Religion

[ZoeB]

...my biggest question regarding evolution is the changing of chromosome numbers. I don't quite get how it would happen.

 

Do you believe in Down syndrome?

[gmanyo]

...my biggest question regarding evolution is the changing of chromosome numbers. I don't quite get how it would happen.

 

Do you believe in Down syndrome?

Yeah, but that's the thing; almost all mutations of chromosomes result in bad things. You have to get two positive mutations happening in the same place at the same time.

 

Not saying I don't believe in evolution. It just confuses me a bit.

[goDel]

Zoe, You've done it! Thanks to your Wikipedia link and some infallable human scientists, i now know where we come from!!!

 

So at which point did the species just decide to grow ribs to protect vital organs... or say, stomach acid to digest food? Oh, it happened over billions of years? Beneficial mutations? Thats like saying billions of years from now, a human will be born that has the ability to breathe underwater. I'm not really asking for scientific explanations or dates... just showing that chance is not a factor.

 

What makes you think you're showing anything? Other than your misunderstanding of evolution, that is.

 

I'm just describing it on an extremely basic level.

 

And "it" is evolution? Or why "chance is not a factor"? What are you describing/showing/whatever. I mean, I know you're just trolling. I'm just interested how you manage to bullshit yourself out of this corner.

[ZoeB]

I mean, it's a rebuttal against the claim that everything is chemical reactions in many ways. The point is to show that there are some problems with believing in only "the natural", because consciousness doesn't make sense. You are saying "it's obvious that it's just chemical reactions", but the rebuttal is "it can't be chemical reactions, because chemical reactions can't do that". The chemical reactions should not create actual experiences. We should not be able to experience things any more than a rock can. The p-zombies are like rocks, only they move.

 

It's not really a rebuttal though. If you already believe in the supernatural, then these "p-zombies" can exist. If you don't, they're a non sequitur. I still don't understand why chemical reactions shouldn't be capable of being conscious? They clearly are capable, they do it all the time! Again, this talk isn't going to convince either of us because if you assume that the supernatural is existent, it logically may or may not be impossible for matter and energy alone to be alive, whereas if you assume the supernatural is non-existent, it logically has to be possible for matter and energy alone to be alive. So this argument won't prove anything either way.

[Hoodie]

Zoe, You've done it! Thanks to your Wikipedia link and some infallable human scientists, i now know where we come from!!!

 

So at which point did the species just decide to grow ribs to protect vital organs... or say, stomach acid to digest food? Oh, it happened over billions of years? Beneficial mutations? Thats like saying billions of years from now, a human will be born that has the ability to breathe underwater. I'm not really asking for scientific explanations or dates... just showing that chance is not a factor.

 

What makes you think you're showing anything? Other than your misunderstanding of evolution, that is.

 

I'm just describing it on an extremely basic level.

 

and what's your explanation? what's your evidence for how humans came about?

 

i think those scientists have far, far more evidence for their theories than any alternative you wish to propose.

 

If it acts like a human being and is completely indistinguishable from one, then by what criterion isn't it one?

 

I think you missed the point. The idea is that it does not have a consciousness, but seems like a human. Reacts like a human but does not actually sense things. Chemical reactions. The idea that a consciousness is separate from the physical part of your body. It's the point I was making. If you read the rebuttals section, your point is in there.

 

I think the whole concept of "p-zombies" only makes sense if people have some kind of external driving force, ie a soul, which they patently don't. As indeed it says in the rebuttals part of that page. So that "argument" doesn't really help anyone; if you believe in the supernatural, it's self self-evident that such entities can exist; if you only believe in the natural, it's self-evident that they can't.

 

Our thoughts are just chemical reactions. That's my point! And that fact doesn't make them any less valid or interesting. Indeed, how splendid a thing is it that us mere bags of chemicals can create works of art and love one another?

 

I mean, it's a rebuttal against the claim that everything is chemical reactions in many ways. The point is to show that there are some problems with believing in only "the natural", because consciousness doesn't make sense. You are saying "it's obvious that it's just chemical reactions", but the rebuttal is "it can't be chemical reactions, because chemical reactions can't do that". The chemical reactions should not create actual experiences. We should not be able to experience things any more than a rock can. The p-zombies are like rocks, only they move.

 

you're engaging in reductionism. yes, at the smallest level, we are just atomic nuclei and electrons interacting. so is everything else in the universe... but isn't it possible that the complex system formed by these basic building blocks would be able to become self-aware without outside intervention? we're not just chemical reactions. we're the sum of all those chemical reactions. it's a huge difference--the difference between a man and a meat smoothie.

 

here's food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_properties

 

also, those p-zombies are missing a vital thing... they're missing an organ that interprets inputs and reacts with output. they're impossible structures, so i don't think they're a very good argument against materialism. it'd be the same as having a p-monitor, a monitor that displays windows 7 and reacts to mouse clicks and keyboard input without a computer attached. it's not possible, so why argue about it?

[Guest RandySicko]

And "it" is evolution? Or why "chance is not a factor"? What are you describing/showing/whatever. I mean, I know you're just trolling. I'm just interested how you manage to bullshit yourself out of this corner.

 

Both. You don't agree with me so I must be trolling

[Hoodie]

And "it" is evolution? Or why "chance is not a factor"? What are you describing/showing/whatever. I mean, I know you're just trolling. I'm just interested how you manage to bullshit yourself out of this corner.

 

Both. You don't agree with me so I must be trolling

 

you never even stated your position or alternative explanation, so yeah, you must be trolling.

[goDel]

If you're going on the emergentism train, you're supposed to say we're more than just the sum of all parts/chemical reactions/or whatever you think should be here.

 

And "it" is evolution? Or why "chance is not a factor"? What are you describing/showing/whatever. I mean, I know you're just trolling. I'm just interested how you manage to bullshit yourself out of this corner.

 

Both. You don't agree with me so I must be trolling

I don't agree, but that's not why I think you're trolling. I think you're trolling because you're not putting up an honest discussion. It looks like a collection of random remarks. I don't see any content.

 

edit: like hoodie said....

[Hoodie]

If you're going on the emergentism train, you're supposed to say we're more than just the sum of all parts/chemical reactions/or whatever you think should be here.

 

lol, i just thought it was something interesting to consider. i'm not pushing it or anything, especially because i only have a basic understanding of it.

[ZoeB]

Yeah, but that's the thing; almost all mutations of chromosomes result in bad things. You have to get two positive mutations happening in the same place at the same time.

 

Not saying I don't believe in evolution. It just confuses me a bit.

 

Yes, when something randomly changes, the result will likely be bad. If it is, that lifeform will be less likely to live long enough to reproduce, and its change will be forgotten. If, on the other hand, that random change is beneficial, you'll be more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and your change will live on through your descendants.

 

Why would you need two positive mutations at once? For a single mutation to survive, you only need it to avoid getting you killed before you can reproduce. This gives a free pass to neutral and positive mutations, however small their contribution.

[Guest RandySicko]

If you're going on the emergentism train, you're supposed to say we're more than just the sum of all parts/chemical reactions/or whatever you think should be here.

 

And "it" is evolution? Or why "chance is not a factor"? What are you describing/showing/whatever. I mean, I know you're just trolling. I'm just interested how you manage to bullshit yourself out of this corner.

 

Both. You don't agree with me so I must be trolling

I don't agree, but that's not why I think you're trolling. I think you're trolling because you're not putting up an honest discussion. It looks like a collection of random remarks. I don't see any content.

 

edit: like hoodie said....

 

I refer you to page 3

[goDel]

If you're going on the emergentism train, you're supposed to say we're more than just the sum of all parts/chemical reactions/or whatever you think should be here.

 

lol, i just thought it was something interesting to consider. i'm not pushing it or anything, especially because i only have a basic understanding of it.

 

Do not fear. I actually think there's some merit to the notion of emergentism. The analogy of why we can't explain the liquidity of water on a purely atomic level (given only one H2O molecule for instance), can be pretty helpful in showing why understanding the atomic level of a brain wouldn't necessarily explain consciousness, or more specifically qualia.

[gmanyo]

I mean, it's a rebuttal against the claim that everything is chemical reactions in many ways. The point is to show that there are some problems with believing in only "the natural", because consciousness doesn't make sense. You are saying "it's obvious that it's just chemical reactions", but the rebuttal is "it can't be chemical reactions, because chemical reactions can't do that". The chemical reactions should not create actual experiences. We should not be able to experience things any more than a rock can. The p-zombies are like rocks, only they move.

 

It's not really a rebuttal though. If you already believe in the supernatural, then these "p-zombies" can exist. If you don't, they're a non sequitur. I still don't understand why chemical reactions shouldn't be capable of being conscious? They clearly are capable, they do it all the time! Again, this talk isn't going to convince either of us because if you assume that the supernatural is existent, it logically may or may not be impossible for matter and energy alone to be alive, whereas if you assume the supernatural is non-existent, it logically has to be possible for matter and energy alone to be alive. So this argument won't prove anything either way.

 

Note that the "supernatural" does not necessarily mean a spiritual realm or a god. I don't think that it's a non sequitur, either. I don't think saying "I do not believe in the supernatural, so these p-zombies do not exist" is the right way of looking at it. I don't come at it assuming the supernatural exists. Also, even if you're right and it's just chemical reactions, we do not understand how it works at all. We see how it is related, but now how it happens.

 

(edit: wow, I think I need some more sentence variety there. I don't, I don't I don't...)

