Hrvoje1

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hrvoje1

  1. Is it usually just a bad style, redundant, instead of concise and precise, or is it usually a sign that a content is also lacking quality? I can give you one example (that I think it's an example, you may not agree with me), for which I think it is just a bad style. The syntagm "Natural Selection" in Darwin's theory is redundant in a sense that the word "Natural" could/should be omitted, as there is no alternative to nature when we talk about reality, ie not imaginary processes but real processes. As a naturalist, I reject existence of supernatural processes that may influence natural processes, and as an evolutionist I reject existence of artificial processes, that are somehow separate from natural processes. What criteria could we establish to distinguish between them (at least in the context of evolution)? If we define artificiality as a human intervention into nature, then this is also too anthropocentric for me, and any true evolutionist should disregard that definition, because homo sapiens is just one natural species among many of them. The other alternative is to talk about "Environmental Selection" process, as it has more sense, as environment is that agent that is acting selectively.
  2. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    He wrote there much more than just these two words that I mentioned, which all determine his writing style, which is insignificant to me. However, his style of expressing of key ideas, and their uncritical acceptance by others, deserves criticism.
  3. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    As I said, about accepting ideas without sufficient criticism. When you talk about natural selection, what does it have to do with Darwin's writing? You may be an eloquent speaker or a lousy one, but the redundant expression that you transmit is always unnecessary and bad.
  4. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    It would be interesting to know would apes in that hypothetical case on their evolutionary path to a dominant species that at the end develops artificial self-reproducible intelligent conscious machines in their own image and likeness, necessarily acquire selective breeding at certain point in time as we did, and as an indicator of something, I guess their special role on Earth, at that moment? I watched a lot of documentaries about animal intelligence recently, and I was always irritated by the fact how biologists get surprised each and every time when they discover something they presumed only homo sapiens can do. I mean, how can they be not embarrassed at all while they admit that much arrogance in their anthropocentric views at nature? I was never that biased, although I never had that much resources at disposal to observe all fascinating creatures of this world, and I am surely less biased regarding natural intelligence (animal or plant) than Darwin, who thought he has to single out human selective breeding as something special in nature. Besides that, the question about apes is totally rhetorical, since in case of human self destruction, apes would most likely be destroyed too, however, robots may "survive" it... In fact, in all our great wisdom, we already managed to destroy apes and their habitat, while we still live in illusion we will not destroy us. And to answer studiot, my objection to style was never directed towards someone's writing, Darwin's or anyone else, especially Darwin's since I did not read his papers, but towards passing the ideas without sufficient criticism, and towards redundant expressions in science in general, I can mention some other examples if you want.
  5. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    @studiot Generally speaking, there is a merit in reading original scientific papers, and I see your effort to study Darwin's work thoroughly, but I think I should be much more into it, to start reading all his stuff, and I think I have decent picture about his ideas without it, from numerous indirect sources. @Sensei The work of Japanese scientists was already familiar to me, I watched not only that, but some other videos on youtube about it. And I was impressed both by their work and chimp abilities, although not surprised, because I think I am less biased than an average person (at least in my neighbourhood) when judging about animal intelligence. There can be other not yet revealed mental capabilities of chimpanzee's that are also superior to human's. But still, to produce general artificial intelligence, and artificial life, only a human is capable of, at least at this moment on Earth. If we destroy each other in a nuclear war, and they miraculously survive, then perhaps planet of the apes scenario might happen after millions of years, who knows.
  6. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    What exactly did you mean by that? Please be more concrete.
  7. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    OK, so, homo sapiens is perversely cunning species, capable of devising exceptional strategies. Already changing from hunter-gatherer to farmer-pastoralist is a big step, that is agricultural revolution, that abandoned foraging as main strategy and established domesticating instead. And from there to selecting and selective breeding is actually much smaller, and natural step. The question is, are these strategies so unnatural, that they deserve the attribute "artificial"? And is it natural to devise a theory, that was supposed to remind the human kind alienated and distanced from nature, that we are part of that nature, that we have common ancestors with other species, and that there is no sharp delineation between "us and them", and then to insist on distinction between the selection that we do and that they do? What's the point? And did you ever see monkeys producing artificially intelligent self-reproducible robots in the image and likeness of monkey? How do you explain that? What is the cause of that difference between human and monkey, and is that more or less impressive difference than selective breeding vs just choosing the fruit for eating, and shitting around to spread its pits or seeds.
  8. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    I believe they can be selective in eating, mating, and in other activities, based on the output they want to reach. But since you insist so much on homo sapiens being so special, let me pose back a question to you, provoked by Sensei's question. Let's say people produce one day general artificial intelligence and implement it into self reproducible robots, and build into them instructions to obey three Asimov laws. Only humans can do it, not monkeys or dogs, they are not sufficiently intelligent to produce artificial intelligence, they can only produce natural intelligence (offspring), by self-reproducing, as any other species does. But man is special with respect to that, much more than when he does selective breeding. Is it because, unlike monkey or dog, man was made in the image and likeness of God? Just as, unlike watch, or TV, or a pocket calculator, self reproductive robot with general intelligence will be made in the image and likeness of Man? And let's say that we produce robots so that they cannot perceive us. Or that we disappear in nuclear war, after we produced them. How could one robot prove to another the existence of Man, in that case?
  9. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    Or, perhaps I should have said just animals, instead of “other animals” there.
  10. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    This is neither my opinion nor ambition. My only ambition was to be thought provoking, but if people feel more like defending established mantras and dogmas, instead of attacking them to see what's wrong with them, then you are right, there is no point. I proposed that alternatives are "Environmental Selection", or simply "Selection". There is not much dispute about what is the meaning of the word "artificial" (from dictionary): 1. man made or produced as opposed to something that isn't 2. feigned, insincere, false, affected, mannered, unnatural, stilted, contrived, pretended, put-on, exaggerated, actorly, overdone, overripe, forced, laboured, strained, hollow, spurious; informalpretend, phoney, fakey, hammy, ham, campy And I could not provide this list without some help from the dictionary, considering the fact that I'm not native in English. So, no, AI is not wrong terminology, it denotes devices in which intelligence is implemented artificially. But, "artificial selection" in the context of evolution, is artificial terminology, result of Darwin's anthropocentrism, because the distinction between people and "other animals" is arbitrary and artificial. @studiot So, was he satisfied with his working definition of species? That looks like a fundamental notion of his theory, at least one of them. "This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations" isn't that point of any selection: preserve favourable, and reject harmful? I mean, I don't see that emphasizes the difference between natural and artificial.
