some good arguments and evidence, not just statements of opinion? What kind of world do you think you a are living in Rumraket?
If people fail to live up to your moral expectations don’t blame them, blame evolution.
That would be the fossil record of theropods, which shows that they once had forelimbs chiefly used for grasping prey.
These are all mighty interesting questions, but shall we first agree that gpuccio’s two paragraph analogy isn’t useful for any of those questions and therefore utterly irrelevant?
No. Also his pants.
And your answer is what? How many repetitions of the word “design” would it take to “explain” all those things?
What people wonder is why you prefer a story that is all hole to a story with holes?
And you (and those other people) think he ought not do that?
tsk tsk.
ETA:
What kind of world do you think you are living in OMagain?
If people fail to live up to your moral expectations don’t blame them, blame evolution.
Corneel,
I think it is useful to all the questions. It shows how tough it is to get a functional sequence of a different function from an original function especially if the functions are different. Selectable random change does not appear to create functional information in his example.
Notice I am granting for argument sake the existence of the copied function.
OMagain,
I prefer a simple explanation that has a chance to be right over a detailed one that is almost certainly wrong.
Mung,
I see a new movie coming out:
Blame it on evolution
You mean you prefer willful ignorance which protects your religious beliefs over scientific knowledge which refutes your Young Earth Creationism religious mythology.
OMagain, to colewd:
colewd:
As I asked once before:
You’d rather stick with a simple-minded “explanation” without meaningful evidence that leads to no discoveries, than to seriously consider a detailed one that actually derives from the evidence and that explains what intelligence never could.
Interest in furthering knowledge has never been the reason for ID.
Glen Davidson
It doesn’t just apply to Bill Cole. It is a generalization regarding arguments about science and facts. I’d hope the discussion wouldn’t just constitute the different sides taking turns stating unsubstantiated opinions.
Assuming Bill Cole is attempting to persuade other people that ID is a superior scientific hypothesis, I’m just informing him what has better odds of accomplishing that goal.
I believe we live in a world where both of us are members of this debating forum and we some times attempt to persuade others to see things a certain way.
Why blame the process that made the moral agent/entity come into existence, rather than the agent/entity making the actual decisions?
If I should be blaming evolution for people’s decisions if they were created by an evolutionary process, I should just as well blame God for people’s decisions if they were created by a God. Right? If not, why?
So let me get this straight. You think that changing this piece of text:
to this one
by substituting single letters ONLY, and all the time fullfilling the requirement that intermediates have well expressed meaning in the English language, is a proper analogy for the evolution of a large modern protein complex from a simple precursor because it purportedly shows “how tough it is to get a functional sequence of a different function from an original function especially if the functions are different.”?
Are you very surprised if I tell you that I don’t buy that? Perhaps you’d better ask gpuccio what exactly this is supposed to be an analogy for, preferrably with a concrete example.
It’s not possible in english, so it can’t be possible with biochemistry.
Sorry, total nonsequitur.
Corneel,
Yes, I’ll accept that “analogy” when words in texts are regulated in frequency by stochastic processes, when they exist in various alleles across the populations of words, and when words sexually pair off.
As usual, it’s the creationists claiming that DNA (code) is a language (if it is, it’s hardly a human one), then coming up with “analogies” without paying attention to the vast differences. Well, they’re not going to do actual science, are they?
Glen Davidson
Not in the English language they don’t, but I understand that German and French nouns have sex.
So much for evolution then.
So?
Exactly! You are acting as if people were created by a morally perfect being and that they therefore ought to act as if they were created by a morally perfect being.
Yet you don’t actually believe that people were created by a morally perfect being. You believe they were created by an amoral process from which what they ought to do or ought not do cannot be derived.
Why do you do that?
You’re faulting people for exhibiting the “morals” that they were provided with by the evolutionary process. And that’s just silly. It’s not their fault. OF course, it’s not your fault for doing what you are doing either. Blame evolution. It’s the real culprit.
Sure, but why do we do that? I don’t plan on marrying anyone here and having children with them. Do you?
We do it because we think people ought to believe certain things and act in certain ways, and we get upset if they don’t. But what people ought to believe and what they ought to do is a moral judgment. I thought you all were turned off by the morality police.
This is hilarious coming from the author of the following OP:
One has the advantage of actually being an explanation.
Corneel,
Let me make it simpler.
Evolve this:
Into this:
Feel free to use multiple copies and a copier that generates errors every 10^-9 letters. Also, copy and words you want from the first paragraph. Select copies that evolve new words and purge the rest. My guess after 10^12 tries you will generate gibberish.
colewd,
What’s the point if no one accepts the analogy?
It’s a stupid analogy, why should anybody care other than ignorant creotards?
Mung,
Why do you think people are not accepting the analogy?
I have not seen any real critiques that explain the objection other then assertion that it is not a valid analogy. Certainly most at UD are fine with the analogy.
CompIete nonsense. It disanalogous, and I noted some reasons why:
So you don’t care about the facts. What’s new?
