>Chris wrote:
>>>Since self-organization is a consequence of MANY different collections of
>>>laws, not just the ones built into the physics of the Universe, my guess is
>>>that it's accidental. This is also one reason "strong anthropic principle"
>>>arguments are so weak; we have been unable to find any limit on the number
>>>of sets of laws that can yield self-organization.
>Bertvan:
>>At least you say it is your GUESS that it is accidental, leaving room for
>>some to guess otherwise. While the concept of self organization is
>>interesting, I'm unaware anyone has yet found evidence that it applies to
>>biological systems.
Chris:
>I think this is where it is seen to apply MOST. I can't think of any
>biological system where it is not a major factor (of course, I did just get
>up, so my mental "search engine" isn't working well yet). Can you think of
>even one biological system where it doesn't apply? I'm not sure it's even
>possible for a biological system to be a non-self-organizing system; I'll
>ponder that one at breakfast.
Bertvan:
You are absolutely right. (Knee-jerk reaction on my part, I think.) I was
thinking of the stuff Sturart Kauffman is doing, suggesting that all matter
is self organizing. I wasn't aware he had found a way to apply that to
living systems. But it does seem obvious that all biological systems are
self-organizing. Is that accepted by most neo Darwinists? Self organization
implies some kind of script, blueprint, plan or order, to me. At least,
until we know how biological system organize themselves, there is no reason
to deny it might be according to some design. If biological systems are self
organizing, there would be no reason to assume mutations are random, would
there? And no need for Natural Selection to "design" any new organs, systems
or body parts, would there? Natural selection might be just a minor
screening process to eliminate failures, those organisms which didn't come
out according to plan, mightn't it? Random mutation and natural selection
as an explanation of macro evolution is the part of evolution of which I am
skeptical. While I hear more and more scientists share my skepticism, it is
the definition of neo Darwinism, and it is the definition of Darwinism in the
mind of the public. I'm not sure where you stand on all this.
>Chris Wrote:
>>>Death and disease do not always have a purpose, but they do seem always to
>>>have naturalistic explanations. That is, as Kevin suggests, we can predict,
>>>from the principles of evolution that "organisms" will die and that they
>>>will get diseases, diseases of at least these types: Those from simple
>>>malfunction and degradation, those resulting from "infemes" that have
>>>overall survival value but which have some disease as a side effect, those
>>>resulting from parasitic "infemes," and those caused by other "organisms."
>>>("Infeme" is my term for the information stored in genes, memes,
>>>self-reproducing computer programs, etc. It is a chunk of information
>>>"seeking" to perpetuate itself. Genes are "selfish," as Dawkins says, but
>>>their selfishness is secondary to the selfishness of the infemes they
>>>carry by means of their structure. ALL evolution is PRIMARILY the
evolution >>>of information-survival, or of infeme-survival.) Memes, computer
programs,
>>andgenetic organisms, not to mention automobiles, watches, and societies,
are
>>all evolutionary and they can all "die" and they can all get "diseases."
>Bertvan:
>Since science can only address that phenomena which it can measure., do
you anticipate finding way to measure "information," "memes", "selfish genes",
>"infemes", etc., bringing them into the realm of science?
Bertvan: I admit mention of Dawkins and "selfish genes" produces a
knee-jerk reaction for me. It was presumptious and dogmatic of me to assume
you were defending Dawkin's position. The truth is I don't understand your
position, and hope you will explain it to me--in layman's terms. I am not a
scientist.
Chris:
>Well, we DO measure genes, memes, and infemes, and information, and in a
>number of different ways, at that. I'm not sure what you mean by "measure,"
>because there are many different kinds of measurement, and different units
>of measurement.
Bertvan:
How do we measure information as it applies to biological systems? What is
the unit of measurement? Do we know how biology turns information into DNA?
Or how DNA turns information into Proteins. Or how proteins turns information
into biological systems. Do we even know what information is? Or how might
originate? Is it material?
Bertvan:
>>A materialist philosophy claims science can measure everything. Would you
>>insist a materialist philosophy be imposed upon everyone?
Chris:
>No. Would you insist that a non-materialist philosophy be imposed on
>everyone? Why do you ask?
Bertvan:
Because I've felt that when science insist "the universe is without plan,
design or purpose, and that is a sceintific triuth" they are trying to impose
materialism. I argue it is not a "scientific truth" but a philosophical
position. I believe many of those creationsists who accept scientific
evidence would be content with an admission that nature MIGHT be designed.
>I think materialism, in a very broad sense, is true (I think the BME --
>Basic Material of Existence -- is MERELY a "dumb" material of some sort),
>and that immaterialists have a huge burden of proof that they've failed to
>carry (to show that there is or can be anything with a primary ontological
>status equal to that of the BME but immaterial, mystical/magical), but I
>don't remember saying anything that would suggest that I would, or that we
>should, IMPOSE a materialist philosophy on ANYone, let alone EVERYone.
>Reality, in a sense, imposes materialism on us, because non-materialism, as
>such, has nothing to offer that has a strong cognitive basis and that is not
>already present or available in or to materialism.
Bertvan:
I see no reason for the "burden of proof" to be on either side. There was a
recent discussion on the board about genetic determinism being naive. One of
the possibilities discussed, which might control the development of
organisms, was "morphogenic fields". Would that be compatible with
materialism? If not, would you therefore rule it out?
Bertvan