Nothing I can ever learn from nature can make me superstitious, think magically. When a respected philosopher-scientist uses the expression, then I’ll be able to do business with it. And dismiss it as the fallacy of incredulity as in all cases to date. All. You aren’t even in that league.
First where do you get the idea of magic and superstition come from. Surely not from me. I am the one debunking supernatural phenomena.
Moreover I did not invent either part of the compound quasi- intelligent. I used them in a perfectly acceptable manner.
As to league and superior minds, try Max Tegmark. He has credentials And is one of the elites…
Not only does he explain intelligence , but how the phenomenon of consciousness itself emerges.
What’s that got to do with the superstitious claim of a quasi-intellegent universe?
[quote=“martin-peter-clarke, post:83, topic:7725, full:true”]
What’s that got to do with the superstitious claim of a quasi-intellegent universe?
[/quote] What is superstitious about a quasi-intelligent but stochastic mathematical universe?
Note: I make no claim of consciousness or motivation or supernaturalism.
Are human mathematics an example of superstitious practices? Are you saying science is a religion?
p.s. I am a hard atheist.
Your atheism is irrelevant, invalidated in fact by your unfounded, unwarranted non-scientific, non-rational, non-philosophic (the non- is a kind, euphemistic prefix) faith in a pantheistic universe.
Oh, really?
Making denegrading statements about my ability to reason is in no way persuasive debate.
If you want to impress me, tell me why and how I am wrong .
If you cannot muster a scientifically grounded refutation and counter-argument to what I (among others) am proposing, then be polite and refrain from personal ad hominem.
Why do you deny the first evidence of a self-ordering guiding equation as posited in Chaos theory.
Is there a compelling reason to consider a proven theory false if the argument is ignored?
Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary scientific theory and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws highly sensitive to initial conditions in dynamical systems that were thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[1]
Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[2]
Ouch, did someone’s buttons get pushed?
You know Martin, write4u has a point.
Your brand of superior cynicism only goes so far.
As in all propositions from, of faith, no scientific, rational refutation is possible as science and rationality weren’t used in the first place. Pouring wiki out doesn’t support the fallacy of a quasi-intelligent universe.
If rational refutation is not possible, what is your objection, exactly?
I have many times rationally refuted theism as a possible explanation of the existence of the universe.
What exactly is the rationally scientific fallacy in the compound term quasi-intelligence, that you are objecting to?
Why don’t you unpack the term quasi-intelligent universe and see if there is any mysterious or supernatural objectionable concept contained in the term.
I have a suspicion that you are anthropomorphizing and look upon intelligence as a exclusive human trait. I have proven that is a false assumption.
Your suspicion is not rational. Neither is your presumptuous question.
[George Hammond]
Dear Write4u: In post number 62 you said:
.
Write4u
…I don’t believe in an intelligent agency like God and that leaves only one option. There is a quasi-intelligent mathematical aspect to the very essence of spacetime.
.
[George Hammond]
… What you don’t realize is that “God” (the God of the Bible) is a psychological phenomenon !
… In fact, it is explained by this diagram:
.
.
… This diagram shows that about 10 to 20% of the brain of the average person is missing (ungrown). IOW the world average of human growth stunting is somewhere between 10 and 20%!
… If 10% of your brain is missing, 10% of reality will be invisible to you.
…, Now, I’m not going to sit here and explain this, because I wrote a magnificent 1200 word complete explanation of it as a news article for Scientific American (which chief editor Mike LaMonick declined to publish) but you can read it here
… (PDF) The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy | George E Hammond - Academia.edu
… Okay, it only takes 6 minutes to read 1200 words and this article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that write4u’s opinion that there is no God has now been scientifically proven incorrect and that God can actually be measured to 2 decimal point accuracy.
… Ironically, this paper explains God actually DOES end up being an “Einsteinian curvature of subjective space-time”, just as write4u suspects !!