 

I guess it's not a rebuttal so much as a thought experiment that raises interesting ideas. Could there possibly be more than we're seeing, maybe even as much as a spiritual realm? Or is it just that we do not understand how the chemicals work to create consciousness? More than that, it's pointing out with an analogy that consciousness seems to be a different structure from what we classically think of as matter.

 

Just reread it while writing this post. The argument says that the fact that we can perceive a person without said consciousness proves that it exists. Sort of.

 

• According to physicalism all that exists in our world (including consciousness) is physical.
  
• Thus, if physicalism is true, a logically-possible world in which all physical facts are the same as those of the actual world must contain everything that exists in our actual world. In particular, conscious experience must exist in such a possible world.
  
• In fact we can conceive of a world physically indistinguishable from our world but in which there is no consciousness (a zombie world) and we can not see why it is not logically possible.
  
• Therefore, physicalism is false. (The conclusion follows from 2. and 3. by modus tollens.)
  

 

As a side note, I want a zombie that I can poke with a sharp object. I would be so entertained.

 

Yeah, but that's the thing; almost all mutations of chromosomes result in bad things. You have to get two positive mutations happening in the same place at the same time.

 

Not saying I don't believe in evolution. It just confuses me a bit.

 

Yes, when something randomly changes, the result will likely be bad. If it is, that lifeform will be less likely to live long enough to reproduce, and its change will be forgotten. If, on the other hand, that random change is beneficial, you'll be more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and your change will live on through your descendants.

 

Why would you need two positive mutations at once? For a single mutation to survive, you only need it to avoid getting you killed before you can reproduce. This gives a free pass to neutral and positive mutations, however small their contribution.

 

I don't think you can reproduce and make offspring which can reproduce if you don't have the same chromosomes. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though.

[goDel]

If you're going on the emergentism train, you're supposed to say we're more than just the sum of all parts/chemical reactions/or whatever you think should be here.

 

And "it" is evolution? Or why "chance is not a factor"? What are you describing/showing/whatever. I mean, I know you're just trolling. I'm just interested how you manage to bullshit yourself out of this corner.

 

Both. You don't agree with me so I must be trolling

I don't agree, but that's not why I think you're trolling. I think you're trolling because you're not putting up an honest discussion. It looks like a collection of random remarks. I don't see any content.

 

edit: like hoodie said....

 

I refer you to page 3

 

And what should I be looking at? Hints on where to start with reading philosophy? Namedropping Nietzsche/Aristotle/Heidegger implies having a serious discussion? Or just your idea that because something came out of nothing, there has to be purpose? And what does that say about evolution/chance?

I'm trying here. To the point of being openly naive. Can you please give me a story, or are you going to give me another hoop to jump through?

[Guest RandySicko]

The only point of going there was to see that my comments are not a "collection of random remarks". I really have nothing else that I care to prove to you. Sounds to me like you just want to pick a fight

[goDel]

The only point of going there was to see that my comments are not a "collection of random remarks". I really have nothing else that I care to prove to you. Sounds to me like you just want to pick a fight

 

Only asking to explain yourself. Which you still haven't. And you're saying you won't. Ergo trolling.

 

Game on.

[Guest RandySicko]

What do you want me to explain?

[ZoeB]

...infallable human scientists...

 

Of course no one's infallible! The only difference with scientists is they try to minimise their own peccadilloes and prejudices interfering with their findings, by using the scientific method. That's what separates answering questions with science to answering questions with your feelings or personal anecdotes.

[gmanyo]

...infallable human scientists...

 

Of course no one's infallible! The only difference with scientists is they try to minimise their own peccadilloes and prejudices interfering with their findings, by using the scientific method. That's what separates answering questions with science to answering questions with your feelings or personal anecdotes.

 

gotta go with the feeling bro....

 

http://youtu.be/jUyMP3tTsX8

[goDel]

What do you want me to explain?

So at which point did the species just decide to grow ribs to protect vital organs... or say, stomach acid to digest food? Oh, it happened over billions of years? Beneficial mutations? Thats like saying billions of years from now, a human will be born that has the ability to breathe underwater. I'm not really asking for scientific explanations or dates... just showing that chance is not a factor.

 

Could you please write an explanation of the above? Because I don't see why anything is being shown. Perhaps you might use some extra words to explain? Pretty please? Something about the logic perhaps, because I can't find any.

[Hoodie]

Yeah, but that's the thing; almost all mutations of chromosomes result in bad things. You have to get two positive mutations happening in the same place at the same time.

 

Not saying I don't believe in evolution. It just confuses me a bit.

 

Yes, when something randomly changes, the result will likely be bad. If it is, that lifeform will be less likely to live long enough to reproduce, and its change will be forgotten. If, on the other hand, that random change is beneficial, you'll be more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and your change will live on through your descendants.

