Is there evidence of " Cleverness " in Nature and it's processes ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Could it be, that with all our great learning we are loosing the ability to still appreciate the wonder and sheer complexity of what is around us. And to achieve this complexity a major achievement is fulfilled before our very eyes, by whatever system is present to hold back and reverse the deterioration of order in the universe.

Mike

It will be a shame, if we have come this far in being men and women who have looked out on the world and stars to make some sort of observation that has fired them up to think new thoughts ...perhaps the world can be circumnavigated like Magellan . Perhaps the boundaries of energy usefulness and entropic disorder can be held back by another means? Let the visionaries of the future come forward, and rise up!

 

 

Mike (. Ps. that is not a picture of me , it's Magellan )

Edited April 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Acme,

 

Well reasoned debate indeed. I see no lack of it from either "side".

 

There were very smart and educated men who thought the Earth was flat, and later many if not close to all who thought the planets had to move with little epicycles to explain the apparent motion of the planets.

 

Your central drift, is that I have not read enough to understand what is going on, and I therefore have no right to engage in conversation on the logical implications of stuff. I have read a little, I have understood a little, and I have run into logical road blocks, where other people's assumptions and determinations do not add up. I can not make them add up. But the universerve itself has never let me down. It always adds up exactly. If there is a paradox, I look for where the situation is being misunderstood, or misapplied. I know for absolute certain, that if there is an apparent contradiction, the problem is with our interpretation of the thing as it is, not with the thing as it is.

 

So yes, I have some problems with dark energy and dark matter showing up so late in the game. There could be an interpretation issue. A math mistake, an observation snaffu. Otherwise, we would have seen the stuff before. It would be built into our science and our calculations. Other things that we could not explain before, would be explained by it now. Things would fall nicely into place, that perplexed us before...not the other way round.

 

What of all the calculations of age of the universe, and expansion of the universe, and redshift and distances, and number of particles in the observable universe, and predictions of the fate of and beginnings of the universe, that were made before dark energy and dark matter where announced? Doesn't everything need to be recalculated now? Were those other calculations not somewhat crude in comparison to what they should have been?

 

Scientists are very quick to throw things out when contradictions are noticed. Usually. But in certain situations, as is documented by the epicycles, and reams of material written on why its impossible for a warrior to overtake a tortoise, or in odd attempts to prove forshortening in rotating laboratory fields and such where contradictory logic must be applied to close high speed long ladders into short garages and such, contradictions are just sluffed off, and I am told I would understand if I only read into it and understood the math. Well perhaps I have, and I STILL don't accept the contradictions and I am still looking for a better, simpler cleaner, less complicated, more occum razor like explanation for some of these things.

 

I don't have the answers, I have not figured out the maths involved in some of my possible solutions, but if entropy was the only final situation, we should have gotten to that condition by now. If the route is only from completely ordered to completely disordered, the universe would have started simple and perfect and deteriorated from there. Since human life and cleverness is somewhere on this path TO deterioration, and was not extant at the beginning of the universe, when only hydrogen atoms were around, there must be some other considerations, occuring within this deterioration that cause or allow stars to form and make heavier elements, and carbon and oxygen and such, that allows for snowflakes and jellyfish.

 

I get the entropy equations. I get the gas laws. This place just doesn't act like it is suppose to, according to the equations. So if life here, causes some more entropy over there, fine. Total entropy has to increase. But if that is true, then that was true before life on Earth began, and life on Earth is therefore a victory against the trend. Life has found a way to use, whatever it is that the universe has to do, for its own reasons. Form and structure grabbed from a place that does not think or care, but is just marching along unknowingly toward complete disorder. Life has found a way to continue this form and structure and pass it on to the next generation. Stars do the same kind of thing. Buck the trend. Have generations. As Mike suggests.

 

Regards, TAR

The alternative to challenging "known" science is to simply accept that someone else knows all the answers, and everything there is to know is already documented, if you were to only read it all. Well, there is this judgement aspect that I think its important to maintain. A balance between BC logic and internet information 100 percent coverage. Sure we know a lot. Sure everything has to fit together and make sense. But if your only answer to a question I raise is that I should read physics, then I think you might be misunderstanding my question, or the level upon which I might be asking it.

