Clarification of Terms

[jan]

I will try to show that several specific terms are independent. We will use this at the end of this post to examine a recent claim.

Intentionally
If somebody, a person, is doing something willingly.

Purpose
If something has a final cause, if something is designed to achieve something. This is not the same as being made intentionally. For example, if I draw some idle sketches on a notepad, I do it intentionally, but these sketches don't have a purpose. On the other hand, living beings do have a purpose: reproduction, but as far as we know, they have not been created by somebody having this purpose in mind. Instead, this purposefulness is a side effect of adaptive selection.

Order
This is a term that can be explained as low entropy. Something showing order does not have to have a purpose, and it does not have to be created intentionally. Imagine a beach with big stones and small stones separated by the waves. This shows order (lower entropy than all stones of all sizes mixed), but this order does not serve any purpose, and no maker made it intentionally.
On the other hand, I can create some white noise intentionally, so being created intentionally does not necessarily imply order.
If something serves a purpose, it usually does not show the highest possible degree of entropy. But on the other hand, it also usually doesn't show the lowest possible degree of entropy. So order, intention and purpose are independent.

Predictable
The predictability of something is limited by our limited knowledge, limitations of numeric computations (nowadays called "Chaos Theory"), and in principle limited by Heisenberg's Principle.
Something can be made intentionally and can be highly predictable (like a clock) or highly unpredictable (like a good novel).
Something can be highly predictable (movements of the planets) or highly unpredictable (like the weather) without being made intentionally.
Similar arguments show that having a purpose and being predictable is independent.
It seems as if something is more predictable if it is highly ordered. But that does depend on how accurate you want to predict something. Assume we have a closed box containing two gases in turbulence. The future states of this box can be highly unpredictable. On the other hand, a box with two gases in perfect diffusion, that is, maximized entropy, that is, minimized order, can be highly predictable: it will become a box with two gases in perfect diffusion. In fact, being ordered and being predictable are independent.
Note also that a "chaotic" system can be very predictable. For example, the solar system is a chaotic system, but for most practical purposes, it behaves very predictable.

Meaning
I know what the word "meaning" as in "the meaning of the word "meaning"" means. I have trouble to understand what the word "meaning" means in terms like "meaning of life". I used to think that it means the same as "purpose", but that can't be true. Assume the purpose of our life is to enhance the majesty of Yahweh, or to amuse or feed the evil god Chtulhu. Obviously, this purpose doesn't make our lives meaningful. I also was speculating if it could mean something like "what makes your life pleasant" or "what makes you leave the bed in the morning". But on the other hand, it seems as if "meaning of life" is more than just a synonym for drugs, love, curiosity or hormones. Perhaps "meaning of life" doesn't have any meaning.

Now what is the canonical position (well, my personal version of it) of materialism about life, the universe and everything?

As far as we know, the universe was not made intentionally, and life was not created intentionally. There are strong hints that I was not created intentionally, since I was born very, very shortly after the marriage of my parents, but my daughter has been made intentionally.

As far as we know, the universe does not serve any purpose. The purpose of life is reproduction. As far as I know, my existence serves no special purpose, besides that I try to have some fun and have some minor importance as a tax payer.

According to Thermodynamics, the order within the universe shrinks. Since the ecosystem is not a closed system, this does not prevent life from increasing order. With regard to the state of my house, I would hesitate to say that I am increasing order in any significant way.

On a large scale, the universe seems to be predictable, that means, we have some evidence for a cosmologic theory that tells us how the universe started and what its future will be. Living creatures try to manipulate other living creatures, which means that living creatures are usually not very predictable. In especially, human beings can be rather unpredictable.

As far as we know, the universe has no meaning. Although I said that the purpose of living beings is reproduction, that doesn't mean that this has any meaning. On the contrary, I would say that all this struggle for life seems pretty meaningless. It is neither surprising nor inconsistent that many people choose not to reproduce. Since I am not certain what the meaning of "meaning" is, I have no idea whether or not my life has any meaning.

The word "random" can be used as a synonym for "unintentional", "lacking purpose", "chaotic", "unpredictable" or "meaningless", although I would say that its most common meaning is "probability theory can be applied here". Now compare the following quote:

Originally posted by The Sage of Baltimore

Atoms (“Matter”) randomly bumping around eventually randomly creates a human being who randomly develops language and randomly has a random number of ancestors who eventually make completely random internet posts???

[Franko]

Intentionally
If somebody, a person, is doing something willingly.

Hey, I have a question ...

Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

[hgc]

Originally posted by jan
... On the other hand, living beings do have a purpose: reproduction, but as far as we know, they have not been created by somebody having this purpose in mind. Instead, this purposefulness is a side effect of adaptive selection. ...While organisms that do replicate are what we'd call successful, based on that they do replicate successfully, I don't have any reason to think that this represents any kind of purpose in terms of the creation (abiogenesis --> evolution) of organisms. It may justifiably be viewed as a purpose of life for humans (for themselves and other organisms), but that's merely human consciousness interjecting purpose where nature had none.

[Skeptical Greg]

Wow Jan! Lot of good stuff there.. Need to chew for a while...

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko


Hey, I have a question ...

Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

Unwillingly being it shows no signs of being a thinking living being. Unless you can prove otherwise?

Also just to pre-point out the contraction in what you will say I will do it now.

You have said and will say “prove you have any more free will then the moon”

So.
If you will say the moon is willingly orbiting the Earth that would be a contradiction of your no free will belief.

[Franko]

Franko:
Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

Pahansiri:
Unwillingly being it shows no signs of being a thinking living being.

Ahhh, so it would be accurate to state that:

The Moon unwillingly orbits the Earth, if the Moon were a “thinking living being” (like an amoeba?) than it would probably stop orbiting the Earth.

Is that what you believe Pahansiri?

Also just to pre-point out the contraction in what you will say I will do it now.

You have said and will say “prove you have any more free will then the moon”

So.
If you will say the moon is willingly orbiting the Earth that would be a contradiction of your no free will belief.

I would say that YOU and the MOON have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero).

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko


Ahhh, so it would be accurate to state that:

The Moon unwillingly orbits the Earth, if the Moon were a “thinking living being” (like an amoeba?) than it would probably stop orbiting the Earth.

Is that what you believe Pahansiri?



I would say that YOU and the MOON have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero).

Greetings Franko.

Will you ever answer a question?


It amazes me that you seek to answer a question with a question seeking to ask your question by putting words into the others mouth, rather then just answer and support your statements and beliefs?

I will ask again. You believe I must assume the moon is willingly orbiting the Earth.

So I will ask again.

1- Prove the moon is a thinking being and has chosen to orbit the Earth.

Just the facts please.


Ahhh, so it would be accurate to state that:

The Moon unwillingly orbits the Earth, if the Moon were a “thinking living being” (like an amoeba?) than it would probably stop orbiting the Earth.


Is that what you believe Pahansiri?

Fact 1. The moon is not a living thing and can not choose to stop or start orbiting the Earth. UNLESS you can prove it can.

Fact 2: I never said an “amoeba” spelled amoebae was a thinking being, did ? But unlike the moon at least it is a living thing, well unless your proof the moon is a living thinking thing proves other wise.

Fact 3; Being I never even mentioned an amoebae and more so never said it was able of thought your statement is silly, dishonest and illogical.

I would say that YOU and the MOON have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero).

I know you would say that and as always I will prove you wrong. You tell the moon to walk across the room and get a snack. Yell as loud as you can to it right now. I on the other hand while I am not really hungry and should save my appetite will go eat a chip.

You see I have that choice the moon does not, UNLESS you demonstrate it is capable of thought.

[Franko]

Pahansiri:
Prove the moon is a thinking being and has chosen to orbit the Earth.

The Moon is no more of a “thinking being” than Pahansiri is a “thinking being” (according to Materialism). [According to Materialism] the Moon and Pahansiri both have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero [or “free will” = zero; for both MOON and PAHANSIRI]).