…George Hammond MS physics Cape Cod MA USA
This is worse than meaningless left-right politics! A false dichotomy between two sides of the same pseudoscientific coin: heads Orch OR & tails MUH.
I have no clue what kurvature66 is talking about
But neither has anything to do with God as conventionally defined.
ORCH OR is a configutation of the brain processes. I don’t know why religion has to come into this discussion at all.
I could consider a universal geometry that has certain mathematical permissions and restrictions, but to call a curvature of space by the name God is wholly inappropriate, IMO.
And for you to make a blanket judgement by comparing two divergent perspectives is also wholly inappropriate.
You are a terrible debater. Focus! Don’t make up stuff unless you can defend it.
Because so much (understatement…) of religion involves magical thinking as does pseudoscience including Orch OR and MUH - neo-Platonism. There is nothing to debate. Nothing to focus on. Science and rationality beyond it aren’t matters of debate. And focussing on what, with what, how, to what end?
Orch OR and MUH as propositions, as dialectical antitheses to the current scientific-rational synthesis are fine, they fail completely of course, they can’t even claim equality let alone superiority which is necessary to overturn the paradigm; it’s when they are believed they become pseudoscience. That’s what has to be and cannot be focussed upon. It cannot be by those who believe.
Apparently you are wholly uninformed about ORCH OR (Hameroff, Penrose), IIT (Tononi), and a host of other modern proposals .
Figure 2. Graphic representation of the number of articles found for each theory in the period analyzed. ADT: apical
dendrite theory; AIM: activation/information/mode-synthesis hypothesis; ART: adaptive resonance theory; AST: attention
schema theory; COI: cross-order integration theory of consciousness; CP: centrencephalic proposal; CCS: consciousness
state space model; DCT: dynamic core theory; EM/CEMI: electromagnetic field hypothesis/consciousness electromagnetic
Information field theory; GWT: global workspace theory; GNW: global neural workspace; HOT/FOR: higher order theories
of consciousness/first order representational theory; IIT: integrated information theory; LRMB: layered reference model of
the brain; MCTT: memory consciousness and temporality theory; NIH: network inhibition hypothesis; PFT: passive frame
theory; PToC: psychological theory of consciousness. Q theories—Orch OR: orchestrated objective reduction theory; single
particle consciousness hypothesis; quantum no-go theorems; the three layer model; Koehler’s mathematical approach;
timeless and spaceless; the four-dimensional Einstein; RPT: radical plasticity thesis; SPC: semantic pointer competition
theory of consciousness; Agnati et al.; Bieberich’s; Damasio; Gelepithis’s; Gurwitsch’s; Min’s; O’Doherty’s; Rejikumar’s.
The Mesocircuit hypothesis is not abbreviated
All of these hypotheses deal with consciousness of the brain and have no theistic associations of any kind.
Penrose’s model of a form of universal quasi intelligence has no religious connotation attached to it either. Nor does do Bohmian Mechanics. They are all based on emergent properties of the spacetime geometry.
Your attempt to tie every form of possible self-ordering (quasi-intelligent) processes to some sort of religious order is unwarranted and prejudicial.
There’s nothing apparent about your presumption.
I am still waiting for a cogent post from you. If you wish to inform people you will have to do a lot better than making derogatory remarks without any substantive content whatever.
You are making the presumption that Orchestrated Objective Reduction ORCH OR is a theist religion. And that is a wholly unfounded and unsupportable argument.
Expand your horizons. Not everything is “either or”. There are many evolutionary degrees of development from basic sensitivity to conscious awareness.
I believe this answers your question.
And before that, spirals can already be found in prokaryote organisms
Campylobacter jejuni is a common spirillum bacterium.
And of course, spirals can be found long before that in spiral galaxies shortly after BB when the universe itself began to self-form.
Barred spiral galaxies becoming more common
The Milky Way is a “barred spiral” galaxy; its central bar stretches some 27,000 light years in length (Illustration: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R Hurt/SSC)