 

My ignorance of certain findings, or my inability to agree with certain assumptions or to understand the import of certain equations, does not affect the truth. What is true, will remain true, whether I know it, or not. I am not trying to turn anyone away from truth. Just asking people not to ignore contradictions, but to look for the truth that would eliminate the apparent contradiction.

 

If the choice is, to change ones mind, or to change reality, I think the mind is the one that is going to turn out requiring the adjustment. Perhaps mine. Perhaps yours. That is what the discussion is about. Reality is already right.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

An example of a brilliant achievement of a system impregnated with maths and science found in nature is

 

GEOTROPISM ( positive - down ) ( negative - up ) the following of gravity lines into and upwards from the Earth. At 90 degrees to the horizontal .

Bent into line by the hormone AUXIN

 

 

 

 

Here the Euclidean geometry offering the z axis is captured by the plants ( trees and grass ) via gravity. This Is accomplished within the cells of the plants by the growth hormone AUXIN

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitropism

 

When seen in the context of free standing water, we see the other axis of the Cartesian or Euclidian geometry . This time the ( X, Y ) Plane .

 

 

So ,this observation , shows how , nature was already there in geometry before ever any written or described coordinate system was written down , or spoken of. Going way back , 300,million years ago or so , there was grass ,trees , and water exploiting the three axis of the geometry that later became known as Euclidian Geometry .

 

Mike

Edited May 11, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike Smith Cosmos

 

An example of a brilliant achievement of a system impregnated with maths and science found in nature is

GEOTROPISM ( positive - down ) ( negative - up ) the following of gravity lines, into and upwards from the Earth. At 90 degrees to the horizontal . ]

 

Ilustrated image of how ...AUXIN HORMONE .... Mechanism makes geotropism work in plants .

Illustration; [ courtesy of - education.com ]

 

 

The whole chemistry/biology of hormones present in both plants and animals , is an amazing mechanism in its own right . This mechanism is responsible for the very steering of many if not all the systems of life.

So chemistry plays a major role in this explanation .

 

( " it's me hormones you know ! ")

 

Mike

Edited May 13, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike,

 

And imagine the "intelligence" that must be inherent in a growing fetus' brain neuron, as it grows and differentiates into not only the right type of cell, but makes the right positional distinctions and connections as it grows, to become a working part of an incredibly complex human brain. Small accidental stuff happening there, large "on purpose" stuff occurring.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 15, 2014 by tar

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike,And imagine the "intelligence" that must be inherent in a growing fetus' brain neuron, as it grows and differentiates into not only the right type of cell, but makes the right positional distinctions and connections as it grows, to become a working part of an incredibly complex human brain. Small accidental stuff happening there, large "on purpose" stuff occurring.Regards, TAR

Thus the Entropy number going well down towards 0 , and the Generation number going well towards 10.

 

I have just come across another very complex yet winning idea ,that appears in a fundamental ingredient for the life environment ,among plants , this is in the grass area . The ability to creep with the slightest of movement , when away from the original growing position. This example is a particular grass head . See following pictures .

.

As soon as you pick up the grass heads ( barley I think ,not sure ) , they seem to run through your fingers with the slightest of movement , the more you chase them the more they run away. I remember once ,one got in my shirt cuff, in a couple of minutes it had climbed up my shirt sleeve and came out by my neck. Quite amazing . Thus another where the Entropy number going well down towards 0 , and the Generation number going up towards 10.

 

Mike

Edited May 23, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The straightness of these grasses beggars belief. Builders latched on to gravity to produce hanging plumb lines, to follow the pull of gravity ( thread and weight ). And thus enabling them to build buildings with straight upright sides.

 

Here grasses are using Geo-tropism In conjunction with internal hormones to govern the growth to follow the vertical lines of gravity. Quite what controls the hormones I am not sure. But one way or another, this is incredible .

 

 

Notice how important straight lines are to our balance and functional movement in the environment.

 

Mike

Edited May 26, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

You Call it incredible: Not believable. Get it is entirely believable since it requires only some straightforward chemistry. No intelligence In sight .

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You Call it incredible: Not believable. Get it is entirely believable since it requires only some straightforward chemistry. No intelligence In sight .

I do not mention intelligence, otherwise I get dragged into the [ Intelligent design v evolution ] thing, that appears to be raging in the USA.