Both the Moon and Pahansiri are made of “matter” and nothing else. And (as any little Materialist is brainwashed into believing) the behavior of ALL “matter” (energy) is controlled by the laws of Physics.

Pahansiri:
Fact 1. The moon is not a living thing and can not choose to stop or start orbiting the Earth.

Franko:
Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

Pahansiri:
Unwillingly

So if the moon cannot choose to start or stop orbiting the Earth, then how can you claim that it is unwillingly orbiting the Earth? That would seem to imply that if it could stop orbiting the Earth it would?

Pahansiri:
I on the other hand while I am not really hungry and should save my appetite will go eat a chip.

You see I have that choice the moon does not.

Actually I could just as easily say that the Moon has “chosen” not to eat, and therefore has more “free will” than you do, since you are unable to “chose” not to eat.

I know you would say that and as always I will prove you wrong.

Of course you knew it! “I” knew it too. And that is because (like “I” keep telling you) “I” am merely a figment of your imagination.

[Skeptical Greg]

Even though I have FRANKO on ignore, it is easy for me to see that he has crapped on a thread before it has even got off the ground.


And thanks Pahansiri, for aiding and abetting...

Maybe you could point out where anything Franko said, and your reply, addressed Jan's comments..


Anyone? Doesn't this qualify for the ' Jerk ' clause of the forum rules?

I'm going to e-mail Hal.. Anyone care to join?


( Sorry Jan, for joining the derailment )

[hgc]

Yes, Franko, go take a flying f&ck at the moon. It will understand that it wasn't intentional.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Maybe you could point out where anything Franko said, and your reply, addressed Jan's comments..Nope, he derailed the entire thread based on a single word.

Sort of like "Name That Tune", Franko can hijack a thread in one word, Alex.
( Sorry Jan, for joining the derailment ) Me too.

BTW, very methodically laid out post, Jan.

[Pahansiri]

The Moon is no more of a “thinking being” than Pahansiri is a “thinking being” (according to Materialism).


Well my friend as you know but will not admit
1-I am not a materialist but respect their beliefs as I do yours.
2- I believe your statements of Materialism is well let us say a fib, unless you can prove Materialism believes that.. I will not hold my breath as your record of proving what you say or believe is poor.

[According to Materialism] the Moon and Pahansiri both have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero [or “free will” = zero; for both MOON and PAHANSIRI]).

Really that sounds like your belief not that of Materialism. I.e.

Originally posted by Franko I would say that YOU and the MOON have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero).

So are you now saying you are a “ Franko style materialist”?

Please stop the heavy drinking you forget what you post and believe.


Both the Moon and Pahansiri are made of “matter” and nothing else.

You said you do not believe there is matter, man are you confused as to your beliefs.

Yes my body and the moon is comprised of matter. Can you show me the moon’s brain, what it uses to think?

Crickets.



And (as any little Materialist is brainwashed into believing) the behavior of ALL “matter” (energy) is controlled by the laws of Physics.

1- I am not a Materialist, HELLOOOOOOO…lol
2- In fact other then where you above said you were a Materialist your belief in no form of free will makes your belief just that, in your belief we are a hunk of matter being forced to do what it is made to do.. NO brain no mind no” soul”…

Franko you are killing yourself here.



:Pahansiri:
Fact 1. The moon is not a living thing and can not choose to stop or start orbiting the Earth.

Franko:
Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

Pahansiri:
Unwillingly

You have the order of how this came about but that is ok and all is true so far.


So if the moon cannot choose to start or stop orbiting the Earth, then how can you claim that it is unwillingly orbiting the Earth? ?

Unwillingly as it has NO will, no thoughts unless you can prove it does, asking for the well many times.



That would seem to imply that if it could stop orbiting the Earth it would?

Really, show where I said that, OK?


LOL I have pointed out it is an inanimate object with no thought or ability to think or choose to do anything or not to do anything or “know” it is doing anything. Have you not been reading what is written?

Take a deep breath and read.

quote:Pahansiri:
I on the other hand while I am not really hungry and should save my appetite will go eat a chip.

You see I have that choice the moon does not.

Actually I could just as easily say that the Moon has “chosen” not to eat, and therefore has more “free will” than you do, since you are unable to “chose” not to eat.

Really? And I would say prove it and you would just do another fine dance and avoid answering or providing any proof for your silly statement.Right?


Franko you make this far too easy.


[b]quote:Pahansiri :I know you would say that and as always I will prove you wrong.[/quote]

Of course you knew it! “I” knew it too. And that is because (like “I” keep telling you) “I” am merely a figment of your imagination.

Let us count the contradictions in your belief just in this statement.

1- if you were a figment of my imagination you could not know anything as you would be a figment of my imagination. Do you ever think about or read what you say?
2- If I knew it as I do and you agree I knew it that would indicate thought and thought denoted a form of free will. If there were no form of free will and we were as you believe programmed robots we would all “think” the same thing….

I love ya Franko.. you are silly.

[hgc]

Pahanrisi,

Stop trying to reason with the lunatic. You will get no where, and another thread is dead.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Upchurch


BTW, very methodically laid out post, Jan.

I really liked what Jan had to say, and don't have anything to add at the moment.

I hope some of our more astute members will expand or comment in a relevant way..

This Post really needs to be nominated for something..

What is Mercutio's(?) award?

[jan]

Originally posted by Franko


Hey, I have a question ...

Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

I am tempted to say: "The Logical Goddess whips her into doing it." But the canonical answer is, of course: as far as we know, the moon, as being not a person, per se can't do anything intentionally.

Oh boy, I am derailing my own thread...

Originally posted by hgc
While organisms that do replicate are what we'd call successful, based on that they do replicate successfully, I don't have any reason to think that this represents any kind of purpose in terms of the creation (abiogenesis --> evolution) of organisms. It may justifiably be viewed as a purpose of life for humans (for themselves and other organisms), but that's merely human consciousness interjecting purpose where nature had none.

I am fully aware that my usage of the term "purpose" is a bit of a stretch of the common usage. Usually, one would tend to include intentionallity, and a materialist usually would avoid to say that creatures serve a purpose, since it sounds like the boring old intelligent design fallacy. Nevertheless, I would say that living creatures have something stones don't have, and this something deserves a name. If you know a better word, I would be lucky to replace "purpose". But I guess you are talking about what I called "meaning". Some people think the meaning of life is procreation, some people don't.

Originally posted by Diogenes
Wow Jan! Lot of good stuff there.. Need to chew for a while...

Thanks. I will forgive you your participation in derailing.

Originally posted by Upchurch
BTW, very methodically laid out post, Jan.

I am happy some people managed to read the whole post without falling asleep before hitting the punch line.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by jan

Intentionally
If somebody, a person, is doing something willingly.

... As far as we know, the universe was not made intentionally, and life was not created intentionally.

Really good stuff, Jan. At the same time, to say that 'the universe was not made/created willingly.' seems awkward to me. When I think of defining God(s), I usually think in terms of intentionality, by which I mean goal-directed effort, e.g., intentionality capable of abrogating natural law, with the intent of excluding such superfluous constructs as those posed by pantheism.

[Dorian Gray]

Hey, I have a question ...

Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth? Whether it is willingly or not, that has no bearing on whether human beings have free will. Humans are, if you'll notice, a wee bit different than the moon.

And you must face the possibility that each human gets to make decisions about a certain amount of subatomic particles.

Also, what would be the point of everything being predetermined? I submit to you that TLOP act more as some sort of Supreme Commander more so than being omnipotent.

The universe does seem to serve no purpose, Jan. Humans too. All our consciousness and awareness and intelligent seems to ultimately serve no purpose either. We still are subject to all the same things animals are. Our awareness affords us no special purpose other than to discover more about the purposeless universe.

Eventually, we or someone like us will know everything.

Then what?

[hal bidlack]

this thread was reported, with the complaint being Franko derailing the thread.

While derailing threads is somewhat rude, it is not a rules violation. Indeed, one person's derailing might be another's key point. I can not think of a way to enforce staying on topic without introducing a level of censorship I find unacceptable.

hal

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
I submit to you that TLOP act more as some sort of Supreme Commander more so than being omnipotent.The map is not the territory. The 'Laws of Physics' are human constructs, testable explanations that describe ever more closely what matter does. Matter does not obey the 'Laws of Physics' but, rather, the 'Laws of Physics' obey the dynamics/attributes of matter.
Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Eventually, we or someone like us will know everything. Bullpuckie. Who made up that rule? How, for example, would we know that we knew everything?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
this thread was reported, with the complaint being Franko derailing the thread.

While derailing threads is somewhat rude, it is not a rules violation. Indeed, one person's derailing might be another's key point. I can not think of a way to enforce staying on topic without introducing a level of censorship I find unacceptable.

hal
If anything at all, I might suggest you create a new topic (I dont know, something called "Does the moon have free will") and move the appropriate posts there, with notification/consent of course.

[Yahweh]

On topic...

Jan, very good post, lots of material to absorb :).

[Pahansiri]

I am very sorry if I in any way have disrupted or helped Franko derail this thread such was not my intention and I am very sorry.

[hgc]

Originally posted by jan

...

I am fully aware that my usage of the term "purpose" is a bit of a stretch of the common usage. Usually, one would tend to include intentionallity, and a materialist usually would avoid to say that creatures serve a purpose, since it sounds like the boring old intelligent design fallacy. Nevertheless, I would say that living creatures have something stones don't have, and this something deserves a name. If you know a better word, I would be lucky to replace "purpose". But I guess you are talking about what I called "meaning". Some people think the meaning of life is procreation, some people don't.

...I'll admit to be overly jumpy about this particular bit of terminology, but I'm weary of the basic misunderstanding in general society of the nature of evolution. And the word "purpose" has always been a major component of that misunderstanding, whether the speaker means designer's intent or not.

There is a major biological imperative toward reproduction. We, and all other life, are geared toward that. That's just what we do. That's why we're here. Why, in the sense that we're the descendents of ancestors that had that goal, and were successful and accomplishing it, and passed on that imperative to us. I have no problem calling that a "purpose," as long as the rest of what I just said is well understood.

[Franko]

Hal bidlack:
this thread was reported, with the complaint being Franko derailing the thread.

While derailing threads is somewhat rude, it is not a rules violation. Indeed, one person's derailing might be another's key point. I can not think of a way to enforce staying on topic without introducing a level of censorship I find unacceptable.

Or perhaps the Individual who started the thread shouldn’t quote me, or direct his comments to me personally in the future?

I don’t suppose that would be a better solution???

The problem is with Individuals who can’t make a logical argument for their absurd and utterly inconsistent beliefs and instead are reduced to ad hominem attacks and every other form of logical fallacy, deceit, and obfuscation.

These individuals know their argument cannot be made on its own merits so instead they are forced to appeal to the moderators for salvation.

Funny how it seems that it is always the Atheists who must appeal to the forum-gods for divine intervention.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko




Funny how it seems that it is always the Atheists who must appeal to the forum-gods for divine intervention.

Hal bidlack is GOD? :jaw:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Hal bidlack is GOD? I thought Ed was. huh.

Maybe we could get a discussion going between Edites and Halians?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I thought Ed was. huh.

Maybe we could get a discussion going between Edites and Halians?

True, But our friend Franko will just Hijack it..

I have to say it took me a few minutes to stop laughing after reading Franko say The problem is with Individuals who can’t make a logical argument for their absurd and utterly inconsistent beliefs and instead are reduced to ad hominem attacks and every other form of logical fallacy, deceit, and obfuscation.

I think Webster just changed it’s definition of the phrase “ The pot calling the kettle black” and definition of hypocrisy to a picture of Franko and his statement The problem is with Individuals who can’t make a logical argument for their absurd and utterly inconsistent beliefs and instead are reduced to ad hominem attacks and every other form of logical fallacy, deceit, and obfuscation.