Certainly most at UD are no more knowledgeable about it than you are.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
Do you really think that you are the criteria setter for a useful analogy?
So are you also discounting all experiments that include a sexual animals like bacteria as evidence for evolution.
I can discuss it intelligently, while all you can do is throw ad hominems. You have been wrong about nearly everything, from the scientific method to the idiocy of “a flying animal requires precise engineering, not the co-option of parts designed for something else.”
Having failed to get much of anything right, you attempt to sneer at those who have told you the truth. Because you don’t like the truth.
What a dumb question. But then you’re not interested in the differences, just in denying that you were quite wrong yet again. You agree with those you like, though–the generally ignorant crowd at UD–and you dislike being told the truth.
Glen Davidson
Not at all. Essentially it comes down to the kind of world I want to live in. My desire for people to act in certain ways has nothing to do with how people came to exist, but it has to do with how their actions affect or are likely to affect myself and other people I care about.
Because I can feel happiness, sadness, pain, and pleasure. And I don’t want to be sad or in pain, but I do want to be happy and pleased. And other people’s actions affect my likelihood of experiencing those sensations and emotions. And other people’s mental states affect their behavior, and thus affect mine too. I care about myself and other people, so my own mental and physical state and the states of those I care about are affected by mine and their actions.
That’s all I need in order to try to motivate other people to engage in or abstain from certain behaviors. Because I understand from experience and through reason that those behaviors affect me and people I care about, and thus my own likelihood of experiencing happiness or sadness, pain or pleasure.
Origins is simply not a factor in how I determine what is or isn’t desirable behavior.
As just explained, not at all.
If that is really your view, then the same would have to be true if we were made by God. The fault must lie at the creator for creating flawed beings that act according to the nature with which they were created, right?
I happen to completely reject the idea that origins is a factor that decides how human beings should (or ought to) act, but I find it curious that you seem to disagree as your disagreement appears to completely undermine your own position.
The origins question might explain WHY human beings act the way we do. But it doesn’t follow from the fact that we came to exist through some particular process or event, that we OUGHT TO act a certain way.
You seem to be insinuating basically something like this: We came to exist through a blind amoral process – therefore we OUGHT TO act blind and amorally.
Or alternatively; We came to exist through a blind and amoral process – therefore we can’t be expected to act morally.
But that doesn’t follow. None of those follow.
What would be the point? I don’t think the analogy is relevant for protein evolution. Mung gets that, so why can’t you? In fact, you cannot even tell me what it is supposed to be an analogy for.
There are several reasons why I think the analogy is inappropriate, but let’s start with one that gpuccio concedes himself:
Indeed it is not. I suspect it is far more stringent. Case in point: the starting paragraph you gave me cuts off halfway through a sentence and therefore fails to convey its meaning. You gave me a nonfunctional string to start with Bill. 🙂
ETA: corrections
Then you have not been paying attention. Both Glen and I have offered reasons for that. I also note that you have not answered my question what it is supposed to be an analogy for, after I rejected your initial suggestion, but instead tried to hack gpuccio’s scenario 1.
The redundancy of the genetic code and the relatively independent nature of genes and their products are some of the larger differences between the paragraph “analogy” and protein evolution.
Of course it’s true that the context of genes does matter, but they really aren’t required to make any kind of sense within anything like linear sentence structures. That is probably the greatest disanalogy between morphing a paragraph and evolving proteins in a biologic context. Indeed, one of the important characteristics of information in life is that it is rather more capable of evolving than is something like computer code, or paragraphs. I would mention that I did note that fact once, and Bill tried to claim that this was due to “design” (no argument for that, but when does he really argue for meaningful design, ever?), yet here he’s blithely claiming that morphing a paragraph is a reasonable analogy for protein evolution (believers in pseudoscience don’t have a problem with it, so that settles that for colewd).
DNA and its products simply aren’t ordered into long linear sequences whose units (words, genes) have meanings dependent on the rest of the units of the sequences. We have different versions of the “same genes” in many cases, and typically one version does not significantly change the overall “meaning” versus the “meaning” of the other one. They are just variants that work similarly, but with somewhat different outcomes.
The set of genes from your mother is not a different “book” than the set of genes from your father. That’s because different versions of genes can slide in or out of the gene combinations without dramatically changing the overall situation, whereas with words that is rarely the case. Genes usually affect biology far more independently of other genes in their context than words do in their own context.
Glen Davidson
Of course, like DNA, many languages don’t depend so heavily on word order in sentences as English does.
I suspect that a paragraph in Latin probably would be easier to morph “analogically” into a different one than would one in English. Nevertheless, even there the cases, etc., mean that words still depend much more heavily for their meaning on their relationships to other words in a sentence than genes depend on other genes for how they are expressed (the amount that genes are expressed might depend a lot on other genes, however).
Glen Davidson
Quick question for wannabe life designers. Explain how one knows the effects of a particular change being considered.
In your perfect world everyone would care about “the facts”?
People ought to care about “the facts” because …