  11. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    I don't know, you tell me: these organisms, do they evolve as a result of selective breeding? If they do, then this is still not correct, since we agree on the fact that there is a goal in selective breeding. And this is far from being the only weakness in your logic. Every species and every entity during its life places certain selective pressure towards certain others, species and entities, and as well gets under selective pressure from others, through both interspecific and intraspecific competition, in the struggle for life, with the ultimate goal of its own survival. That's how evolution works with respect to selection. Now you tell me, does evolution "have a goal"? So, it's far from the truth that only selective breeding has goal, that's totally arbitrary conclusion. The fact that a farmer and a hunter do not produce selective pressure in the same way, is totally irrelevant, they both have goals. It is true that selective pressure can be a result of conditions produced by non-living agents, that are goalless, but obviously if some process is caused by some agents that have goal, and some that don't, I would not characterize it goalless as a result. I'm criticizing both, content and style, because both is important.
  12. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    So, people are part of nature, and they have goals, but nature has no goals. Monkeys are part of nature, and they have goals, but nature has no goals. Dogs are part of nature, and they have goals, ... you can continue that line of reasoning to understand just how sensible is that what you are saying. "Normal everyday environment" for domesticated species means that people make their selection, which by this definition would be "Natural" for them, but I bet that you consider that "artificial selection". So yeah, "it should be clear and possibly unambiguous what is meant", but it is not. No, I did not. I posted a general statement about style in science. That syntagm is redundant if you say it in Latin, too. This really has nothing to do with English, or any other language. So, you dropped by to express your low opinion about philosophy community and their relevance, here, in General Philosophy forum? I can't say that I find that particularly interesting.
  13. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    Of course that I didn't. I have better things to do in my life, like, for example, discussing it, commenting on it, sharing with you my opinion about it, things like that. And writing my own most readable scientific treatises of all time. Have you read them? They are already reckoned as such by some people, notably my girlfriend...and her sister.
  14. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    @studiot No, I don't think I have fallen into any old trap of "assuming binary choices (either ...or...), if it is not 'this' it must be 'that'". If you use some qualifier, then there must be something else, that is outside of its scope, and is not pointless at the same time. I gave two options that I could think of, which both don't have much sense to me, so I concluded that the qualifier is redundant. And "self selection" never occurred to me, as the whole point is that environment selects you, if self selection would be the case, everyone would choose to survive. Right? I mean, it is not like everyone doesn't try to impact the environment in order to make it let them survive, but eventually, the environment is the one that selects you. Unless you don't talk about suicide here? @Sensei First of all, you are responding as if I didn't mention artificial selection at all, and then if you think that for some reason this should be separated from "natural selection", then you don't believe homo sapiens is a part of nature, ie as natural agent as, well, everything else that exists in the nature. The only answer given here, that I would tentatively and partially accept, was by John Cuthber, when he said that for historical reasons, one should continue to use that syntagm, as in the start it was used to denote the difference from "unnatural", or "supernatural" causes, ie not that part about Green party activists. And what about philosophy community? Apparently you can speak in its name too.
  15. I am questioning the position that information and life are more fundamental natural notions than intelligence. One naturalistic view is that intelligence is an emergent quality that arises in living entities, which arose from inanimate matter during abiogenesis, and information is a physical notion that exists in a non living world, and can be instantiated in it without any intelligent agent causing its instantiation. The proof for this is his mathematical/physical theory which doesn't refer to intelligent agents in any way, nor does it deal in any way with them. Although, it implicitly posits the fact that intelligence emerges from information instantiated in living organisms, and not the other way around, which then seems as pseudoscientific jumping to conclusion, made by proponents of ID (Intelligent Design) movement, to which I don't belong. Still, that theory has some moot points, at least to me, probably because I didn't study it properly (but I don't know anyone who did, as it still is not a mainstream physics, it's still kind of new). One of them being usage of the term "natural" extensively, which is kind of odd in physical papers, considering the fact that physics is not supposed to deal with anything beyond nature. Or, if it has to deal with something that is, for example, "artificial", as a contrast to "natural", then it has to be defined what does that word actually mean in context of that theory. When I used that term in my essay "The origin of Information", to characterize the "artificial life", I had very precise and specific, anthropocentric meaning of that word in mind, which makes the distinction between "natural life", and "artificial life" that human kind has an ambition to produce in its laboratory (ie, not that what we do when we reproduce, as any other species do). I wonder how his great physical theory can explain the fact that homo sapiens is the only biologial specie that has remote chances of doing that, without taking intelligence into account. And he cannot have the same meaning in mind, because he doesn't deal with intelligence, that's why he doesn't deal with artificiality too, he just uses the word natural too much without any reason, need, and counterpart. The same thing is with the term "spontaneity" in his theory, he mathematically defined just about everything, except for this term. So I must ask him publicly, mr Deutsch, how do you respond to these questions?
  16. Besides those things that I mentioned in the original post, I may add a few more. For example, constructor theory of life doesn't mention the role of intelligence in evolution, probably because the authors think it plays no role. Another omitted thing that can be fundamental characteristic of life, besides intelligence, is conciousness. That theory is focused solely on accurate self-reproduction with possible adaptations, which is just one characteristic of life. The problem is how to describe all characteristics of life in general and abstract way, with mathematical precision and exactness. I don't think that theory does that.
  17. Here you are: http://constructortheory.org/portfolio/the-philosophy-of-constructor-theory/ http://constructortheory.org/portfolio/the-constructor-theory-of-information/ http://constructortheory.org/portfolio/the-constructor-theory-of-life/ ... and other constructor theory research papers, that can easily be found on the constructortheory.org website, as well as their contacts. In fact, I plan to contact mr Deutsch, via email, and ask him to comment it, if and when he finds time.
  18. I woke up one morning, and realized that I don't have an answer to questions such as how life started on earth, and how it evolves. I had nothing better to do, so I started to investigate it a bit, wrote 4 short essays, and published it on a blogger platform. Here they are: https://hrvojedj.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-origin-of-information.html https://hrvojedj.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-revision-of-origin-of-information.html https://hrvojedj.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-connection-between-thermal-food.html https://hrvojedj.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-game.html They also present my naturalistic philosofical views. If you feel like it, give me some feedback, positive or negative, I don't care. Or, better to say, I can stand it. If I really didn't care at all, I wouldn't bother to write.
  19. Hrvoje1

    A few short philosophical essays on life

    And why would mods not allow the discussion? Some of them already told me to go elsewhere to blog. So I did it. But it doesn't mean I cannot discuss it here. As for the definition of information, there are some here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information There are also theories about that subject, and I referred to them in these essays. Well, I know more than I knew before I did the investigation.
  20. Hrvoje1

    A few short philosophical essays on life

    Here you are: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/countable-nouns This is oxforddictionaries, is that authentic enough for you?
  21. Hrvoje1

    A few short philosophical essays on life

    No, what I meant is that someone may think he/she knows all the stuff that scientists know, but he/she doesn't. I know I didn't. So I investigated it a bit, and came up with these essays.
  22. Hrvoje1

    A few short philosophical essays on life

    Maybe it has some answers, but not all? Maybe not all scientists agree all the time on all points? Maybe you still have to figure out what scientists know, and you think you know too, but it's far from the truth? Buzz off. Did I spell that right for you?
  23. Hrvoje1

    A few short philosophical essays on life

    Look, if philosophy was good for Newton, it should be good for us too. He didn't bother to make sharp distinction between philosophy and science, so why should we?
  24. Hrvoje1

    A few short philosophical essays on life

    So, if science has answers, it's not anymore philosophical subject, right?
  25. As I wasn't satisfied with how this discussion ended, I wrote a blog about The origin of information , that explains some doubts that I have with respect to the central dogma of molecular biology. It is also not clear to me in Endy0816's post, what does spontaneous occuring of changes have to do with its possibility to get itself into the germline. Probably for a change to be effective in the same entity in which occured, it must be somatic mutation, which then doesn't get passed to offspring, while germline mutations are passed to offspring, but they don't effect the entity in which they occured, but if stem cell mutates, and divides to spread the change to other stem cells, which later can become specialized both ways, then the change can effect both the same entity and its offspring. Is that possible? I don't know, as I am not professional in the field, but it interests me as a hobby. But what difference does it make if the change was spontaneous and what does it mean at all? Does it mean it was a mutation caused by agents such as radiation, chemicals (cigarette smoke, pesticides, asbestos,...), or viruses, as opposed to a not random change that occurs as natural genetic engineering? ! Moderator Note Link is removed, if the content of the blog is relevant, please post them here (we do allow link to blogs in the profile, however).