If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

JAB wrote:Why is everyone so eager for heddle to bring god into it. I've actually been enjoying his posts. My end of physics is solid state, so I have no great insight in this, but I haven't found much to complain about his posts. They've been responsive to replies for the most part.

Re the heavy element requirement for life... I suppose one could postulate a life of some sort that isn't chemistry based, but I don't think a chemical based one could be based on Li and lighter. So the fact likely remains that slight variations in several constants could make life we would recognize impossible. There may be other conditions that would make chemical life possible though. Say a universe where stars are impossible, but the conditions of the big bang made heavier elements from the start.

Heddle is ok. But it is funny watching people trying to provoke him into stating the baseline assumption under his fascination with fine tuning. And it is funny watching him almost but not quite rising to the bait, and tormenting back.

To me (an ecologist interested in complex system dynamics), the fine tuning argument boils down to a just so argument. That is, it presupposes that the outcome we see is because it was always going to be that way (because the fine tuner tuned it so finely). The more interesting scientific questions are around unraveling the rates and interactions, feedback, selective filters, and chance events that led to life as we know it on this pale blue dot.

heddle wrote:
It must be very comforting for you to ascribe non-existent motives to me to fit your stereotype. How very Pharyngula of you.

Yeah, you're done. You just haven't noticed.

welch wrote:4Chan's funnier.

Actually, so's Chopra.

Chopra's always struck me as the kinda guy you could get with: "You know, you can tell if you're a mental retard if the palm of your hand is wider than your face ...."

Judaism is Supposedly Also:

A Culture? Nope.

Definition: the totality of socially transmitted behavioral patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought; considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community or population.

All of the above can be abandoned. You can leave a culture, but Jewish law doesn't allow this.

These are no cultural characteristics that Jews have in common (though subsets do, and they expand this to 'all Jews')

I have no idea what he means when he says Jewish law doesn't allow a Jew to leave a culture. It seems contradictory.

Here's a list of Jewish converts to Christianity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... om_Judaism, I never heard of any Jewish Police Squad that rounded them up.

I know of many people who converted to other religions or just became atheists who still call a Jewish Brooklyn home, or refer to Jewish tropes and Jewish humor. This inability to leave would seem evidence of a Jewish culture.

These are no cultural characteristics that Jews have in common (though subsets do, and they expand this to 'all Jews')

Does this mean all Jewish men must be circumcized or else Jewish culture is not a real thing?

Or if even one Jew becomes a sports legend Jewish culture is not a real thing?

Maybe Michelle McGee means there is no Amish culture:

Meet Jesse James' Self-Proclaimed Mistress: An Amish Med-School Student and Fetish Stripper Mom
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... nt-fetish/

And perhaps the Amish and Christians have laws permitting Amish and Christians to leave.

ianfc wrote:I wish all this fine tuning stuff would just stop, I'm getting this horrible feeling that the priests are right after all.

I wouldn't worry about it. Physicists want to know why the physical constants are what they are, because they are physicists. This is a "problem" for them in the sense of being a line of inquiry. Fine tuning isn't a problem for a naturalistic world view, and the most plausible explanation for it isn't a creepy old man who lives outside of space and time who wants to be worshiped by a specific species of monkeys.

KiwiInOz wrote: Heddle is ok. But it is funny watching people trying to provoke him into stating the baseline assumption under his fascination with fine tuning. And it is funny watching him almost but not quite rising to the bait, and tormenting back.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

/obligatory

welch wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

VickyCaramel wrote:I'd like a religion with plenty of booze and orgies, but without tithing and human sacrifice.

Well, you just converted me, baby.

and if pressed, I could give up the booze.

But that inevitably leads to human sacrifice.

Old_ones wrote:and the most plausible explanation for it isn't a creepy old man who lives outside of space and time who wants to be worshiped by a specific species of monkeys.

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... wgiver.png

"Actually, that part kind of makes sense."

heddle wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

heddle wrote:No, the weak anthropic principle is not a solution or resolution to anything. It can sometimes predict something, and that can be useful, but it can't explain it. The multiverse, if it is indeed beyond the reach of experiment, is equivalent to the weak anthropic principle, but "the constants have to be what they are or else we wouldn't be here to worry about" is at most an observation. Once in a while it is useful.

I normally avoid wiki-quoting, but ffs, this is a pretty straight-forward concept:

wiki wrote:In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle ... is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable* that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life....

[The] weak anthropic principle ... states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.

* (My emphasis.)

heddle wrote: The fear is that we'll never have anything better than the anthropic principle to explain the constants. That would, in some sense, represent a failure of physics.

Alternatively, if you ever meet the Buddha, kill him. I believe you are vastly overstating the problem of 'fine-tuning' in physics as an excuse to invoke God.

I also vote we move this obscurantist bullshit to a separate thread.

It must be very comforting for you to ascribe non-existent motives to me to fit your stereotype. How very Pharyngula of you.

Maybe you could clarify your motives? I'm a little confused why this came up in the first place.

Gumby wrote:

Mykeru wrote:

justinvacula wrote:
Mykeru, as usual, is on-point.

Yet, I still don't get "fine tuning".

It all makes sense when you look at fine tuning as God.

But not looking at fine tuning as toilets?

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:

Steersman wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: <snip>
With Kauffman, it's more like the bong hit parade. Next time, try citing someone who's not a slinger of semi-mystical tripe.

When you can prove that your own C.V. is as impressive as his then I’ll consider that your dismissal might hold a bit of water.

Hey, wait a minute...doesn't PZ have a PhD? And Rebecca seems to hold a BA in communications....I suppose I'd better just sit quietly and play with my crayons...*munch*

I didn’t say that every one possessing a degree is “better” in any particular area than every one without one, only that there is “a frequent correlation between education and the ability to deliver the goods”.

Like racial profiling: if there are a 100 cases where there’s a report of a blonde-blue-eyed caucasian having robbed a bank then if the police stop and search all blonde-blue-eyed caucasians then there is likely to be a higher incidence of having caught the perpetrator than if they stop only Blacks or Mexicans.

Contexte, toujours le contexte.

Mykeru wrote:

heddle wrote:
It must be very comforting for you to ascribe non-existent motives to me to fit your stereotype. How very Pharyngula of you.

Yeah, you're done. You just haven't noticed.

Pit-Godwin

Mykeru wrote:

heddle wrote:
It must be very comforting for you to ascribe non-existent motives to me to fit your stereotype. How very Pharyngula of you.

Yeah, you're done. You just haven't noticed.

[youtube]KJNCSuL-lEM[/youtube]

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

welch wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Well, you just converted me, baby.

and if pressed, I could give up the booze.

But that inevitably leads to human sacrifice.

is there a really good orgy first?

Steersman wrote:

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:

Steersman wrote:Snip
When you can prove that your own C.V. is as impressive as his then I’ll consider that your dismissal might hold a bit of water.

Hey, wait a minute...doesn't PZ have a PhD? And Rebecca seems to hold a BA in communications....I suppose I'd better just sit quietly and play with my crayons...*munch*

I didn’t say that every one possessing a degree is “better” in any particular area than every one without one, only that there is “a frequent correlation between education and the ability to deliver the goods”.

Like racial profiling: if there are a 100 cases where there’s a report of a blonde-blue-eyed caucasian having robbed a bank then if the police stop and search all blonde-blue-eyed caucasians then there is likely to be a higher incidence of having caught the perpetrator than if they stop only Blacks or Mexicans.

Contexte, toujours le contexte.

I would still rather you argue the subject matter rather than argue from authority. Civility and all.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: But that inevitably leads to human sacrifice.

Welch wrote:is there a really good orgy first?

The two are combined in a religious rite known as "Pon Farr".

Gumby wrote: MRAWR!

*hacks up hairball*

And lo, an offering unto ROBOKiTTY was made ....

Steersman wrote: I didn’t say that every one possessing a degree is “better” in any particular area than every one without one, only that there is “a frequent correlation between education and the ability to deliver the goods”.

Like racial profiling: if there are a 100 cases where there’s a report of a blonde-blue-eyed caucasian having robbed a bank then if the police stop and search all blonde-blue-eyed caucasians then there is likely to be a higher incidence of having caught the perpetrator than if they stop only Blacks or Mexicans.

Contexte, toujours le contexte.

analogies, des analogies toujours

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:

Steersman wrote: <snip>
I didn’t say that every one possessing a degree is “better” in any particular area than every one without one, only that there is “a frequent correlation between education and the ability to deliver the goods”.

Like racial profiling: if there are a 100 cases where there’s a report of a blonde-blue-eyed caucasian having robbed a bank then if the police stop and search all blonde-blue-eyed caucasians then there is likely to be a higher incidence of having caught the perpetrator than if they stop only Blacks or Mexicans.

Contexte, toujours le contexte.

I would still rather you argue the subject matter rather than argue from authority. Civility and all.

Always, or almost always, a reasonable principle to support. However, when one’s interlocutor hasn’t provided any subject matter at all in an effort to discount a source one has used then it seems reasonable to ask for that person’s own credentials.

Git wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Mykeru wrote:
Yet, I still don't get "fine tuning".

It all makes sense when you look at fine tuning as God.

But not looking at fine tuning as toilets?

Or considering the Prime Knob Twiddler.

Steersman wrote:However, when one’s interlocutor hasn’t provided any subject matter at all in an effort to discount a source one has used then it seems reasonable to ask for that person’s own credentials.

I'm wicked smahhht! That's my credentials.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Steersman wrote: The problem there, I think, is that, as Jacques Monod put it, “Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it.”

And, not to throw too many stones at Dr. Coyne and despite his book "Why Evolution is True", I would say he also falls into that group. Seems to me that there is a credible case to be made that self-organization also plays a very significant role in the process over and above that provided by random variation and selection.

How on earth does what you've just written constitute a 'credible case' for your wild claim that 'self-organization also plays a very significant role in the process over and above that provided by random variation and selection'?

cred•i•ble (krd-bl) adj.
1. Capable of being believed; plausible.

Considering that a rather broad range and large number of people seem to think the concept is plausible not to mention being buttressed by actual physical realizations of Kauffman’s “autocatalytic sets”, as indicated in the links I provided, I would say that that constitutes or at least suggests “a credible case”. Jury’s still out of course, but as a scientist I would think you would recognize it as at least a plausible hypothesis.

Dick Strawkins wrote:You are claiming that variation and selection are less important in evolution than some kind of self-organizational process.

Seems you may have gone off the rails over the phrase “over and above” which means:

over and above
in addition to a particular amount or thing: Pensioners will receive an increase of £5 per week over and above inflation. The average family pays 40% of their income in taxes, and that's over and above their mortgage, bills, and food.

I certainly wasn’t saying that “self-organization is more important than selection”, nor was Kauffman:

Kauffman wrote:The emergent order seen in genomic networks foretells a conceptual struggle, perhaps even a conceptual revolution, in evolutionary theory. …. If this idea is true [that, for example, “the homeostatic stability of cells” is “part of the order for free afforded by self-organization in genomic regulatory networks”], then we must rethink evolutionary theory, for the sources of order in the biosphere will now include both selection and self-organization. [pg 25]

But we have only begun to tell the story of emergent order. For spontaneous order, I hope to show you, has been as potent as natural selection in the creation of the living world. We are the children of twin sources of order, not a singular source. …. [pg 71]

Doesn’t look to me like any claim on his part that self-organization is more important than selection – a point he emphasizes any number of times throughout the book. This paper suggests, and develops in some detail, the somewhat poetic “self organization proposes, but natural selection disposes” analogous to the proverb “man proposes, God disposes”.

Dick Strawkins wrote:If you can produce a credible case then I have no doubt a Nobel prize awaits you because it would turn the entire field of biology on it's head.

Considering the rather large number of people who have published peer-review papers on the topic of self-organization, I would say any claims I might make would have to take a back seat – and the one at the very back of a very long bus.

Dick Strawkins wrote:What you've done, however, is not so much present a case that self organization is more important in evolution ...

As indicated, no one – that I know of in any case – is saying that it is more important, only that it plays a central role – along with selection.

Dick Strawkins wrote:But even that is more of a hypothesis than a proven fact and even IF proven that RNA self organized into replicating polymers that only gives us one point in the evolutionary tree.

Apart from the apparent fact – as indicated in the quotes I provided earlier – that “reproducing peptide, DNA, and RNA collectively autocatalytic sets have now been made experimentally”, one might argue that that isn’t, if true, just “one point on the evolutionary tree”, but the root if not the seeds and principle of the entire edifice. “As the twig is bent so is the tree inclined.”

Dick Strawkins wrote:Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a credible case can be made that self organizing systems are involved in the biochemistry of life - but these are minor aspects of evolution compared to proven factors such as genetic drift, variation and natural selection?

Maybe. But what evidence do you have that those are only “minor aspects”? Considering the very significant amount of physics that more or less proves the pervasiveness and importance of emergence and self-organization in various physical systems, including biological ones, I would say “minor” is rather an untenable position to be taking.

And, as a rather simple case in point, you might want to check out the operation of even simple Boolean networks, and that Mathematica demonstration of them, which clearly show that homeostatic behaviour tends naturally to fall out of the application of very simple rules – almost, one might suggest, as if systems were finely tuned to exhibit such behaviours.

justinvacula wrote:Russell Blackford to appear on January 11 episode of Brave Hero Radio

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bravehero/ ... -blackford

Damn, Justin -- first Rall, now Blackford? This is almost as impressive as that time I banged Charlize Theron!

I'll have you know I have a doctorate in KiTTY Studies, awarded by the prestigious University of KiTTYLand, of which I have also been the president for its entire history.

JAB wrote:

VickyCaramel wrote: Then please tell me why the fuck it is relevant to this forum?

It came up in the willam lane craig debate that someone else posted several pages back and has developed from there.

Back on page 405 I asked:

And why do people think that with fine tuning all you have to do is point out that the universe can't host life everywhere? The argument, when presented properly, is a meta one looking at basic foundation stuff like atomic bonds etc. Not Goldilocks zones.

I am sorry. :suimouth:

I have tried to introduce my own rude Chinese restaurants, I've re-doxxed Kitty and spilled the beans on the illuminati - but the damage apparently cannot be reversed.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Steersman wrote:However, when one’s interlocutor hasn’t provided any subject matter at all in an effort to discount a source one has used then it seems reasonable to ask for that person’s own credentials.

I'm wicked smahhht! That's my credentials.

You do seem to have a good memory on quite a range of topics. But Chopra and all sorts of woo-meisters also claim to be “wicked smart” and to have the inside track without much to show for their claims; to coin a phrase, the proof is in the pudding.

Steersman wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Steersman wrote:However, when one’s interlocutor hasn’t provided any subject matter at all in an effort to discount a source one has used then it seems reasonable to ask for that person’s own credentials.

I'm wicked smahhht! That's my credentials.

You do seem to have a good memory on quite a range of topics. But Chopra and all sorts of woo-meisters also claim to be “wicked smart” and to have the inside track without much to show for their claims; to coin a phrase, the proof is in the pudding.

My pudding is da bomb! And Stuart Kauffman is certifiable. I provided a woo quote from him, and could produce more, cuz I've been familiar with his bullshit for some time. He only makes sense if you're stoned. But everything makes sense if you're stoned.

I mean, serious: you try and explain it.

JacquesCuze wrote: Judaism is Supposedly Also:

A Culture? Nope.

Definition: the totality of socially transmitted behavioral patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought; considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community or population.

