Kygron

Reading that it seems like the process would take a long time, and then far longer to set it back up to happen again. I know it happens many times a second, but it's kinda shocking hearing it like that when I'm not used to it;)

Just try and keep the same doctor for the whole process. I switch states so often during that time that each doctor tryed to improve on the last one, complicating things horribly. My teeth were terrible, they're useable now, but far from what they should have been for the ammount of work put in. Strangely, I ran out of doctors at the end, so I never had anyone to tell me to stop using my retainer. I think I gave it up on my own and then felt guilty for a few years

This is a response that I don't like to see used. If he's telling the truth then doing the homework will seem so useless that it won't get done. I've been there. He has a problem, and forcing him to show that he can do something someone else's way isn't going to help solve it. Help him to get involved in something that interests him! Maybe he's actually "bad" at school, but in order to find out he needs to learn someting in a different way first so that he figures out what the problem is. Maybe he's "good" at school but is in danger of giving up because it seems useless to continue. Help him see what he likes so that he can make a better decision about doing his homework, so that he can graduate and move on to those things that interest him.

metatron, I've been interested in what may be systems science for a while, so I attemted to read the first link you gave. Most likely it was excerpts from other research, but if that's what you're going on I can see why you're so confused. I could only get halfway through. Every researcher has aproached the topic from a different point of view. Every one has used different techniques, every one has used different vocabulary. Most of them don't relate to each other outside of a general philosophy. Strangely, most of them seem to suggest that COMPLICATED MATHAMATICS had been worked out, but the article only tryed to explain it using newly created vocabulary. From the standpoint of my understanding, I don't see anything that would be counter to evolution as it stands today. Systems theory appears to be the science of the philosophy of developement. Unfortunatly that article was the philosophy of the science of the philosophy of developement, which is too abstract to be meaningfull unless you're working within the science. I'll try and ask a question to see where on this spectrum you fit. Please describe the ETYMOLOGY of "oolitic sphere". Why did you come to use the word? If it's a placeholder for a mathematical form, provide a few example equations. If it's a discription of a chemical structure, explain why a few common words wouldn't be properly discriptive. If it's an organizational catagory, decribe the organizational structure with some common examples. If it's a reused word, point me to the right dictionary. The fact that you've used the word means that it is meaninfull. At this point I don't care WHAT it means, but please decribe WHY you use it. I thought it was one of those paleobiology words that I don't know about, but it seems to be unconventional after all. Why wasn't a conventional word good enough?

appropriate tissue? and how do they know that? As far as I heard the brain cannot be hard-wired, so some learning has to take place in development.

It looks to me like there are two different definitions of personality being used here. 1) Observed behavior set 2) Philosophical self The words "observed" and "philosophical" probably sound like illusions to the alternate point of view, and are ignored. Attempting to debate while ignoring the other's viewpoint doesn't usually lead anywhere, which is exactly where I see this thread going.

The neuron from the leg has the leg-signals, the neuron from the finger has the finger-signals. Absolutely nothing. Your brain is a system of learning. When you were just developing the brain had no way of determining where any signal came from. You now know that your finger is touched because when it happens you remember seeing (and using other senses) your finger touched last time. To use your computer analogy, would you even need headers if EVERY SINGLE connection had it's own cable?

I was actually speaking WRT kriminal99's post, where the clock he needed was slightly better than the "internal" clock, i.e. a "really bad one", and those are easy Even your internal clock is composed of a changing system. For the "subconsious" to even exist requires a changing system. Your brain has developed structure that "tags" events with time differences. That process suggests a viewpoint of the environment that includes a variable we've called "time". The point of a clock is to measure this variable. We've discovered since the dawn of technology that a physical "clock" generally keeps a constant rate. We've incorporated this into all of science. Currently (as far as I know), the sciences dealing directly with time are more advanced than the philosophies dealing with time. It may be more productive to study the sciences, then build your philosophies from the most advanced forms. And as you can see from the technical discussions here, time really IS relative, it's the brain and physical clocks that need to be adjusted (if they need to be that accurate)!

In my view controversial technology and procedures are the best motivation for improving the philosophical state.

I think the point of clocks is that they're easy to make, and that once syncronized (with known deviations, etc.), they generally stay syncronized. This gives you a simple way to make a measurement, assuming you want to make a measurement in the first place. Measurements help define the world, so the more, simple, forms available, the easier it is to recognize what's happening. On a practical note, knowing when the sun will rise it usefull if you're planning on doing something that you need light for!

Or any known non-random function, I bet. It's just that the more complex the function, the harder it is to make use of the clock.

This is an aside, but since the original discussion is closing up... If SR can handle accelerated motion, then what's the use of having GR?? Or, better, when do you need to start taking GR principles into account?

I didn't see any reason to take offence in the article. It seems to me that the author was defining "free will". He didn't even claim that it existed, just said he believed it. He just wanted people to know that if they agreed with his definition than they believe (of disbelieve) in some form of "soul". (Like [Tycho?] did, "I agree", "I disbelieve") My answer to "Is a soul required for free will" is that free will has been defined here as requiring a soul, no discussion. Instead you may want to discuss alternate definitions of free will. Personally his definition works fine for me.

You can do that this way: Look up something on people who have had their [group of neurons that connect the cortex hemispheres] cut. A researcher can ask the person to write the answer to a question, and he may write DIFFERENT answers with each hand. It's as if there's two people that share one body.

The way you've described it this would not be true. Instead you would "have access to" as much information. You wouldn't have the links to the info, such as when someone says something that reminds you of the episode when... You won't become a god, you'll just have an encyclopedia "at your fingertips". Of course, as far as major revolutions go, yes I fully agree that it would be one!

I think the definition of time dilation is getting in the way of the understanding. I think 5614 would like to hear reasoning within the full GR theory. Well, at least that's what I would like to hear when I read this thread

How much does this involve complex(imaginary) numbers?

I have now had two instances in my life when both a) I realize I want to read Hitchhicker's Guide, and b) I've been in a library. Unfortunatly both times c) the book exists within the library, turned out false Instead they both had various other books in the series. I suppose I'll have to go see the movie.

If you read a 'net article about a spinning, (charged?) black hole, they say that near, but not at, the singularity, gravity becomes repulsive.

Well, I can't keep up this pace now. Most of our definitions clash. Most of our time scales clash. I'm forced to examine more and more intricate details which you have far greater knowledge than I do. Mind if I ask a few questions though? Complex was better than simple, and now simple is better than complex, and now... Does this really happen?? Surely each succesion has gained SOME advantage over the previous?? Funny, I thought "your take" was my explaination. I explained a few posts ago that randomness happens until it hits on the right one. You agreed and I assumed it to be a given in subsequent posts. I guess I didn't explain well. But my question, is there even a way for those early cells to gain in complexity prior to becoming eukaryotes? lol, for all my arguments, I really wouldn't be surprized if life took 6 billion to gain intelligence, and that on this planet. At what point in Earth's evolution would you consider intelligence "reasonably probable", and how much more time would be required for it? Anyhow, thanks for humoring me.

After further consideration it appears to me that most of your examples are out of context. I'll explain. This was a good example to show me that adaptability (in this case higher reproductive rate allows quicker adaptation) and complexity are seperate, but under what conditions does it happen? I can only see this occuring after a sudden change, either environmental, a mutation, or a migration. Otherwise the situation would have previously been stable, and therefore the extra efficiency WOULD have been enough to counteract the reproduction rate, at least long enough for the bacteria to evolve further. I'll take the cases in reverse order. If this was a migration, it means that the more complex organism exists in a stable environment somewhere, and is NOT being selected against. If a mutation created the extra DNA, than it was a harmfull one and that is already accounted for in the process of evolution. If a mutation created the less complex organism, than the whole community had been poorly adapted to thier environment. Complexity will not evolve in a detrimental way, thus we must assume an environmental change. An environmental change is one of the best methods of gaining complexity or adaptability. Firstly if nothing changes there's no reason to evolve, but I'll deal with more drastic changes from here on. A change can come from a migration, possibly into a newly available environment, or from some large scale change in conditions. How does this effect the organisms? First, some die, because the adaptability of the species only allows a limited population. Next, the remaining organisms specialize for that environment. This removes general adaptability, though it takes time. Durring that time the orgainisms gain efficiency, until the population is large enough to begin competition and more standard evolution. Where does this lead us? As a worst case, all life dies. Nothing to talk about there. Next worse, species lose all traits from the previous environment, along with all the complexity of those traits. This is the best counter to my case, I'll explain it more later. A good case is where the species maintains much of the adaptability from the previous environment, along with that complexity, resulting in no substancial loss or gain. The best case is when the organisms maintain adaptability, plus gains additional complexity from the specializations to the new environment. So when does complexity reduce? It reduces after a sudden environmental change, when the organism fully specializes to the new environment. Ok, so complexity is not constantly improving, but what happens next in the senario? You have a relatively stable environment, with efficient organisms competing for the now-limited resources. It's the perfect environment for evolution towards more complex forms! What this is is a detour, not a roadblock. And that's the worst-case! I doubt that this environment-shifting would happen enough, and on a broad enough scale to stop the evolution towards complexity. If fact, the best I can think of would be your parasite example. The host will be changing too often for the parasite to gain in complexity. However, this requires the host exist, and not all hosts can be parasites as well. Given enough time, complexity continues without bound.

If I don't assume I'm right I lose the challenge of getting there. I'm attempting to do so logically, as you'll notice I'm relying on you for the evidence. I have general knowlegde but not enough experience to draw on. Instead I use intuition to act as a goal for logical arguments. I make every attempt to avoid assumptions, and to integrate your evidence. I'm still learning to do this properly, so I must use your reactions as a measure of my skill. I don't doubt your examples, but if you doubt my logic than I know I've got a problem I need to fix. I'm doing my best to avoid the traps that others who have posted in this thread have fallen into. If I'm unable to make the argument without becoming mystical, than I'll concede the debate. -- You're quite correct. Going over your examples leads me to realize that my definition of complexity included adaptability, which is not always the case. I'll change my definition of complex to: containing structures organized to make efficient use of resources. This is always desirable IF it can be maintained. Adaptability is the ability to maintain life reguardless of changes in the environment. This is also always desirable, though not always needed, and therefore inefficient. (I suppose offence/defence are also desirable in order to succeed in the competition for resources.) Seeing as complexity and adaptability do not always increase together I'm going to need to redefine my case based on these new definitions. I think I can still do it. I'll try again tomarrow.

Yes, but given sufficient time, could an increasing level of complexity be maintained without intelligence emerging? I consider that just as rare as you consider the emergence of intelligence at the current time/complexity level. Hence, intelligence (not nessecarily in the current biological form) is inevitable. And therefore a complexity level for probable intellect won't be obtained? But you're basing this on humans, who have already attained intelligence. If we were simple-tool makers only (evolution's counter to the frailty) we would still be in fierce competition with other organisms. In that kind of environment, even the smallest gain in resource efficiency through additional complexity would be selected for. Increase in complexity does not stop, except maybe after intelligence, which leads the way to technological complexity. (I will however agree that a hostile environment can slow the process significantly.) We don't have a sample of one. We have a sample of billions of organisms consistantly following "rules" of evolution. Those rules hold through MANY diverce forms of life, through many complexity levels. They lead to greater and greater complexity without bound. Logically that complexity will lead to intelligence. We even have proof that intelligence is possible! Forget human intelligence, it may be a fluke, but it's bound to happen sometime. The only "what if's" I see are those that stop the process, like, what if the sun goes nova before mammals evolve? ((Forgive my forcefullness, the act of expressing my intuition logically drained me too much to worry about delivery style))