 

Why would you need two positive mutations at once? For a single mutation to survive, you only need it to avoid getting you killed before you can reproduce. This gives a free pass to neutral and positive mutations, however small their contribution.

 

I don't think you can reproduce and make offspring which can reproduce if you don't have the same chromosomes. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though.

 

yeah, you're wrong about this. this diagram might help: http://labspace.open.ac.uk/file.php/5694/S103_5_003i.jpg

 

when reproduction occurs, you're combining (essentially) half of the chromosomes from each parent. these chromosomes, however, don't have identical genes on them though. they have their own variations of these genes. so, the sperm contains a brown haired gene and the egg has a black haired gene, but both genes for hair color will be found on the same chromosome in each parent. it's still the "same" chromosome, but it has slightly different genetic material.

 

and remember, mutations can occur at a very small level--like a single nucleotide being changed, which results in a single amino acid being different in a single type of protein, which can cause a chain reaction that results in something like abnormal eye color, obesity, death, etc.

 

i'm simplifying this a lot but that's basically how it works.

[gmanyo]

Yeah, but that's the thing; almost all mutations of chromosomes result in bad things. You have to get two positive mutations happening in the same place at the same time.

 

Not saying I don't believe in evolution. It just confuses me a bit.

 

Yes, when something randomly changes, the result will likely be bad. If it is, that lifeform will be less likely to live long enough to reproduce, and its change will be forgotten. If, on the other hand, that random change is beneficial, you'll be more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and your change will live on through your descendants.

 

Why would you need two positive mutations at once? For a single mutation to survive, you only need it to avoid getting you killed before you can reproduce. This gives a free pass to neutral and positive mutations, however small their contribution.

 

I don't think you can reproduce and make offspring which can reproduce if you don't have the same chromosomes. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though.

 

yeah, you're wrong about this. this diagram might help: http://labspace.open...S103_5_003i.jpg

 

when reproduction occurs, you're combining (essentially) half of the chromosomes from each parent. these chromosomes, however, don't have identical genes on them though. they have their own variations of these genes. so, the sperm contains a brown haired gene and the egg has a black haired gene, but both genes for hair color will be found on the same chromosome in each parent. it's still the "same" chromosome, but it has slightly different genetic material.

 

and remember, mutations can occur at a very small level--like a single nucleotide being changed, which results in a single amino acid being different in a single type of protein, which can cause a chain reaction that results in something like abnormal eye color, obesity, death, etc.

 

i'm simplifying this a lot but that's basically how it works.

 

Wait, but isn't that just variations of the same genes? I mean like, actually getting an extra chromosome due to a mutation. A single nucleotide isn't too hard to swallow, but actual number changes are what confuse me. Maybe that's what you were talking about, and I just read it wrong.

 

Ugh, it's getting late. Must stop posting and pissing off Joyrex and go to bed. This thread is so fun, though.

[Guest RandySicko]

What do you want me to explain?

So at which point did the species just decide to grow ribs to protect vital organs... or say, stomach acid to digest food? Oh, it happened over billions of years? Beneficial mutations? Thats like saying billions of years from now, a human will be born that has the ability to breathe underwater. I'm not really asking for scientific explanations or dates... just showing that chance is not a factor.

 

Could you please write an explanation of the above? Because I don't see why anything is being shown. Perhaps you might use some extra words to explain? Pretty please? Something about the logic perhaps, because I can't find any.

 

I would normally try to back up my beliefs with my own words, but since everyone else in this thread is comfortable with regurgitating the words of others (namely scientists), I would like to regurgitate a bit myself now.

 

G.K. Chesterton says it best -

 

"I do not know the true reason for a bat not having feathers; I only know that Darwin gave a false reason for its having wings. And the more the Darwinians explain, the more certain I become that Darwinism was wrong. All their explanations ignore the fact that Darwinism supposes an animal feature to appear first, not merely in an incomplete stage, but in an almost imperceptible stage. The member of a sort of mouse family, destined to found the bat family, could only have differed from his brother mice by some minute trace of membrane; and why should that enable him to escape out of a natural massacre of mice? Or even if we suppose it did serve some other purpose, it could only be by a coincidence; and this is to imagine a million coincidences accounting for every creature. A special providence watching over a bat would be a far more realistic notion than such a run of luck as that."

 

..one more

 

“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

—St. Thomas Aquinas, by G.K. Chesterton, 1933

[goDel]

For a handy simplification on what happens on the genetic level, you might want to read up on Genetic Algorithms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

 

It's basically a simplistic model showing why chance indeed can be a factor, btw. Along with other factors. And no, God is not involved.

[gmanyo]

And no, God is not involved.

oh yeah, well then how does it work? does darwin control it??? oh look, i guess i totally just won that argument. jesus 1 evolution 0.

 

 

jk

 

 

edit:

Point made, I just have no idea how anything works. Glad that's cleared up.