All of the above can be abandoned. You can leave a culture, but Jewish law doesn't allow this.

These are no cultural characteristics that Jews have in common (though subsets do, and they expand this to 'all Jews')

I have no idea what he means when he says Jewish law doesn't allow a Jew to leave a culture. It seems contradictory.

Here's a list of Jewish converts to Christianity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... om_Judaism, I never heard of any Jewish Police Squad that rounded them up.

Comic David Cross has a bit on this:

David Cross: But I'm an atheist. How can I still be considered a Jew?

Rabbi: Let me ask you one question, you say this now, but, uh, was your mother's vagina jewish?

David Cross: Yes.

Rabbi: Then you're a Jew. I'm sorry. Nothing I can do for you.

justinvacula wrote:David Silverman speaks:

"I'm an Atheist (And So Are You); Why I've Changed My Mind on Jewish Atheism"

[youtube]4NQOnjswuFI[/youtube]

http://i.imgur.com/IF7so6G.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/w4lqSSz.jpg

Q&A starts around 42 minute mark.

Hmm...just from those slides and the title, it seems that Mr. Silverman (one of those named for sexual impropriety by the SJL) is in violation of the American Atheists conference harassment policy.

Figure that one out. Why should he be allowed to give that talk at one conference, but not his own?

katamari Damassi wrote:

JacquesCuze wrote: Judaism is Supposedly Also:

A Culture? Nope.

Definition: the totality of socially transmitted behavioral patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought; considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community or population.

All of the above can be abandoned. You can leave a culture, but Jewish law doesn't allow this.

These are no cultural characteristics that Jews have in common (though subsets do, and they expand this to 'all Jews')

I have no idea what he means when he says Jewish law doesn't allow a Jew to leave a culture. It seems contradictory.

Here's a list of Jewish converts to Christianity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... om_Judaism, I never heard of any Jewish Police Squad that rounded them up.

Comic David Cross has a bit on this:

David Cross: But I'm an atheist. How can I still be considered a Jew?

Rabbi: Let me ask you one question, you say this now, but, uh, was your mother's vagina jewish?

David Cross: Yes.

Rabbi: Then you're a Jew. I'm sorry. Nothing I can do for you.

Even that would seem to have more to do with Jewish Law from Jewish religion than Jewish culture.

Fine-tune this:

:bjarte:

Dave Silverman is a weaselly fella. I'd put him one level below Ray Comfort.

Let's change the subject, shall we?
http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/17/g ... n-innocent

The CDC study treats all sex under the influence of alcohol or drugs as rape, with no distinction between unconsciousness and impaired judgment. Even the CDC's definition of rape by force could include such transgressions as unwanted penetration with a finger (no matter how brief) during an otherwise consensual make-out session. The respondents were never asked if they thought they were assaulted; in a comparable survey, the federally sponsored 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study, two-thirds of the women classified as victims of drug- or alcohol-induced rape and 37 percent of those counted as forcibly raped did not consider the event to be a crime.

John D wrote:Let's change the subject, shall we?
http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/17/g ... n-innocent

The CDC study treats all sex under the influence of alcohol or drugs as rape, with no distinction between unconsciousness and impaired judgment. Even the CDC's definition of rape by force could include such transgressions as unwanted penetration with a finger (no matter how brief) during an otherwise consensual make-out session. The respondents were never asked if they thought they were assaulted; in a comparable survey, the federally sponsored 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study, two-thirds of the women classified as victims of drug- or alcohol-induced rape and 37 percent of those counted as forcibly raped did not consider the event to be a crime.

Outrageous. :bjarte:

ROBOKiTTY wrote:Dave Silverman is a weaselly fella. I'd put him one level below Ray Comfort.

1) Yeah, he seems to get pleasure from going on Fox News and otherwise pissing off christians and moderates for no real reason other than he feels somebody has to.
2) Don't you dare disparage weasels!

[youtube]d2CTVqt2wxU[/youtube]

DSU student who was cleared of rape charges sues school

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/2 ... l?gcheck=1

A Delaware State University student who was kicked off campus for 45 days before being cleared of rape charges is suing the school for damages, saying his civil rights were violated.

In a federal lawsuit, Andre L. Henry, 21, said the school did not provide him due process while it reviewed criminal charges that already had been dropped.

“We found out yesterday that his on-campus disciplinary charges were found to be ‘not responsible,’ ” his attorney, Daniel C. Herr, said Tuesday, referring to DSU’s General Judicial Council’s investigation.

“We are still moving forward for damages because he was suspended for a total of 45 days pending a full investigation and full hearing, which we allege is a violation to his right to due process,” Herr said. “For 45 days he was kicked out of his home, ... he was kicked off campus, he was kicked out of school, all based on an allegation.

:bjarte:

James Caruthers wrote:

ROBOKiTTY wrote:Dave Silverman is a weaselly fella. I'd put him one level below Ray Comfort.

1) Yeah, he seems to get pleasure from going on Fox News and otherwise pissing off christians and moderates for no real reason other than he feels somebody has to.
2) Don't you dare disparage weasels!

[youtube]d2CTVqt2wxU[/youtube]

I want!

heddle wrote:

Fully Determined wrote:

heddle wrote: I did see your question but did not want to get into another free will discussion. But since you asked again...