 

I actually think and believe much of the evolutionary processes are at work in the universe. But, I also think there is something far, far , far more advanced than man influencing the Universe, or overseeing the universe. As I am sure many other scientists do, who marvel at what they see and discover. Because the palethera of clever processes that appear working in the universe lend themselves to both evolutionary processes as well as clockmaker style of processes. How you reconcile that as an individual , is very much a personal thing. All I want is the Truth. If there is a bit of both, and evolutionary processes are the machinery of a bigger plan , all well and good. . If Evolution is ALL there is, then I hope it gets it right. If there is some overall overseer, I feel a little bit more confident, that the evolutionary principles like natural selection, will keep the various systems on the strait and narrow. But If it goes off the rails there is an overseer that can make suitable adjustments.

 

As scientists and engineers , we are used to doing precisely that.

 

I can not think of any invention or process, factory or anything else, that any scientist or engineer who set it going, LEFT any process to go on, Ad Infinitum , by itself, for any length of time at all. Power station, hydro electric dam, radio active power station, railway system , water system, sewage system , gas supply distribution system , hospital, national health system ,Financial system, the list goes on. So to me I have no problem with both Processes.[ Evolution systems as part of a much , much much, bigger plan. ].

 

Now that does not alter the content of this thread. If the whole shaboodle is so clever, the whole thing can start from nowhere, totally self regulate itself so as to produce in such detail what we see today . So be it . But if , As I think " If the whole shaboodle is clever, the whole thing started from somewhere,,which included all the systems of natural selection and other evolutionary processes , and to a great extent self regulate itself, so as to produce much of the detail that we see today, yet be part of a much bigger plan . then so be it. So what. They are pretty much the same , except , for me there is , something, somewhere that is much bigger in addition , which can add some starting conditions,, initial energy , some initiative, some boundary conditions, or constants, major adjustments or whatever is required , when even scientists say " yes , but where does." such and such " constant or that " such and such ." come from.?

 

So any proof or disproof of a system opposite to "entropy" , namely " generative" , works in favor of both things that I have described above. and therefore on the same supportive tack ,

 

Evolution needs to be Pretty Dam Clever to produce what we have now. .. Or

The whole thing I have described above needs to be Pretty Dam Clever to have got what we have now.

 

mike

Edited May 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

...

Evolution needs to be Pretty Dam Clever to produce what we have now. .. Or

The whole thing I have described above needs to be Pretty Dam Clever to have got what we have now.

 

mike

No it doesn't Mike; it just had to be lucky.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

No it doesn't Mike; it just had to be lucky.

I will have to think about that. Luck sounds a bit hit and miss. If you mean statistical , that is different as there are influences.

I have touched on your strange loops. Hofstad he has a new book out . Godel. Ethgert, Bach . Wherein he goes in to these strange loops being nested sets . It has a lot of maths in it and many of the diagrams I see you bringing up.

 

I agree there is a lot of chance about. In fact there seems to me, to be more chance than locked in determined things. But I can see these 'receivers of chance' . Making the universe what it is.

 

I would like you to look at this.

 

It is a really good thought I had about quantum fields on a beach, a year or two back . Before I lost the thought , I wrote it , . In the sand. (as I had no note book with me at the time ).

 

.

.

And then the tide came in quickly and washed it all away !

 

I could only read it out loud a couple of times , then it was gone ! Whoosh !

 

Mike

Edited May 26, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

Luck sounds a bit hit and miss.

That's exactly what it is and that is my point.

 

I have touched on your strange loops. Hofstad he has a new book out . Godel. Ethgert, Bach.

 

Mike

It's Hofstadter and it's Gödel, Escher*, Bach. (Gödel as in the mathematician, Escher as in the artist M.C Escher, Bach as in Johann Sebastian the composer.) And no, that's not his new book. The new book -out in 2007- is titled I Am A Strange Loop.

 

*M.C. Escher @ Wikipedia

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Reply to ACME "I will have to think about that. Luck sounds a bit hit and miss. If you mean statistical .........

 

I would like you to look at this.

 

It is a really good thought I had about quantum fields on a beach, a few years ago . Before I lost the thought , I wrote it , . In the sand. (as I had no note book with me at the time ).

 

And then the tide came in quickly and washed it all away !

