swansont Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Still purely subjective. Are there any systems that work well which are not "clever"? (IOW, is there any way to falsify the idea?) This is reminiscent of the joke about a thermos, that keeps hot things hot and cold things cold, about which someone asks, "How does it know?" A vacuum is simply a barrier to heat transfer, which is arguably not particularly clever. It's a dumb barrier; there is literally nothing there, and it does nothing at all. And yet it keeps hot things hot and cold things cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) The Two Directions of Entrope .the Broken Glass moving to more disorder more entropy caused by human stupidity The most beautiful stone from Greece under the sea Moving to order less entropy caused by clever mechanism in the way the earth systems work.[universe works ] Mike Edited February 25, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Is entropy clever or not clever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) "Clever" is a property of cognitive beings not nature itself. Cleverness implies intent and nature possesees no such faculty. Edited February 25, 2014 by StringJunky 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Is anything "not clever"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 This really reminds me of Douglas Adams' puddle and how it thinks the world fits it so well. It's not cleverness that causes rain to fill an indentation in the ground. The problem with "cleverness" is that it can be assigned to dumb processes that seem extraordinary. It seems "clever" that certain birds will put their eggs in other birds nests and thus avoid the expensive child-rearing process, but that's most likely because we have no equivalent process as humans. We consider it "clever" but it's just a practice selected for as successful. "Clever" may not be the right word here. It begs the question that something clever is orchestrating all the things we think of as "clever". Processes can be extremely well-adapted without being engineered. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 it's just a practice selected for as successful. "Clever" may not be the right word here. It begs the question that something clever is orchestrating all the things we think of as "clever". Processes can be extremely well-adapted without being engineered. Until the amalgam of chance and deterministic behaviour fall short in describing the development of the world around us Occam's Razor rules the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) Is entropy clever or not clever? view-source:http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81894-is-there-evidence-of-cleverness-in-nature-and-its-processes/page-2?p=793484 I stuck my head under the water , with a breathing tube , and looked for the most beautiful stones for 2 hours. these are what I found. They were made by the relentless swell bumping off any rough edges to asymtotically produce the most beautiful curves you see. less entropy the simple act of knocking the glass on the tile floor shattered the glass producing chaotic disorder [ more entropy] If i have got that the right way round ! Edited February 25, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 view-source:http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81894-is-there-evidence-of-cleverness-in-nature-and-its-processes/page-2?p=793484 I stuck my head under the water , with a breathing tube , and looked for the most beautiful stones for 2 hours. these are what I found. They were made by the relentless swell bumping off any rough edges to asymtotically produce the must beautiful curves you see. less entropy the simple act of knocking the glass on the tile floor shattered the glass producing chaotic disorder [ more entropy] If i have got that the right way round ! You seem to imply that more entropy is not clever (without directly answering the question), and yet the tendency for entropy to increase is part of nature. Ergo, nature is not clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I stuck my head under the water , with a breathing tube , and looked for the most beautiful stones for 2 hours. these are what I found. They were made by the relentless swell bumping off any rough edges to asymtotically produce the must beautiful curves you see. less entropy Beauty is, again, a very subjective quality, and may be unique to humans. Aside from the selective traits of appearance used for mating, what other animal cares if something is beautiful or not? I think it's the height of human folly to claim it's clever of the ocean to wear away rocks so they can be beautiful. Imagining some clever designer putting all these clever things on Earth just for us humans to revel in Its cleverness actually disgusts me, and demeans the immense awesomeness that the natural world actually offers to anyone who can see it for what it is. Clever is the wrong word. This universe is elegantly sophisticated, far from perfect, and completely awe-inspiring. No designer necessary. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 You seem to imply that more entropy is not clever (without directly answering the question), and yet the tendency for entropy to increase is part of nature. Ergo, nature is not clever. AHA ! I have you ! You say the tendency of entropy is to increase . That might be so when things are moving into disorder. But there appears to be some 'Tide' afoot which is moving the other way . to a state of order [ thus entropy decreasing ] . Thus that is a clever mechanism to swim against the tide ! mike Beauty is, again, a very subjective quality, and may be unique to humans. Aside from the selective traits of appearance used for mating, what other animal cares if something is beautiful or not? I think it's the height of human folly to claim it's clever of the ocean to wear away rocks so they can be beautiful. Imagining some clever designer putting all these clever things on Earth just for us humans to revel in Its cleverness actually disgusts me, and demeans the immense awesomeness that the natural world actually offers to anyone who can see it for what it is. Clever is the wrong word. This universe is elegantly sophisticated, far from perfect, and completely awe-inspiring. No designer necessary. " elegantly sophisticated" sounds good , do not have a problem with that . I think you may be stating things , that I do not want to infer. I do not think anybody is coming down polishing any stones to keep me happy. What i do think , is like you, that is a pretty " elegantly sophisticated " system in place where things do seem to work out pretty d.. good. And the curvature on those stones is not just aesthetics , I would be pushed to file those into the mechanical curves they are., having filed steel curves when I was an apprentice Engineer. They made us do mechanical engineering , even though training to be electronic engineer { in the bad old days ] Mike -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 " elegantly sophisticated" sounds good , do not have a problem with that . At the least, it doesn't imply that there is automatically something behind the curtain pulling strings. I think you may be stating things , that I do not want to infer. I do not think anybody is coming down polishing any stones to keep me happy. What i do think , is like you, that is a pretty " elegantly sophisticated " system in place where things do seem to work out pretty d.. good. Agreed. Just be careful about assigning meaningfulness to these systems. They work out well but isn't that mostly because we work WITH them, adapt to them? When we find something poorly designed, like a horizontal spinal column on a primate that walks exclusively vertically, we don't think it's so elegant. And the curvature on those stones is not just aesthetics , I would be pushed to file those into the mechanical curves they are., having filed steel curves when I was an apprentice Engineer. They made us do mechanical engineering , even though training to be electronic engineer { in the bad old days ] But the value of those rocks is subjective. You love the smoothness, but a fish looking to rub off some old scales on it would prefer rougher edges. If I want a doorstop, the last thing I need is a rounded rock that will roll away from the door. IOW, all rocks are elegantly useful for something. I think you're cherry-picking that which seems engineered well and ignoring those parts that aren't. Just because we can, with our high-intelligence, appreciate when something fits a need perfectly, it doesn't mean it was designed that way and it doesn't mean there was a designer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 AHA ! I have you ! You say the tendency of entropy is to increase . That might be so when things are moving into disorder. But there appears to be some 'Tide' afoot which is moving the other way . to a state of order [ thus entropy decreasing ] . Thus that is a clever mechanism to swim against the tide ! Yeah, you "have" me in the sense that you're giving me the answer I expected. You've stacked the deck so that you can always get the answer you want. It's like me saying that I think you're a witch. There's nothing you can say to convince me that you aren't guilty, because one of the characteristics of being a witch is to protest that s/he is innocent. No matter what you say, I can take it as "evidence" that you're a witch. And this is why we require objective evidence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 It seems to me that the 'cleverness' in nature resides in those observing it. If we were to imagine that there is only one remarkable thing in nature it would be, I think, that through us the universe is able to contemplate itself. I suppose that's quite clever, but I don't think the universe set out to achieve that end result. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) At the least, it doesn't imply that there is automatically something behind the curtain pulling strings. Agreed. Just be careful about assigning meaningfulness to these systems. They work out well but isn't that mostly because we work WITH them, adapt to them? When we find something poorly designed, like a horizontal spinal column on a primate that walks exclusively vertically, we don't think it's so elegant. But the value of those rocks is subjective. You love the smoothness, but a fish looking to rub off some old scales on it would prefer rougher edges. If I want a doorstop, the last thing I need is a rounded rock that will roll away from the door. IOW, all rocks are elegantly useful for something. I think you're cherry-picking that which seems engineered well and ignoring those parts that aren't. Just because we can, with our high-intelligence, appreciate when something fits a need perfectly, it doesn't mean it was designed that way and it doesn't mean there was a designer. Just to comment on the Emboldened statement above . Swansont brought up the other day about humans. I would say they are a bit of a special case [ not that i do not want to discuss them , which I would be quite pleased to]. Its just that unlike everything else they have a large self determining side to their activities , which can slew comparisons quite a bit. this