Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
roughone
Guest

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by roughone » Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:36 pm

Squiz,

The standing organizing field of any living organism is water. When you understand the field you will not have to strain at explaining what is inexplicable without it.
35 genes to explain collagen synthesis, or are they just the fictions created to explain DNA centric biological science? It is a disregarded and inconvenient fact that the main protein component of the body is fully capable of self assembly without DNA transcriptive aid. This seems not much different that contriving 8 extra mysterious dimensions to explain the four known forces?

How do you think life was able to establish itself before DNA was developed?


:geek:

squiz
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:05 am

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by squiz » Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:30 pm

roughone wrote:Squiz,

The standing organizing field of any living organism is water. When you understand the field you will not have to strain at explaining what is inexplicable without it.
So water contains the information to build organs, define tissue types and create body plan? It can assembly strings of coherent digital pre scriptive instructions that build molecular machines that carry all the work of the cell? Wow. Who needs DNA?
35 genes to explain collagen synthesis, or are they just the fictions created to explain DNA centric biological science?
Really? fictitious because it invalidates your point you mean. You mean to say that these genes are imaginary used to prop up genetics? A Truly stunning level of denial at best.
It is a disregarded and inconvenient fact that the main protein component of the body is fully capable of self assembly without DNA transcriptive aid.
Complete rubbish. It has no consequence or validity on my original points of semiotics, code and functional information, not one bit.
You simply misunderstand the process, yes there is some self assembly but the peptides that self assemble are encoded in DNA. There are many types, I posted the whole process. You simply ignore it. You also ignore the fact that there is a higher level of organisation above the simple forming of fibrils. Does water decide which tissues to build where and how?
How do you think life was able to establish itself before DNA was developed?
No one knows.

In light of your bizzare comments, denial, logical fallacies and lack of substance I'm unwilling to continue the discussion with you. I've found these issues have nothing really to do about actuall science and much more to do with ideologies and world views.

roughone
Guest

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by roughone » Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:36 am

Squiz,

You may be aware of collagen self assembly but you have not done much research into it, and do not have enough to reach any conclusions about it.

The nano tech sciences use the same processes to assemble their machines, and they were not the first to utilize it, nature was.

Ill go one better and assert that the cytoplasm is negatively charged and this results in the chirality bias of the cytoplasm. The nucleus is positively charged and this results in the chirality of the nucleotides. The polarity of a cell is caused by the position of the nucleus in the cell, and this conveys spatial information to surrounding cells for differentiation. This also leads to a crystal lattice surrounding cells, using the collagen to convey further spatial information between cells.

Mitosis itself is driven by the dipole nature of a cell.

Perhaps you are going to deny also that the cytoskeleton is a structure of self assembly?

:geek:

squiz
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:05 am

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by squiz » Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:56 am

Sorry Roughone, anyone who thinks the COL genes are a conspiracy are not worth my time. And you don't answer questions at all. Congratulations on the greatest level of denial I have ever encountered in these debates. :D

Self assembly is pure physics. Semiotics is not. By your logic your computer works by electricity only, without software. I doubt you understand the analogy though.

No amount of physics can create language. Mind is a pre requisite.

It appears to me you have a lot to learn about biology. Sorry to say.
Last edited by squiz on Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

squiz
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:05 am

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by squiz » Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:08 am

Since my main points have been sidetracked by the insignificant self assembly of a basic building block. (Sheesh, what a joke.)
Here it is, a form of it, from someone who does it much better than me.

1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc).

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes.

6. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function.

7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information.

8. During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function.

9. From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process is determined by the physical forces of pair bonding. Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

10. This physical event, translation by a material protocol, as well as the transcription of a material representation, is ubiquitous in the transfer of recorded information.

CONCLUSION: These two physical objects (the representation and protocol) along with the required preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation, and the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary component, confirm that the transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information. It’s an arbitrary relationship instantiated in matter.

Mind is a prerequisite. No amount of physics and magical self assembly can account for it. None.