I could only read it out loud a couple of times , then it was gone ! Whoosh ! "

Mike

 

How it read as a whole ,before the sea came in and washed it all away suddenly , was

 

. THE INFLUENCE OF QUANTUM FIELD IS THE VERY MECHANISM OF HOW THE COSMOS IS FORMED . mks

 

Mike

That's exactly what it is and that is my point. It's Hofstadter and it's Gödel, Escher*, Bach. (Gödel as in the mathematician, Escher as in the artist M.C Escher, Bach as in Johann Sebastian the composer.) And no, that's not his new book. The new book -out in 2007- is titled I Am A Strange Loop.*M.C. Escher @ Wikipedia

Can you give me a taste on the " I am a strange loop " before the book arrives , please . Mike

Edited May 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

 

I do not mention intelligence, otherwise I get dragged into the [ Intelligent design v evolution ] thing, that appears to be raging in the USA.

Excuse me. I was posting from an iphone. I hate the lack of a proper keyboard. I meant to say no cleverness in sight.

 

We've been through this before and you stubbornly refuse to recognise that cleverness require intent, it requires intelligence and it requires consciousness. The only exception is if you are using it as a metaphor, in which case this entire thread becomes an exercise in stubbornness on your part, in which you describes things metaphorically as clever, then try to discuss that cleverness as literal thing.

 

Please give it up. You are doing the reputation of yourself, this thread and the forum a great disservice.

[Acme]

[Acme] Can you give me a taste on the " I am a strange loop " before the book arrives , please . Mike

I have done that numerous times. I am at a loss to understand your reluctance to do the work/reading yourself.

...

We've been through this before and you [Mike] stubbornly refuse to recognize that cleverness require intent, it requires intelligence and it requires consciousness. The only exception is if you are using it as a metaphor, in which case this entire thread becomes an exercise in stubbornness on your part, in which you describes things metaphorically as clever, then try to discuss that cleverness as literal thing.

 

Please give it up. You are doing the reputation of yourself, this thread and the forum a great disservice.

+1

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have done that numerous times. I am at a loss to understand your reluctance to do the work/reading yourself.

I have it on my list , I still have " trespassing on einsteinium lawn " to finish . one of you guys recommended .

Excuse me. I was posting from an iphone. I hate the lack of a proper keyboard. I meant to say no cleverness in sight.

 

We've been through this before ......

Indeed we have . And seeing as I defined it for this thread , being the originator . Thus as per Oxford English Dictionary and , as per the Collins thesaurus : - post # 3

 

Clever ......

 

Firstly from the shorter Oxford English Dictionary , which comes in two heavy volumes that I have just dragged upstairs to my study.

 

Clever : Also cliver, cleaver,related to cliver in the sense of 'nimble of claws 'sharp to seize, klever,sprightly, brisk smart ,suggests the word belongs to the area 1. Nimble handed,adroit,dexterous in the use of limbs, 2 possessing skill or talent, of things done with adroitness, and skill.ingeneous. 3 . Nimble. 4 clean limbed, well made. 5 Handy.

 

The old mare was as clever as a cat, 1888. , The girl was tight clever wench as any was Arbothnot ! Then come ,put the Hormuz about ,and let us be merry and clever.

 

Cleverness . :- the quality of being Clever.

 

Adroit :- seems to figure in this a droit right handed. Possessing address or readiness of resource either bodily or mental, dexterous , active clever.

 

.

.

Now however the field lines go for gravity ( say coming from the centre of the earth radially, or at 90 degrees to them ) the grass out side my front door on this ancient pavement which is going at a slant uphill. Still the grass is picking out the correct angle ( lines of force) and following them ' en mass' in these early days, when there are no competing things in their way. Now that is cleverness by anyone reckoning .

.( taken last night on returning from Ladram Bay . Jurassic Coast )

.

 

The Collins English Dictionary Says :-

 

Clever. :- Displaying sharp intelligence or mental alertness, skilful with ones hands .

 

The Collins pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus says : -

 

Clever .:- Dictionary....... Intelligent,,able,,skilful, adroit, cleverly

Clever. :- Thesaurus........ Able, adroit, apt, astute, brainy, bright, canny,capable, cunning, deep, discerning, expert, gifted, ingenious, keen, knowing, quick, rational , sagacious, sensible, shrewd, skilful, smart, talented, witty.

.............

 

 

True , some of these latter definition contributions mention the word intelligent here and there , but that is not its central definition.

 

I think I could be forgiven for using the word clever to describe Nature, in all her myriads of achievements . That is surely a given , world view. With total separate meaning , given to the origin of nature.

 

If not , can we not from this moment on say: we are discussing the characteristics, and nature of the universe, Not its origin. As I do believe I have a valid argument , for saying that there is a two way flow present in the universe , both in the :-

a) direction of more Entropy ( more disorder , and less accessible energy with more closed systems . And

B)In the other direction a Generation ( more order , and more accessible energy , an open system )

 

 

Then we can leave people to make up their own mind , on the question of origination, in another thread, or in another corner, and beat the living day lights out of each other , with each other's views on that subject.

 

How does that suit your good selves . ,?

 

Mike

 

Ps I was today going and went to Ladram Bay on the Jurassic Coast . I went on my scooter, and pulled in on woodleigh moor above budleigh salterton to a car park. It said " you are standing on 200,000,000 year old pebbles, pebble bed of a river from the times of the dinosaurs . I thought it would be nice if you came down to have that drink.

 

I hired a row boat and anchored beyond the stacks . And made a paint sketch ( half hour ) of the stack from seaward side , looking back ashore .:-

 

If we go out in the row boat we must not fall out with each other or the boat !

.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

I give up. You simply don't get it. Nature is not clever, except metaphorically. And to state it is metaphorically clever is trite and trivial and does not warrant fifteen pages on a science forum. I shall not add to the pointlessness after this post.

[Phi for All]

I haven't weighed in on this thread since the first pages, but I've kept up on the posts. I've seen nothing to change my mind that the universe isn't a clever system, but one insight has emerged for me very clearly. The fact that the universe behaves as it does without cleverness is one of the most amazing things I can ever imagine. I mean, any decently intelligent creature can come up with something clever, but for a system like our universe to do what it does on its own, with no intelligence behind it, well that's truly awe-inspiring to me.

 

Way better than "clever".

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I give up. You simply don't get it. Nature is not clever, except metaphorically. And to state it is metaphorically clever is trite and trivial and does not warrant fifteen pages on a science forum. I shall not add to the pointlessness after this post.

 

Well would you say an animal is clever ? Not metaphorically. Like my dog jumping through a hoop.

 

mike

I haven't weighed in on this thread since the first pages, but I've kept up on the posts. I've seen nothing to change my mind that the universe isn't a clever system, but one insight has emerged for me very clearly. The fact that the universe behaves as it does without cleverness is one of the most amazing things I can ever imagine. I mean, any decently intelligent creature can come up with something clever, but for a system like our universe to do what it does on its own, with no intelligence behind it, well that's truly awe-inspiring to me.

 

Way better than "clever".

 

O.K. If I can get through this particular line of discussion with Ohiolite as to where he draws the line . From A human say being clever, to a dog being clever, to a worm being clever, to grass being clever, to minerals being clever. to where ever down to a Quark being clever. And I loose.

 

Does it mean I can change the word " clever " to " Amazing " or " Awe Inspiring " so that the discussion does not get hung up on a single word .

 

I had moved on to " Entropy " v " Generative " , being two different counter directions.

( Entropy moving toward disorder Generative moving toward order ). But because " clever" was in the original Title it keeps being brought up.

 

Then I can say things like " Generative " processes like Stars are Amazing and Awe inspiring. I still might need a further word to bring in the .......ness. ]

 

mike

Edited May 28, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

 

Well would you say an animal is clever ? Not metaphorically. Like my dog jumping through a hoop.

 

mike

Yes, dogs are clever. Lots of intelligent, conscious animals are clever. Nature is not an intelligent, conscious animal and is not clever. The vast majority (and possibly all) of your previous examples are of nature being metaphorically, but not literally, clever. Nature is not clever. Nature contains animals that are clever.

 

Head>>>>Brick Wall.

[tar]

Ophiolite,

 

There must be some rule I am breaking, some "proper" agreement that we have together, to continue to call the place clever, or you would not be at your wits end, trying to understand why we (mike and I) do not see what the problem is, in doing so.

 

Yes this is a science board and not a mystics convention, but, and this is a big but, there is not a way you can call yourself clever, and think the universe had nothing to do with your cleverness. You did not come from "somewhere else", you are part of nature, you are a natural thing, sensing and remembering and modeling the real world. It is not like Mike and I are talking about something magical or impossible. Well we might on occasion, but we look for evidence and proof, same as everyone else on the board.

 

I am aware that somehow I am doing the board a disservice by voicing my opinion about the characteristics of the universe being somewhat "capable"... well not somewhat...absolutely capable, but as Mike said, in reference to Phi's awesomeness comment, we can drop the word clever if it smells of the suggestion of an anthropomorphic god, and just consider the place as a whole has done rather well for itself and we living creatures are a capable lot, doing quite well at reproducing our patterns and surviving in a universe, that otherwise is tending toward greater entropy. And that maybe it is not an accident that things maintain themselves, and that when we see wonderfulness, we can call it wonderful that the world has managed to be as awesome as it is, including us, for so long in the past, in such a big way (8billion wills) at the moment, and is looking like it quite unaccidently will continue to be awesome for the forseeable future.

 

Acme,

 

I am still wondering why it is so important to you that things be considered accidents or purely chance, with no intention or purpose. Not that the universe was intentionally started. That makes no sense either. But given an "unthinking" universe, it is difficult to arrive at a "thinking" natural thing, such as a complex human body/brain/heart group by accident. That is, there has to be a progression from atom to molecule to crystal to bubble to cell to multicell to nervous system to brain to "thinking" thing, that is a natural progression, that takes no magic or god, but is something the universe is capable of doing, by itself.

 

We are in and of nature, We cannot be clever without it. Cleverness had no place other than the universe to come from. That we copy the place, and model the place and remember the place and think about the place, is no accident. We do it quite on purpose.

 

Regards, TAR

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes, dogs are clever. Lots of intelligent, conscious animals are clever. Nature is not an intelligent, conscious animal and is not clever. The vast majority (and possibly all) of your previous examples are of nature being metaphorically, but not literally, clever. Nature is not clever. Nature contains animals that are clever.

 

Head>>>>Brick Wall.

Ok. If what you are saying is that incremental parts, like a dog is clever, and constituents, and individual processes are individually clever BUT the whole thing " nature " is not clever. Well , I can sort of see what you are saying. I always thought that nature was all the incremental bits in one bag , to save saying all the bits all the time. I know James lovelock refers to the whole earth system as GIAH which he portrays as almost living . But I don't think he means it quite like that. But he certainly thinks its one whole system . When I used the term nature , I was meaning the old fashioned way as just it all. But I am not after splitting hairs, I just mean all the individual parts seem to work with a certain amount of amazing , mind blowing , methods , to achieve their own ends, within the environment that they find themselves.

 

Now if I were to sit down and review all the incremental parts ,in one long sitting , I think I would be overwhelmingly , awe struck , and think the bundle of things pretty mind blowing. Now whether I could sum that up in a simple single word. How about intriguing !

 

Sounds a good word. Not quite the depth I had originally in mind. But if moderating the word , allows further discussion and development , all well and good .

 

Mike

[Acme]

...

Acme,

 

I am still wondering why it is so important to you that things be considered accidents or purely chance, with no intention or purpose. Not that the universe was intentionally started. That makes no sense either. But given an "unthinking" universe, it is difficult to arrive at a "thinking" natural thing, such as a complex human body/brain/heart group by accident.

It doesn't have anything to do with difficulty. We're here -hearts, brains, and all- so it happened. Accidents happen. Shit happens. Get over it.

 

That is, there has to be a progression from atom to molecule to crystal to bubble to cell to multicell to nervous system to brain to "thinking" thing, that is a natural progression, that takes no magic or god, but is something the universe is capable of doing, by itself.

Quite so. And nothing of that requires anything more than happy circumstance, or per se accident.

 

We are in and of nature, We cannot be clever without it. Cleverness had no place other than the universe to come from. That we copy the place, and model the place and remember the place and think about the place, is no accident. We do it quite on purpose.

 

Regards, TAR

Yes; it is accident. That you can't understand that or how it might be is your mistake; your loss; your lacking of cleverness.

...

Now if I were to sit down and review all the incremental parts ,in one long sitting , I think I would be overwhelmingly , awe struck , and think the bundle of things pretty mind blowing. Now whether I could sum that up in a simple single word. How about intriguing !

 

Sounds a good word. Not quite the depth I had originally in mind. But if moderating the word , allows further discussion and development , all well and good .

 

Mike

No one arguing with you contends the universe isn't cool. If you were to moderate the word 'clever' then you should apologize for wasting our time to begin with and not waste it further.

...

Now if I were to sit down and review all the incremental parts ,in one long sitting , I think I would be overwhelmingly , awe struck , and think the bundle of things pretty mind blowing. Now whether I could sum that up in a simple single word. How about intriguing !

 

Sounds a good word. Not quite the depth I had originally in mind. But if moderating the word , allows further discussion and development , all well and good .

 

Mike

No one arguing with you contends the universe isn't cool. If you were to moderate the word 'clever' then you should apologize for wasting our time to begin with and not waste it further.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

. If you were to moderate the word 'clever' then you should apologize for wasting our time to begin with and not waste it further.

It is not me that wants to change the word clever. I have always been happy with it. Do not want to change it , or mess with its use. It is a perfectly good word . To quote the Oxford English Dictionary :-

 

' The old mare was as clever as a cat, 1888. , The girl was tight clever wench as any was Arbothnot ! Then come ,put the Hormuz about ,and let us be merry and clever.'

 

I have this horrible feeling we are all arguing from a similar side.

 

The selective ,trial and error , feedback system , utilised in nature ,is based on a certain amount of 'chance' which I am not disputing. But this whole mechanism is a very 'clever ' system , to regulate all sorts of development. However , chancy the dragon fly might feel he is flitting about, sometimes by the whim of a breeze, ultimately it is programmed to seek out a particular colour or shape . Whether it is in this particular pond or not is chance, whether it is this plant or not is determined. For the dragon fly, this whole system , wherever it has come from is clever , none the less. So yes the dragon fly could be said to have a certain amount of inbuilt intelligence to discern the specific plant type, but no the particular pond it finds initially may well depend on chance arriving out of chaos and complexity ,in the form of a wind swirl.

 

Now yes this ' programmed ' bit comes from a similar selective mechanism further back . Itself composed of a feedback regulating trial and error mechanism . It too having its chance element as well as it's determined element.

 

This whole tiered business is a very clever mechanism , no matter which way you look at it , or from whence it came.

 

So yes there is , as per the OP -- Evidence of " cleverness " in nature and it's processes. -- Q.E.D.

 

Now you can say this is Hogg Wash if or all you want! . But I think in this instance it would be fair to say , that we ( tar and I ) have won this discussion and argument.

 

Mike

Edited May 29, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Acme,

 

You keep telling me to "live with it", like I don't accept it or something. I absolutely accept that the universe has happened and absolutely fits together from bottom to top, from inside out, from outside in, from tiny to huge from huge to tiny, from instant to infinite and from infinite to instant and from top to bottom.

 

Hofstetler and Kant, flowers and great attractors, peanut butter cups and statistical equations are all within the reality we are considering here. All within nature and its processes.

 

What would be your example of "not accidental"? If you have none, then the word accidental has no opposite, no meaning, and you can not sensibly use it. Everything cannot be accidental, if there is anything that is not accidental.

 

I was walking in the woods on Sunday, performing an experiment that Mike suggested in another thread. We coordinated it, so that we were both asking the universe to answer our question, at the same time, so that we could compare our results in an objective, peer reviewed fashion. Initial results were exciting and seemed magical, but I reviewed pictures I took and realized something I thought had happened "magically" had been there prior the experiment. In fact the "answer" I got to my question of the universe, was also there before I asked the question.

 

I had defined the diamond infront of me as the area in which anything subtantial and notable happening would designate a "maybe" answer from the "observers". Anything to the right and up a yes, and to the left and up a no.

 

I asked "Is there a direction orthogonal from here and now, that one can experience?" Nothing happened of note in any of the designated areas. After a minute or two, a moth or bug or something fluttered my left ear, but that was not too notable. I thought the experiment a bust and continued down the path. About 15 feet down the path, right at the base of the diamond I designated to my right, I saw a very interesting "answer".

 

It is the rock, who's picture I have attached.

 

Mike also had an interesting maybe answer to his question.

 

We talked about our experiences and decided there was no magic, no observers, but our minds were not isolated from the universe, and used the universe to think. Left us both in a rather "its all good" state of mind.

 

Its OK to think it not an accident. Its perfectly OK.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 29, 2014 by tar