You have to start, of course, with a definition. I'll give you my definition. Everyone will of course say it is the wrong definition--but at least you'll know where I'm coming from.

I define free will this way: the actual non-illusory ability to make a decision with these features:
1) It alters the future in the sense that if I choose A the universe goes down one path and if I choose B it goes down another
2) The choice is real
3) The choice is not random--it is not, say, driven by quantum indeterminacy. As such it is sensible to ascribe to my choices moral culpability
4) I am not coerced by anything exterior

I can't help but discuss free will. I think your definition needs work. Take, for example, a chess computer. It has the actual ability to choose between several alternative paths which alter the future. Of course the choice is real and not random. The chess computer is not coerced by anything exterior. So, by your definition, the chess computer has free will.

So the chess program is not deterministic (there are different possible future paths) and not random? That's surprising. I would consider that a miracle of computer programming. Even programs that demonstrate chaos are, in fact, deterministic. No doubt my definition of free will sucks. But your example of why my definition is lacking doesn't really work. A chess computer is either deterministic or (possibly) random, and so has no moral culpability--so it does not fall under my definition of free will.

I see: Your "as such" under #3 does not mean "therefore" but means "in addition". So #3 means that the entity which has free will must make non-random choices and also be culpable (or responsible) for that choice. Well, now you need to explain when an entity is culpable for an action in a way that does not involve free will so you don't have a circular reasoning in your definition. Or perhaps we can both agree that your definition sucks and leave it at that.

Gumby wrote:

VickyCaramel wrote: And I really don't understand why this hasn't been moved to a separate thread.

Good point. Heddle's long-proven propensity for droning on... and on... and on... and on... and on... and on... , combined with the number of people here who have apparently never seen his interminable bensteinexpelledian shtick on Pharyngula or elsewhere, is making for a reading experience of wonderistboredom proportions. I may have to finely tune a separate thread for this...

I suppose you want to go back to the continual obsessive whining about PZ and Becky. As for me, I find Heddle a bit confused and a lot less clever than he thinks he is, but he at least is raising interesting questions.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Steersman wrote: <snip>You do seem to have a good memory on quite a range of topics. But Chopra and all sorts of woo-meisters also claim to be “wicked smart” and to have the inside track without much to show for their claims; to coin a phrase, the proof is in the pudding.

My pudding is da bomb! And Stuart Kauffman is certifiable. I provided a woo quote from him, and could produce more, cuz I've been familiar with his bullshit for some time. He only makes sense if you're stoned. But everything makes sense if you're stoned.

I mean, serious: you try and explain it.

Ok, you said earlier:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Nuf 'ced #1:

Stuart Kauffman wrote: " Life is different from non-life because it generates selves with teleodynamic constraints, molecular arrangements that are for something, have a purpose, point to goals that, if achieved, allow the self to make the crucial natural-selection cut."

Looks pretty innocuous to me – all of life quite clearly seems to be based on increasing order – for awhile in any case – and the pursuit of goals in notable contradistinction to non-life. As mentioned, all within some quite credible physics – or are you going to dispute that?

In addition, many others have said pretty much the same thing, Ernst Mayr for example in his Toward a New Philosophy of Biology said:

Mayr wrote:Intentional, purposeful human behaviour is, almost by definition, teleological. Yet I shall exclude it from further discussion because use of the words intentional or consciously premeditated, which are usually employed in connection with such behavior, runs the risk of getting us involved in complex controversies over psychological theory, even though much of human behaviour does not differ from animal behavior. [pg 41]

Goal-directed behavior (in the widest sense of this word) is extremely widespread in the organic world; for instance, most activity connected with migration, food-getting, courtship, ontogeny, and all phases of reproduction are characterized by such goal orientation. The occurrence of goal-directed processes is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the world of living organisms. [p45]

I hardly see Kauffman’s statement being inconsistent with or out-of-line relative to those statements of Mayr’s, and many others of his as well.

You may wish to consider recalibrating your “bullshit meter”.

Git wrote:

Gumby wrote:
It all makes sense when you look at fine tuning as God.

But not looking at fine tuning as toilets?

It all makes sense when you look at women as finely tuned toilets


Actually, no, none of this thread makes any fucking sense. Unless you throw in some "quantum" babble and Indian mystical teachings... then it makes sense to crazy people

JacquesCuze wrote:

katamari Damassi wrote:

JacquesCuze wrote: Judaism is Supposedly Also:

A Culture? Nope.

Definition: the totality of socially transmitted behavioral patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought; considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community or population.

All of the above can be abandoned. You can leave a culture, but Jewish law doesn't allow this.

These are no cultural characteristics that Jews have in common (though subsets do, and they expand this to 'all Jews')

I have no idea what he means when he says Jewish law doesn't allow a Jew to leave a culture. It seems contradictory.

Here's a list of Jewish converts to Christianity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... om_Judaism, I never heard of any Jewish Police Squad that rounded them up.

Comic David Cross has a bit on this:

David Cross: But I'm an atheist. How can I still be considered a Jew?

Rabbi: Let me ask you one question, you say this now, but, uh, was your mother's vagina jewish?

David Cross: Yes.

Rabbi: Then you're a Jew. I'm sorry. Nothing I can do for you.

Even that would seem to have more to do with Jewish Law from Jewish religion than Jewish culture.

I think there is jewish culture, kosher diet that might carry over, jiddish language, jewish holidays and so forth. There is christian culure, too, so I think it reasonable that regardless of jewish laws, some secular jew would be a “cultural jew” in the same way I am “cultural christian”.

Old_ones wrote: ...it isn't a creepy old man who lives outside of space and time who wants to be worshiped by a specific species of monkeys.

Some species of monkey are liable to be more problematic than others...

http://bowmanvillezoo.com/wp-content/up ... O-ICON.png

While searching for the above image I discovered this:

http://theoatmeal.com/img/quizzes/gener ... aboons.jpg

This appears to have been "fine tuned" to support the Slymepit. I am now accepting applications from any and all religions which wish to claim responsibility.

James Caruthers wrote:

ROBOKiTTY wrote:Dave Silverman is a weaselly fella. I'd put him one level below Ray Comfort.

1) Yeah, he seems to get pleasure from going on Fox News and otherwise pissing off christians and moderates for no real reason other than he feels somebody has to.
2) Don't you dare disparage weasels!

[youtube]d2CTVqt2wxU[/youtube]

SQUEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! Cuteness overload!

Outwest said I should blog more. I'll continue as Christina Rad over at FreeThoughtBlogs. Was fun around here. Kthxbye.


Just kidding. But she is back.

I note the recent tendency to see RW as boringly "old 'pit". :bjarte:

So feel free to ignore this recent update.

A Long Thank You and Update -- Hello Patron Friends!

Apologies for being a bit quiet the past week. I'll be honest with you: I've been a bit down, which makes it tough to get on camera because I think it shows. I blame the snow piling up outside (I had to stop my daily runs), the impending holiday (I normally love Xmas but this year we're saving all our pennies, so there's no tree or presents), and a recent influx of really truly vicious trolls (Reddit's Men's Rights forum has once again remembered I exist). Also I saw a dog for adoption on Petfinder named Lord Dorkley and I am in love with him but we can't afford a new family member at the moment.

All that whining aside, I'm recovering at a healthy pace and am going to try to record something fun tonight. The support all of you have given me has been a huge, huge help – not just monetarily, but psychologically, and I want you to know that. Sincerely: thanks.

On that note, the first Google+ hangout was fun, and I'll be scheduling a new one each month for whoever wants to join. I have a number of friends who have gamely offered to join in, as Maki did this time, so you can look forward to that.

All of which brings me to this: I am not ignoring the fact that we passed the $400/video mark, meaning that I am now to sing a little song. When I made that goal, I was joking because I didn't really think we'd hit it and I couldn't think of any better thing to write, but god damn it I made a promise and I intend to keep it. I'm hoping to solicit some help from one of my songwriting friends, of which I inexplicably have gathered quite a few. So, know that I am 100% going to do this, but it may take some time because I want it to be done right, and I have no idea what I'm doing.

That's it for now! Happy Merry Whatever.

Best,
Rebecca

JackSkeptic wrote:

clownshoe wrote:Finally, a new Full Frontal Zealotry podcast
Trigger Warning: Dripping with privilege!
http://everdense.com/ffz/archives/283

I love your podcasts, thanks oh privileged one.

Thanks Jack, much appreciated.

Gefan wrote:Some species of monkey are liable to be more problematic than others...

http://bowmanvillezoo.com/wp-content/up ... O-ICON.png

True.

http://i.imgur.com/bVexfuR.jpg

Steersman wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Steersman wrote: The problem there, I think, is that, as Jacques Monod put it, “Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it.”

And, not to throw too many stones at Dr. Coyne and despite his book "Why Evolution is True", I would say he also falls into that group. Seems to me that there is a credible case to be made that self-organization also plays a very significant role in the process over and above that provided by random variation and selection.

How on earth does what you've just written constitute a 'credible case' for your wild claim that 'self-organization also plays a very significant role in the process over and above that provided by random variation and selection'?

cred•i•ble (krd-bl) adj.
1. Capable of being believed; plausible.

Considering that a rather broad range and large number of people seem to think the concept is plausible not to mention being buttressed by actual physical realizations of Kauffman’s “autocatalytic sets”, as indicated in the links I provided, I would say that that constitutes or at least suggests “a credible case”. Jury’s still out of course, but as a scientist I would think you would recognize it as at least a plausible hypothesis.

Dick Strawkins wrote:You are claiming that variation and selection are less important in evolution than some kind of self-organizational process.

Seems you may have gone off the rails over the phrase “over and above” which means:

over and above
in addition to a particular amount or thing: Pensioners will receive an increase of £5 per week over and above inflation. The average family pays 40% of their income in taxes, and that's over and above their mortgage, bills, and food.

I certainly wasn’t saying that “self-organization is more important than selection”, nor was Kauffman:

Kauffman wrote:The emergent order seen in genomic networks foretells a conceptual struggle, perhaps even a conceptual revolution, in evolutionary theory. …. If this idea is true [that, for example, “the homeostatic stability of cells” is “part of the order for free afforded by self-organization in genomic regulatory networks”], then we must rethink evolutionary theory, for the sources of order in the biosphere will now include both selection and self-organization. [pg 25]

But we have only begun to tell the story of emergent order. For spontaneous order, I hope to show you, has been as potent as natural selection in the creation of the living world. We are the children of twin sources of order, not a singular source. …. [pg 71]

Doesn’t look to me like any claim on his part that self-organization is more important than selection – a point he emphasizes any number of times throughout the book. This paper suggests, and develops in some detail, the somewhat poetic “self organization proposes, but natural selection disposes” analogous to the proverb “man proposes, God disposes”.

Dick Strawkins wrote:If you can produce a credible case then I have no doubt a Nobel prize awaits you because it would turn the entire field of biology on it's head.

Considering the rather large number of people who have published peer-review papers on the topic of self-organization, I would say any claims I might make would have to take a back seat – and the one at the very back of a very long bus.

Dick Strawkins wrote:What you've done, however, is not so much present a case that self organization is more important in evolution ...

As indicated, no one – that I know of in any case – is saying that it is more important, only that it plays a central role – along with selection.

Dick Strawkins wrote:But even that is more of a hypothesis than a proven fact and even IF proven that RNA self organized into replicating polymers that only gives us one point in the evolutionary tree.

Apart from the apparent fact – as indicated in the quotes I provided earlier – that “reproducing peptide, DNA, and RNA collectively autocatalytic sets have now been made experimentally”, one might argue that that isn’t, if true, just “one point on the evolutionary tree”, but the root if not the seeds and principle of the entire edifice. “As the twig is bent so is the tree inclined.”

Dick Strawkins wrote:Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a credible case can be made that self organizing systems are involved in the biochemistry of life - but these are minor aspects of evolution compared to proven factors such as genetic drift, variation and natural selection?

Maybe. But what evidence do you have that those are only “minor aspects”? Considering the very significant amount of physics that more or less proves the pervasiveness and importance of emergence and self-organization in various physical systems, including biological ones, I would say “minor” is rather an untenable position to be taking.

And, as a rather simple case in point, you might want to check out the operation of even simple Boolean networks, and that Mathematica demonstration of them, which clearly show that homeostatic behaviour tends naturally to fall out of the application of very simple rules – almost, one might suggest, as if systems were finely tuned to exhibit such behaviours.

It is very difficult to understand your point but I will at least try.
IF you are saying that self organizing systems are important in biology then that, of course, is a well established fact. You seem to be concentrating on self catalytic peptides and nucleic acids which have been demonstrated experimentally. Unfortunately for you these experimental systems are not a good example of a self organizing process - they generally involve scientists artificially examining a narrow range of possibilities in order to produce a self catalytic molecule. I don't know of any experiment that produced a self organizing and self catalyzing biomolecular polymer.

I provided a much more established example of a self organizing system - the lipid bilayer of cell membranes. This is not self catalytic but it is self organizing. There is little doubt that this property of lipid biomolecules has had a significant role in allowing life to develop as we know it.
And if this property did not exist it is likely that evolution could not progress as it has (since cell membranes allow separation between different and competing replicators.)
But this has very little to do with the ongoing process of biological evolution. You are making a huge error by mixing up self organizing systems and "emergence". I think you made the same mistake in the past here on the slymepit due to you not understanding the meaning of the term emergence.
Emergence generally refers to the process whereby an unpredictable new process arises out of earlier simpler processes. An example would be things like consciousness arising out of the development of a larger brain that evolves to cope with the problems living in a mobile social group of bipedal primates. Or flight arising from the development of feathers that evolved as heat regulators and mating displays.
Life itself can be certainly viewed as an emergent process that developed from simpler biochemical processes (for example from earlier biochemical processes such as crystal or clay formation that paved the way for more complicated biochemisty.) But once it had developed to a significant degree - for example the simplest bacterial precursors - then standard evolution by natural selection and random drift will have taken over.
The question you need to answer is where exactly do self organizing systems fit in with the evolution that occurs after this point - in other words for the last three and a half billion years of evolution?
There are no new self catalytic and self organizing biomolecules turning up after this point in evolution. The self organizing aspect of nucleic acids is simply their ability to form hydrogen bonds between bases, C:G and A:T in DNA, and C:G and A:U in RNA; to produce the strands, however, requires a polymerizing enzyme complex.

Aneris wrote:Outwest said I should blog more. I'll continue as Christina Rad over at FreeThoughtBlogs. Was fun around here. Kthxbye.


Just kidding. But she is back.

You going?

If Aneris turns out to be Cristina Rad, that'll be the 'Pit revelation of the century.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

James Caruthers wrote:

ROBOKiTTY wrote:Dave Silverman is a weaselly fella. I'd put him one level below Ray Comfort.

1) Yeah, he seems to get pleasure from going on Fox News and otherwise pissing off christians and moderates for no real reason other than he feels somebody has to.
2) Don't you dare disparage weasels!

[youtube]d2CTVqt2wxU[/youtube]

SQUEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! Cuteness overload!

I had a baby squirrel. He was like this until he got older, then he became a real asshole. Apparently this weasel is grown, so I guess it's not a problem. Ferrets seem pretty adorable too.

This dude's channel is pretty much nothing but cute weasel antics, so I highly recommend it.

ROBOKiTTY wrote:If Aneris turns out to be Cristina Rad, that'll be the 'Pit revelation of the century.

I think she wouldn't spell her name incorrectly if it was her.
(It's Cristina, not Christina)

Aneris, you can blog more AND keep posting here - in fact it's probably better for you to do so if you want to pick up more readers.

Brive1987 wrote:I note the recent tendency to see RW as boringly "old 'pit". :bjarte:

So feel free to ignore this recent update.

A Long Thank You and Update -- Hello Patron Friends!

Apologies for being a bit quiet the past week. I'll be honest with you: I've been a bit down, which makes it tough to get on camera because I think it shows. I blame the snow piling up outside (I had to stop my daily runs), the impending holiday (I normally love Xmas but this year we're saving all our pennies, so there's no tree or presents), and a recent influx of really truly vicious trolls (Reddit's Men's Rights forum has once again remembered I exist). Also I saw a dog for adoption on Petfinder named Lord Dorkley and I am in love with him but we can't afford a new family member at the moment.

All that whining aside, I'm recovering at a healthy pace and am going to try to record something fun tonight. The support all of you have given me has been a huge, huge help – not just monetarily, but psychologically, and I want you to know that. Sincerely: thanks.

On that note, the first Google+ hangout was fun, and I'll be scheduling a new one each month for whoever wants to join. I have a number of friends who have gamely offered to join in, as Maki did this time, so you can look forward to that.

All of which brings me to this: I am not ignoring the fact that we passed the $400/video mark, meaning that I am now to sing a little song. When I made that goal, I was joking because I didn't really think we'd hit it and I couldn't think of any better thing to write, but god damn it I made a promise and I intend to keep it. I'm hoping to solicit some help from one of my songwriting friends, of which I inexplicably have gathered quite a few. So, know that I am 100% going to do this, but it may take some time because I want it to be done right, and I have no idea what I'm doing.

That's it for now! Happy Merry Whatever.

Best,
Rebecca

What the hell is that, examples of humblebrag variations?
An I'mpitifullypoor brag?
Mixed with the ancient and tired I'mbeingmistreatedonline brag?
I'mdepressedbutplucky brag?

Oh dear, Rebecca can't afford holiday lights this christmas, she can't even purchase a package of condoms for her boyfriend's present, and he can't buy her a bottle of champagne. (What game was she bragging about levelling in recently?) She wants to share her love and lovely, barren and bleak home with an adorable animal, but she's barely able to afford a loaf of bread for the day. Men won't stop being mean to her (since they can't have her, they can only look but not touch, and they all hate uppity women). Her jokes are taken seriously and she has to abide by their unintended promise. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. I guess she needs more Patrons.

:violin:

Brive1987 wrote:I note the recent tendency to see RW as boringly "old 'pit". :bjarte:

So feel free to ignore this recent update.

A Long Thank You and Update -- Hello Patron Friends!

Apologies for being a bit quiet the past week. I'll be honest with you: I've been a bit down, which makes it tough to get on camera because I think it shows. I blame the snow piling up outside (I had to stop my daily runs), the impending holiday (I normally love Xmas but this year we're saving all our pennies, so there's no tree or presents), and a recent influx of really truly vicious trolls (Reddit's Men's Rights forum has once again remembered I exist). Also I saw a dog for adoption on Petfinder named Lord Dorkley and I am in love with him but we can't afford a new family member at the moment... blah-de-blah-blah...

Yes, the trolls. The terrible awful trolls, without whom Rebecca would be nobody going nowhere.

What she doesn't mention is why they're trolling. Her Mormon Date video was posted to over a dozen subreddits, half of them MRA forums. Some of them framed the video as acting out a secret rape fantasy, but some had a take she'd never want to hear: Rebecca Watson is a bigot and humiliator. That's different than the usual cunt-skank-ho-lulz shit she's always too happy to share. If that makes her uncomfortable, too fecking bad, she earned it.

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Aneris, you can blog more AND keep posting here - in fact it's probably better for you to do so if you want to pick up more readers.

I'd be pretty surprised if Aneris considers blogging and pit posting as either/or possibilities, and I'd be even more surprised if she let some random guy on twitter dicktate how she spends her online time ;)

And I'd guess her post is a joke gone a bit awry.

Such is my attempt at mind reading. And gender assumption.
Apologies, Aneris

Hopefully I'm not belaboring what everyone already knows, but Aneris has a click and drag disclaimer at the bottom of her post.

JAB wrote:Why is everyone so eager for heddle to bring god into it. I've actually been enjoying his posts. My end of physics is solid state, so I have no great insight in this, but I haven't found much to complain about his posts. They've been responsive to replies for the most part.

Agreed.
+1
Ditto.
I'm enjoying Heddle's writing, and the conversation, but I'm also a complete and utter sap for the topic of astro/theoretical physics.

Re the heavy element requirement for life... I suppose one could postulate a life of some sort that isn't chemistry based, but I don't think a chemical based one could be based on Li and lighter. So the fact likely remains that slight variations in several constants could make life we would recognize impossible. There may be other conditions that would make chemical life possible though. Say a universe where stars are impossible, but the conditions of the big bang made heavier elements from the start.

For some reason that makes me think of swimming in a murky lake and unexpectedly feeling a bunch of underwater vegetation sliding against the skin. Yeesh.

Ape you totally cock blocked my threefer.