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by tayga » Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:18 pm

squiz wrote:Here it is, a form of it, from someone who does it much better than me....
Whose argument is that, Squiz? It's well put-together. :)
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

roughone
Guest

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by roughone » Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:41 pm

"Collagen molecules can self-assemble into fibrils in water solution.This assembly is mainly driven by inter-molecular hydrogen bonds and hydrophobicforces. The electrostatic interaction between collagen molecules strongly influences the assembly of collagen. The self-assembly ability of collagen is weakened in a low pH range because of the strong electrostaticrepulsionbetweencollagenmolecules.Thedimensionoftheassembledcollagen fibrilsisremarkablyincreasedwhenthepHofsolutionisclosedtotheisoelectricpoint(pI)of collagenwherethe electrostaticrepulsionisnegligible." , Yulu Wang

The low PH associated with weakened collagen self assembly is the intrinsic result of a lowered negative charge from a direct contribution of the variable of water within an organism depending upon mostly organic compounds. The literature is replete with extensive proof that collagen is completely capable of self assembly, and in science the simplest answer is supposed to win. It is the ignored and not understood field of water that directs life process. To understand this you must first speak the language.If you speak the language then you know the reasons, and the coherence that underlies it, otherwise you speak nonsense!

:geek:

squiz
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:05 am

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by squiz » Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:22 pm

Hi Tayga,

I don't know who wrote it. He goes by the name Uprightbiped. Yes it is very well put together.
I've found very few can actually grasp the concept and why the information which is carried by the physical medium is not reducable to physical law.

Materialist are forced to believe that language can emerge from unguided material forces, or self assemble. :roll: That sounds like faith to me. Ironic isn't it?

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by tayga » Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:59 pm

squiz wrote:Materialist are forced to believe that language can emerge from unguided material forces, or self assemble. :roll: That sounds like faith to me. Ironic isn't it?
Yes, at their very basis some reductionist/materialist arguments sound very much like faith. Really, anything we don't know but want to explain comes down to that.

Still, it's nice to see good, cogent arguments. :)
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

roughone
Guest

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by roughone » Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:41 pm

Sorry, but in my book physics precedes biology and biology is not the more fundamental science. To suggest that the feeble human mind is equal to the universe on any level is heresy. If you think you are god like, then enjoy your folly as my degree of faith in you is confirmed!

:geek:

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by tayga » Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:44 pm

roughone wrote:Sorry, but in my book physics precedes biology and biology is not the more fundamental science. To suggest that the feeble human mind is equal to the universe on any level is heresy. If you think you are god like, then enjoy your folly as my degree of faith in you is confirmed!

:geek:
There are two points here. First, the human mind is not proven to be a product of biology. This goes along with the second point, that human consciousness may be

“... an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself.”

― Alan Watts
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

roughone
Guest

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by roughone » Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:06 am

Either you believe that life and consciousness adheres to natural law or you believe that it contradicts it. If you choose the latter then you have to invent fantastic stories to account for life and consciousness. Good luck with that!

:geek:

roughone
Guest

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by roughone » Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:58 pm

. “... an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself.”
...Alan Watts
If this true, and I have my doubts, it is only another admission of bottom up causation. A perfect being controlling creation from the top would have no need for this aperture. Only a bottom up entity would need to explore creation in this way. Watts is implying that the conscious existence he is referring to, is inadequate and imperfect and needs agents of self exploration. Hardly an agent in control from the top, I'd say imperfect, insecure and unknowing of itself and what is is doing.

It all sounds familiar to me.


:!:

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by tayga » Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:05 am

roughone wrote:Watts is implying that the conscious existence he is referring to, is inadequate and imperfect and needs agents of self exploration.
Watts is alluding to a Hermetic model of creation which starts at the top.

We can only speculate about what the motivation for such an exercise would be although I don't think any sense of imperfection or need is consistent with a universal creator. My speculation, which I can not justify beyond my gut feeling, is game playing.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

User avatar
StevenJay
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

Unread post by StevenJay » Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:52 am

roughone wrote:A perfect being controlling creation from the top would have no need for this aperture.

Watts is implying that the conscious existence he is referring to, is inadequate and imperfect...

... imperfect, insecure and unknowing of itself and what is is doing.
You're leaning heavily on your concept of "perfection." It has long been my understanding that "perfection" describes a process of perpetual becoming. What you are implying is that it is a completed state of being.

Another understanding that I have is that everything has a purpose, and as the late "Junglelord" stressed over and over again, "Form and function cannot be separated."

The notion that we (along with at the very least, all of this physicality) are Primary Consciousness exploring itself makes complete sense to me.
It's all about perception.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests