It is, of course nonsense.

In thread:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,152065,153383#msg-153383

Gullible's Travel's tries to make the case that because the relatively simple snowflake can be duplicated by there relatively simple creation processes that this somehow applies to the process of creating a human soul.

Disparaging the ad hominems in his post, we are left with the idea that simply because a snowflake and a human are complex things then we can justifiable make assumptions about the likelihood of any specific snowflake and any particular human being identical.

In order for his assertions to be true, the processes of making each must be the same, if the process differ, there is no guarantee the results would be the same.

It seems simple to me that looking at an inanimate object and using its characteristics to make claims about a living being is an inappropriate thing to do, but it does not seem to be such a simple concept for Gullible's Travel's.

A snowflake is created via the laws of physics, that's it folks, that covers the process of creating a snowflake.

The creation of humanity and and individual humans is not limited to the laws of physics. Evolution and natural selection are forces that apply to humans but NOT TO SNOWFLAKES. Reproduction via sex is something that applies to humans BUT NOT TO SNOWFLAKES. Natural selection, sex, and by extension sexual attractions are not generally considered part of the laws of physics.

Evolution and sexual attractions are also NOT random, so the principal of randomness that Gullible's Travel's relies on do not apply.

Sorry, Gully, but YOUR POINT SIMPLY IS NOT VALID and all you adhominims will not change that.

The snowfalke formation is governed by physics, the creation of the self IS NOT. The rules of physics that you require for your point to be valid SIMPLY DO NOT APPLY TO HUMANS AND THE CREATION OF OTHER HUMANS.

The rules for creating a snowflake and the rules for creating humans are different.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 07:44PM by MJ.

You might enjoy looking at some of Emotos work.... it makes more sense!

http://www.dowsers.com/page52.html

Your post sounds like some nut case took off on an idea and fell off a cliff...

Emoto took water, put words, or played music to it and then froze the results into crystals....

They are beautiful..
I love the one from the jar that had been marked "joy"


Enjoy! : )!

I think I was quite clear in my point that I was talking about using the process of formation of a snowflake to draw conclusions about the creation of the human self. Yes, humans can alter the conditions involved in formation of a snowflake, but that does not change that the formation is still based on physics and physics alone.

But thanks for the link, it does make the claim that is counter to GT's claim that duplicate snowflakes can be created. And it also supports my claim that self is created from experiential experiences, contrary to the claim of GT.

Sorry MJ, but you're wrong. The same physics that create snowflakes create humans. The difference between animate and inanimate is not a difference of kind, but a difference of degree. Living organisms require huge amounts of energy to function. That is how evolution, hormones, sexual desires, and even thought are fueled.

Some ignorant creationists claim that evolution violates the law of thermodynamics, i.e. energy must break down into simpler forms, such as electricity becoming heat. But living things, such as ourselves, are constantly breaking down large amounts of energy to grow and reproduce. We don't stand in violation of, nor are we superior to, any physical laws.

Sorry, but things that are NOT physics are required for the formation of the human species.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 08:10PM by MJ.

That's what I was thinking.

The 'self' portion of a living organism must, therefore, be a product of, and subject to these physical forces.

So do you think it is possible, probability aside, that an individual organism (its 'self-ness' included), no matter how complex, could be identically reproduced in nature given enough time/space/matter?

(Yay! I finally got the whole question condensed into one sentence!)

My answer to your question, Gullible, is, probability aside, yes.

If randomness applies to one thing, a the creation of a snowflake, but does not apply to another, the creation of a species (based on non random natural selection) or the creation of an individual (non random sexual attraction), then things that require the physics principal of randomness would be affected by that principal, but the NON-RANDOM STUFF WOULD NOT.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 08:24PM by MJ.

Now we're getting somewhere, MJ. You can't handle the idea that we are random, and everything about us and the universe is happening without a known purpose.

Natural Selection is not why, it is how. There is no why, that's a logical fallacy. We don't know the why of anything.

You need to do some study on natural selection and why it is not considered a random process.

Sorry, but I have no problem with there not being a UNIVERSAL why, but I do have a problem with trying to claim a non-random process is a random-process.

The selection of a characteristic for survival is NOT RANDOM, there is a REASON for that selection, the reason is that it helped the organize to survive. Once there is a reason, the process is not random, it is selective.

Tempurature, humidity, wind velocity, etc in a snowflake.
Environment, predators, reproductive advantages in 'living' organisms.

All possibly and quantifyably reproducible circumstances in nature given enough time, space, and matter.

I chose the snowflake analogy because it was once thought to be impossible for there to be two identical snowflakes because the conditions would have to be almost identical for them to form. We were wrong.

If it could happen once, theoretically, it can happen again. I have applied that reasoning to more complex organisms, and even went out on a limb to propose that it could conceivably include the very essence of an individual.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, DB.

Gullible's Travel's Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Temperature, humidity, wind velocity, etc in a
> snowflake.
> Environment, predators, reproductive advantages in
> 'living' organisms.

Sigh, predators? They came about by NATURAL SELECTION and last I checked there was no PREDICTORS of snowflakes.

So THANK YOUR for confirming that the principals that govern snowflakes is DIFFERENT from that of living organizes.

>
> All possibly and quantifyably reproducible
> circumstances in nature given enough time, space,
> and matter.

Is it? No, there are many POSSIBLE reproducible circumstances that will NEVER HAPPEN WITH LIFE because the environment will not allow life to evolve into that possibility.

>
> I chose the snowflake analogy because it was once
> thought to be impossible for there to be two
> identical snowflakes because the conditions would
> have to be almost identical for them to form. We
> were wrong.

Sorry, but living matter vs. non living is NOT a valid comparison.

>
> If it could happen once, theoretically, it can
> happen again.

Only based on random chance. If I throw a ball in a certain direction the ONLY way it will happen again is if I CHOOSE to throw it in that direction. If I never choose to do so, it will NEVER HAPPEN no matter how long time you give it. In order to make the claim that given enough time, the ball will travel that same direction would require that the ball travels random directions.


Natural selection is based on environmental conditions, if those conditions do not replete themselves you will not get the same results from natural selection. According to the "Big Freeze" theory, the environment of today that pushes natural selection will not exist tomorrow or ever again. So, if natural selection is environmentally driven and it is possible that the environment that gave rise to a particular individual will NEVER EXIST AGAIN, then it is conceivable that that species (or an exact duplicate of the species) or any particular individual (or an exact duplicate of the individual) will never exist again.

Again, you need to study how this all works a little better. AGAIN your theory is based on RANDOMNESS that does NOT APPLY to humanities genetics.

> I have applied that reasoning to
> more complex organisms, and even went out on a
> limb to propose that it could conceivably include
> the very essence of an individual.

It was inappropriate to apply the reasoning the way you did.

>
> I appreciate your thoughtful response, DB.

I have given you the same response, your idea requires that human evolution and sexual reproduction be random, which is not the case.

A given individual needs a specific environment to form, there is NOTHING in science that guarantees that a specific environment will happen a second time. Indeed the "big freeze" suggests that the environment of today will be different from the environment of tomorrow and will never be the same as it was in the past.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 10:04PM by MJ.

*Facepalm*
Conditions that affect organisms VS snowflakes:

snowflake-Tempurature, humidity, wind velocity, etc in a snowflake.

organism-Environment, predators, reproductive advantages in 'living' organisms


*predation, according to Richar Dawkins was on of the 'selectors' in 'natural selection' as per his book 'The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence for Evolution."

"I have long been intrigued by Dr Smolin's idea of a natural selection of universes. It is the only correct way known to me of applying the word 'evolution' to cosmology. Usually, when people speak of the 'evolution' of the universe, they mean 'development' (an individual animal develops, changes in its own structure, it does not evolve. A lineage evolves, and it is an individual sequence of successive developments. Authors speak of stars 'evolving'. Stars do not evolve, they develop. For things to evolve, they have to give birth to a changing lineage of daughter things."

Richard dawkins would be the FIRST to tell you that natural selection DOES NOT APPLY TO SNOWFLAKES. Predictors do not apply to snowflakes. All you are doing is making the case that what applies to snowflakes DOES NOT APPLY TO living things.

Can't yes, predators DO have an affect on the natural selection of LIVING THINGS but NOT ON NON-LIVING THINGS

Again, you can NOT APPLY THE SAME THINKING TO SNOWFLAKES THAT YOU CAN TO HUMANS.

I don't know what this proves. You've said the creation of living things is not limited to the laws of physics, but there is nothing about us that violates or supersedes the laws of physics. And remember that quantum physics get really weird and complicated. You seem to be saying, if I may, that we are beyond physical, and I see no evidence for it.

Biology has determinate factors that are NOT part of physics.

To try to claim something about BIOLOGY simply by using PHYSICS would be inappropriate and possibly lead to faulty conclusions.

Its call logical fallacies.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 08:28PM by MJ.

I used to think the same way MJ, but things are changing. This link explains some of it.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/04/3675.ars

"The fields of biology and physics have long been regarded as being on nearly opposite sides of the scientific field. Biology was regarded by physicists as a science that was mainly devoted to classification, and biologists viewed physicists with well deserved incomprehension. Biology has been revolutionized by the discoveries of inheritance, natural selection, DNA and cellular chemistry. These revolutions have generated a need for new tools, and so began a love affair."

And this one has more:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-8984/18/18/E01

MJ, other than that I agree with you completely on your views of the human soul.

There is no concept for natural selection in physics. the article you are posting has to do with "cellular structures and chemistry" NOT natural selection.

I am not stating that there is not physics involved in biology, I am stating that not all biology is governed by physics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 09:06PM by MJ.

Did I say there was?

"There is no concept for natural selection in physics." Agreed.

Natural selection is fascinating and cannot be reduced to physics. But the processes to adapt to change on a cellular and molecular level come back to physics.

Thus a determinate factor as to what the genetic code is is NOT based in physics, but natural selection, thus non-physics principals apply. You can not predict what genetic code will be based only on physics.

That always bothered me about physics, the idea that everything can be reduced to simple equations. Newtonian physics ideas like that fell when Einstein came along, then he turned around and argued that god doesn't throw dice.

Heck of a debate and I enjoy your posts MJ.

The laws of physics (and other sciences) need to conform to nature, nature does not conform to the laws of physics (and other sciences). To say "everything can be reduced to simple equations" can only happen if everything in nature can be reduced to a simple set of equations.

I see it like you on this. Don't get me wrong, that idea of everything being reduced to equations and predictable was an old way of looking at physics, not my take on it.

MJ, you said, "not all biology is governed by physics." Here you have truly crossed the line into mysticism. Of course all cellular activity is subject to physical laws. This is the problem with spending time in Mormonism and other religions, you lose touch with the progress of science, philosophy, literature and other facets of human understanding. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in biology that is not within the realm of chemistry, physics and any other "hard science." It is up to us to unify the disciplines.

The concept of the "ghost in the machine," has been dismantled and debunked by intellects greater than yours and mine.

Yes, looking at ONLY the chemical reactions you have a point. BUT when looking at what DNA helps the organism survive and what DNA does not is NOT a physics issue, it is a natural selection issue.

So, what DNA a species has is based on NATURAL SELECTION, which is NOT a "ghost in the machine" it IS HARD SCIENCE.

So, again, when it comes to what genetics a species or an individual has, you can not rely on physics alone for the answer.

You know what, MJ? I studied biology when I was in college. DNA is a chemical. It is Deoxyribonucleic acid. It has a double helix shape and replicates itself by sequencing, that is to say, similar molecules are formed in strings that parallel and then detach from the helix. I did not, and would never say that DNA sequencing represents a "ghost in the machine." That phrase is meant to suggest a non-physical soul, which is what I think you've been talking about all along.

DNA acts according to the laws of physics and no other laws are involved, unless you think chemistry is not physical, in which case I say, "Good day to you, and may you meet with simpler minds."

And never explained to you that Mutation of DNA was a random process and that Natural Selection was NOT a random process. So, the dynamics you keep harping on are about the mutation, not the selection process of natural selection.

Yes, the process you describe is correct, but it is NOT THE FULL STORY, it is only ONE ASPECT of the story and simply does not address the SELECTION process of NATURAL SELECTION.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 10:08PM by MJ.

MJ, you said, "not all biology is governed by physics." Here you have truly crossed the line into mysticism. Of course all cellular activity is subject to physical laws. This is the problem with spending time in Mormonism and other religions, you lose touch with the progress of science, philosophy, literature and other facets of human understanding. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in biology that is not within the realm of chemistry, physics and any other "hard science." It is up to us to unify the disciplines.

The concept of the "ghost in the machine," has been dismantled and debunked by intellects greater than yours and mine.


I just yelled 'FINALLY' at my computer!
Yes, yes, and yes!
THIS is what I have been trying (and apparently failing) at articulating.
What ever is that bit, bite, molocule, function, whatever, the 'self', 'soul', pov, the thing which experiences in the first person, is NOT outside the realm of the physical. It then MUST be the result of a combination of chemicals, atoms, matter, electricity, elements, and whatnot. Something yet to be pin pointed in the same way we have pin pointed where/how memories are made, language is learned, visible light converts to images that we can then make sense of, etc.

It was produced in the physical universe, so could concievably be re-produced by natural means (and more excitingly, synthetic) processes.

First off, I said "not all biology is governed by physics." of all that you posted, that is all that *I* actually said. All that other stuff was said by someone else and I have dealt with that. So, if you are saying "finally" because of all that other stuff, you are saying it for what SOMEONE ELSE says.

So, let me try to explain this again, slowly:

-- Evolution states that life evolves to fit its environment.

That means for a specific species to exist, it needed to evolve to fit a specific environment. In order for a duplicate species to exist, the specific environment needs to have been created a second time.

Now, IF the universe was stable and purely random aspects apply then yes, given time it may be possible that the same environment could be recreated.

But the Universe is NOT stable. It is, according to the "Big Freeze" Contently expanding and cooling. The environment of the universe as a whole is not the same as it was yesterday and it is not going to be the same tomorrow. If we had tools sensitive to measure the over all temperature of the universe and the change from day to day, we would find that the environment of the universe is NOT THE SAME FROM DAY TO DAY and will NEVER REPEAT ITSELF.

So, it is possible and even probable that A) an environment will never reproduce itself thus B) that a species requiring a specific environment to evolve and exist will never be able to be reproduced.

So, a species can only survive as long as its environment does not change, but our universal environment is always going to change, going from vary hot to very cold. So, it is assured that there is a limited time span a species can live, so a species can not be given "enough time", it only has the time its ever changing and cooling environment gives it.

Can you see where this is going? To produce a specific individual one needs a specific environment, With a constantly cooling universe, the environment will NEVER BE THE SAME. So there is no reason to assume that the environment required to create an individual will ever exist again. This is NOT one of those "given enough time" things because the environment of the Universe is constantly getting cooler to the environment that exists today WILL NEVER EXIST AGAIN.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 10:45PM by MJ.

>So, a species can only survive as long as its environment does not change, but our universal environment is always going to change, going from vary hot to very cold. So, it is assured that there is a limited time span a species can live, so a species can not be given "enough time", it only has the time its ever changing and cooling environment gives it.


But the evolution of a species depends on the local environment, not the environment of the universe as a whole.. Even if the universe as a whole is continuously cooling, that does not hold for the local environment which is affected by many other processes. It is not impossible for a local environment to exist, change , and then change back to its previous state.

You also made the statement earlier "The laws of physics (and other sciences) need to conform to nature, nature does not conform to the laws of physics (and other sciences)."

I defy you to show me anything in nature that violates the laws of physics.

When the environment of the Universe gets too cold to support a particular environment, then it will be impossible for that environment to exist.

Sorry, the local environment is not independent of the universal environment.

Also, the point that we are discussing would be "given enough time it WILL be recreated" Yes, it MIGHT, but with an ever cooling environment there is no guarantee that it WILL be recreated as GT is insisting. Your point does not address the issue being discussed, that, given enough time, the recreation of an individual is inevitable, it is not. Indeed, it may even be impossible.

My point still stands.

Next.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 11:17PM by MJ.

Go to your local Indian casino
they will demonstrate what randomness is, you'll walk out with a lighter soul.

Natural selection will not select your "soul" theory.

The rules of the game are NOT random and are purposefully structured to give an advantage to the casino. The fact that I would leave a casino with less money is not because of random factors, it has to do with the non-random rules that structure the odds to favor the casinos.

Your comment had me puzzled for a minute. I wasn't sure you were referring to physics or souls ; ' )

Flecher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go to your local Indian casino
> they will demonstrate what randomness is, you'll
> walk out with a lighter soul.

Your comments had me puzzled at first. I wasn't sure you were talking about physics or souls ; ' )

An Edge discussion on the evolution of the universe (theoretically). I don't know if it is exactly on-point of this discussion but it is interesting.

http://www.edge.org/discourse/smolin_natselection.html