has spilled over into domestic animals. For instance : English sheep have to be closely monitored when giving birth. We have bread more and more sheep that need human intervention at birth. On the other hand NEW Zealand Farmers have let the sheep get on with it. If they are poor mothers their offspring die and so never become poor mothers themselves. The result is a strong , natural breeding sheep that does not need human intervention. In England we have ended up with sheep needing human intervention. IE we are causing a Determining trait which may not be advantageous to anyone. Yeah, you "have" me in the sense that you're giving me the answer I expected. You've stacked the deck so that you can always get the answer you want. It's like me saying that I think you're a witch. There's nothing you can say to convince me that you aren't guilty, because one of the characteristics of being a witch is to protest that s/he is innocent. No matter what you say, I can take it as "evidence" that you're a witch. And this is why we require objective evidence. O.K. we had better call a truce on that one , or i will be getting burned at the STAKE . Which I could do without just now. . I need to re group my thoughts a little. Like most people, probably most , appreciate Nature, because it does work pretty well in the main . We have all developed our own ideas as to why it is like the way it is. To me it would be counter intuitive , to think this whole thing was just a lot of bits all thrown up in the air , and hope they all come down in the self organising way they are ? I thought some of my answers were Objective evidence ! The best I can do is keep observing it, and asking the Questions ? mike It seems to me that the 'cleverness' in nature resides in those observing it. If we were to imagine that there is only one remarkable thing in nature it would be, I think, that through us the universe is able to contemplate itself. I suppose that's quite clever, but I don't think the universe set out to achieve that end result. I like that one ! You have cheered me up after my battle weary session . Mike Edited February 25, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Like most people, probably most , appreciate Nature, because it does work pretty well in the main . If it didn't we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I thought some of my answers were Objective evidence ! Objective would mean that your evidence was quantitative and measurable, that it could be compared against experiment or observation and, within certain error bounds, no one could reasonably disagree with the results. What you have is "it looks nice", "smooth curves", etc. These are all completely qualitative and subjective judgements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) If it didn't we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Another objective piece of evidence , why is must be a clever project ! IF we were to agree isn't Nature a clever project . Then all that remains is what lays claim to nature. mike smith post at the beginning page 1 [ re-assembled thread ] "some form of cleverness, in fact I would think a great deal of clever systems that must have been active to convert " is is up for grabs. [] Some form of Master race already existing 10, Trillion in Number , beavering away with mechanism which would make our scientific minds burn [] Some form of Thing that self generated from out of Chaos, in logic, number, math.probability, selective feedback system , god like being . [] To an omniscient , that you have spoken about. [] Any and many more is up for grabs.. But Nothing ...then the whole shebang ..to me not common sense or NO one lays claim for nature. Objective would mean that your evidence was quantitative and measurable, that it could be compared against experiment or observation and, within certain error bounds, no one could reasonably disagree with the results. What you have is "it looks nice", "smooth curves", etc. These are all completely qualitative and subjective judgements. I will challenge this when i get the energy . Like I will pick on a particular feature within nature and measure its feedback characteristics, possibly do an experiment. . Could look at a man made negative feedback system and see how they compare. That would be quantitative and measurable , within error bounds . Mike Edited February 25, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Another objective piece of evidence , why is must be a clever project ! No, the problem is that it's not objective. The way you've presented it, it's a tautology. Rather than showing that nature is clever, you have essentially defined it to be so. You still have not offered any objective way to determine if something is clever or not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I will challenge this when i get the energy . Like I will pick on a particular feature within nature and measure its feedback characteristics, possibly do an experiment. . Could look at a man made negative feedback system and see how they compare. That would be quantitative and measurable , within error bounds . Even if you find some sort of correlation there (which is quite possible) all it shows is that we (consciously / cleverly) use negative feedback in a similar way that nature uses it automatically / unthinkingly / uncleverly. You still have not offered any objective way to determine if something is clever or not. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Just to comment on the Emboldened statement above . Swansont brought up the other day about humans. I would say they are a bit of a special case [ not that i do not want to discuss them , which I would be quite pleased to]. Its just that unlike everything else they have a large self determining side to their activities , which can slew comparisons quite a bit. this has spilled over into domestic animals. For instance : English sheep have to be closely monitored when giving birth. We have bread more and more sheep that need human intervention at birth. On the other hand NEW Zealand Farmers have let the sheep get on with it. If they are poor mothers their offspring die and so never become poor mothers themselves. The result is a strong , natural breeding sheep that does not need human intervention. In England we have ended up with sheep needing human intervention. IE we are causing a Determining trait which may not be advantageous to anyone. Not sure how this relates to the OP, but I would say the English sheep are NOT being bred to be good mothers, but perhaps their breeders are looking for other traits, like superior wool and meat that make the extra work at birth worth the trouble. Which do you think is more clever, the English way or the NZ way? Remember that you're placing an emotional attachment to the NZ methodology because it seems more "natural", but if the English way makes more beautiful wool and mutton that melts in your mouth, isn't that more clever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Not sure how this relates to the OP, but I would say the English sheep are NOT being bred to be good mothers, but perhaps their breeders are looking for other traits, like superior wool and meat that make the extra work at birth worth the trouble. Which do you think is more clever, the English way or the NZ way? Remember that you're placing an emotional attachment to the NZ methodology because it seems more "natural", but if the English way makes more beautiful wool and mutton that melts in your mouth, isn't that more clever? The fact that one can argue either way is evidence that the premise is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) The fact that one can argue either way is evidence that the premise is moot. But this is no longer Natural section [ either way ]. As with changes in human society. human life and its environment has a very high proportion of self determination, not natural selection as its major influence.. mke Edited February 25, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 But this is no longer Natural section [ either way ]. As with changes in human society. human life and its environment has a very high proportion of self determination, not natural selection as its major influence.. Wait, artificial selection is not clever? Even though in that case we know there's an intelligence behind it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Mike, I like the entropy bit. It seems that life on Earth has found a way to grab form and structure and organization and pass it along, in a universe that mostly otherwise seems to moving in the disorganized, toward entropy direction. But that is life on Earth, and probably I would subjectively prefer that over other arrangements, being an example of it. Still, in terms of "cleverness", organized things seem to have more of it, than unorganized things, and since there is no "Maxwell's Demon" to arrange things into hot spots, in any size thermodynamic system, which by law would tend to have to gain entropy and lose hot spot and cold spot differentials between which heat could flow and do work, then any hot spots we find, could be considered to have cleverly arranged their hot spottedness. Thus providing a measure of cleverness, suitable for a science forum, and one which would not require any intent or preplanning or design engineering degree, just a measure of the system in question having the ability to do work, and saying, "Well that was cleverly arranged". I had had this conversation with myself about twenty years ago when I bought a bunch of books on QED and Relativity and such and was trying to figure out what the universe was "trying" to do. I thought perhaps the atom was the instigator, but interestingly enough wanted to get rid of its energy, a photon at a time, as its electrons attempted to relax to a rest state. "Wanting" to become "unhot", and such a plan would work very quickly, since its so easy to get rid of that photon of energy, except for every other atom in the universe is attempting the same feat and that makes a lot of photons liable to be coming in from all directions, enough to bump that weary electron right back up to the next energy level. So the "plan" to get rid of all its energy, does not work out for the poor atom, so it can not be all that clever. But we still have hot spots (suns) and cold spots (voids) so maybe there are "organizing" aspects to the arrangement, that otherwise seems to be heading in a separating type expansion direction, and a thermodynamic direction toward entropy. One clever organizer for instance might be gravity. Pulling together clumps of atoms (all individually attempting to lose their energy) into dense balls of the stuff that all together give off a rather organized stream of particles and photons in all directions, making Suns a rather clever group of objects, able to provide organised energy with which work can be done. And clumps of cooler matter like the Earth for instance, within the environs of such a clever source of organized energy, can learn "to live" off its cleverness. Regards, TAR2 And as someone already alluded, if there was not a natural way for hydrogen atoms to evolve into "clever" things, we would not be here, talking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts