Here is an informative little video by a guy named Steve Mould who does a lot of “science” videos on youtube. Its all (ostensibly) about how simple little processes can make “meaningful” structures from stochastic processes-and he uses magnetic shaped little parts to show this. Its a popular channeled followed by millions, and is often referenced by other famous people in the science community-and his fans love it.
And hey, it does show how meaningful structures CAN form from random processes. Right? So you can learn from this. Wink, wink. Nod, nod. And all the skeptics will know exactly what he is really saying. Cause we are all part of the clique that knows this language-the language of the skeptic propagandist. I mean, he almost hides it, the real message, it is just under the surface, and the less skeptically aware, the casualist, might even miss it. The casualist might not learn as much about Steve Mould and what he is trying to say here-but the skeptic knows. “See, atheism is true! Spread the word!” Steve has given the wink. The same wink used by DeGrasse Tyson, and Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, and on and on. You know the one.
And for 95% of his viewers, whether they know it or not, they got his message. I mean, look, its plain as day, right? He just showed you, that is certainly a meaningful structure that arose from random processes, isn’t it? Its defintely meaningful, its a, a, a , well, it’s shape that, we have a, a name for…that’s kind of…anyway, defintely random, I mean other than the magnets and the precut shapes, and the little ball with nothing else inside, and the shaking only until its just right then stopping kind of way…That’s random kind of right???
But there are 5% percent of his viewers that spotted his little wink and nod, and said, hold on a second. If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be? 95%, they are hooked, you got them (Ryan StallardThere are so many creationist videos this obliterates. Especially 4:18.). But some likeGhryst VanGhod helpfully point out: “this is incorrect. the kinesin travels along fibres within the cell and takes the various molecules exactly where they need to be, they are not randomly “jumbling around in solution”. https://youtu.be/gbycQf1TbM0 ” and then you get to see a video that tells you just a few more of the things that are ACTUALLY happening which are even more amazing if you weren’t already skeptical (the real kind).
And if you go through some more of the comments you will notice a few more (real) skeptics, not the wink and nod kind, and you will start to notice why the wink nod propogandist skeptics everywhere you look in modern culture are a very puposefully designed cancer on knowledge and thought.
Of course!
I neglected to mention the entrance fee. It’s ten dollars to play a round.
I think OMagain is already exploiting that loophole.
Well, there’s two different games we might be playing.
In one case, I always swap. In the other, I never do.
In one case, it’s a counter-intuitive (to some) lesson in probability. In the other, it’s a sad fact of psychology.
In one case, I’ll pay up to $6 to play. In the other, I won’t.
Can’t say more…
Well it doesn’t really matter in the great scheme of things. But it’s interesting to think about. Human technology has only recently advanced enough to harness and make use of quantum effects. But I think that nature has always been making use of this in life. Any new ways that humans come up with to use and convert energy, we find that nature has already been doing this and usually in a much more efficient and sustainable way. From mechanical devices through the use of electricity, then electronics and now on to quantum technology we are just mimicking nature.
I remember the Blackbird discussion. It was a good problem for exercising the mind.
I’ll decline your offer as I gave up gambling a very long time ago. I have seen this puzzle presented before, although I don’t remember the ins and outs and the various odds involved and I’m too lazy to try to figure them out.
It’s also a good example of a load-bearing axle.
I’ll get me coat.
No need to apologize. I think it was after your comment so you couldn’t have noticed it.
No worries. Though it’s not really about gambling. It’s a version of the Monty Hall problem involving US TV, cars and goats. I found it counter-intuitive.when I first encountered it.
If you imagine yourself riding a bicycle real hard you are still not riding a bicycle. There is no subtitute.
The elucidation of ALL of the examples you listed whether it is planetary motion, the chemical structure of benzene or meteor showers involved empirical work. Goethe’s archetypes are not on equal footing with those examples because the grunt work has not been put in.
Not all cells migrate during development and migrating cells often follow fixed routes, so usually it suffices that cell differentiation states are inherited mitotically. But I am guessing that you are referring to the capability of some cells to change developmental fate when they find themselves in an unexpected position, e.g. because of wounding. Cells are not autonomous entities but perform a lot of crosstalk among themselves, which informs cells of their direct environment and guides cell differentiation. I’ll just close with noting that cellular crosstalk was not discovered by just thinking real hard about it.
And you always wonder why people mistake you for a creationist. This is the reason: you repeat their talking points. If an organism carries an unconditionally lethal allele, it dies and all the “coordinated network of activities” will not save it. Nothing slippery about that. Hence, changes in the DNA have the potential to affect fitness. period.
We once agreed that “the creativity of life” could be defined as “the ability to make novel functional forms”
Why do you believe known physical processes are incapable of producing novel functional forms?
LOL! Are you now complaining about how empiricism is defined? The success of the scientific method is in large part based on empirical research. I am afraid you cannot appropriate it retrospectively by redefining empiricism into “thinking real hard that you are observing something”.
I’ll also note that Goethe’s position does not align with yours: Goethe wasn’t averse to experimentation; he just took a phenomenological approach to interpreting its results.
Are you aware that just thinking specifically about a type of exercise actually increases muscle size and strength for that exercise? And not just trivially, interestingly.
I was not. But even if this is the case, I am willing to bet that actually doing exercises will have superior results to merely thinking about them.
Possibly. But then again it may depend on how much mental energy one puts into thinking about it.
I would hazard a guess this maxes out at a substantially lower level than physical exercise. At least, I never heard of somebody thinking theirselves to exhaustion 😀