[Franko]

Franko:
Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

Dorian Gray:
Whether it is willingly or not, that has no bearing on whether human beings have free will. Humans are, if you'll notice, a wee bit different than the moon.

NOT in terms of the Laws of Physics they aren’t.

You see, according to the dogma of Materialism EVERYTHING (including YOU and the MOON) are made of “matter” (or Energy is you prefer) and nothing else. The behavior of ALL “matter” (or Energy) can be described completely and solely in terms of the Laws of Physics.

And you must face the possibility that each human gets to make decisions about a certain amount of subatomic particles.

You’d have to explain what you mean?

Are you implying that you are personally responsible for the behavior of certain subatomic particles? If this is true, then why haven’t you claimed Randi’s million dollar prize by demonstrating your Mind’s command over the “matter” and the laws of physics?

Also, what would be the point of everything being predetermined?

As a Materialist I have no doubt that it is well beyond your ability to grasp or comprehend.

It would be analogous to attempting to explain genetic mutations role in evolution to a young earth creationist.

I submit to you that TLOP act more as some sort of Supreme Commander more so than being omnipotent.

To assert that the Laws of Physics are not omnipotent is analogous to claiming that the Laws of Physics do not control the behavior of all “matter” and energy. Aside from the fact that this is a direct contradiction of the Materialists paradigm (orthodoxy), I would say that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that ANYTHING exists in this universe which is not governed completely by TLOP.

If I am incorrect, perhaps you could give me an example of this “thing” you refer to which does not fall under the omnicontrolling, omnipresent Laws of Physics?

The universe does seem to serve no purpose, Jan. Humans too. All our consciousness and awareness and intelligent seems to ultimately serve no purpose either. We still are subject to all the same things animals are. Our awareness affords us no special purpose other than to discover more about the purposeless universe.

I find this statement rather contradictory.

Eventually, we or someone like us will know everything.

Ohhh, but someone like us already does …

[whitefork]

"Meaning" seems to arise from significance after being brought within the scope of language. It appears to require a social order to exist.

Animals behave as if they recognize signs, but we don't know that they use meaning, except perhaps in the case of Koko the gorilla.

To ask what the meaning of a thing is, is to ask what it signifies. If it does not signify, then it has no meaning.

How's that for a start?

[hammegk]

You are so full of it I'm surprized you don't explode. Your lack of understanding regarding F's thinking is laughable.

Your turn. Please PROVE that you exist and are not a figment of my imagination. Or that I exist other than being a figment of yours. Most likely you won't understand this either though.

[Franko]

Kullervo:
"Meaning" seems to arise from significance after being brought within the scope of language. It appears to require a social order to exist.

Silly Atheist – didn’t anyone ever tell you that an observer was completely unnecessary for the existence of "matter"?

If patterns in the energy can exist without anything capable of perceiving that pattern, then why would you believe that social order (i.e. collective consciousness (i.e. the “observer”)) is necessary for the existence of “meaning” or language (a pattern existing in energy)?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk
You are so full of it I'm surprized you don't explode. Your lack of understanding regarding F's thinking is laughable.

Your turn. Please PROVE that you exist and are not a figment of my imagination. Or that I exist other than being a figment of yours. Most likely you won't understand this either though.
LOL such a silly boy. I do think it is funny you posted using both your handles one right after the other... you are too easy.

My understanding of you/Franko is clear I have dismantled your beliefs at every turn. I demonstrated your mistakes, flaws, fibs and that you never answer a question. It is not that I don’t think you are not at least a little bit smart I believe it is clear you see some feeling of power in your life.

I really can not expect you to answer a question regarding your statements of beliefs as you simply can’t and I think everyone here understands that.

As to my turn to prove, you are so silly. I have proven everything I say, you have proven nothing silly boy.

Be well silly boy:rub:

[Franko]

My understanding of you/Franko is clear I have dismantled your beliefs at every turn. I demonstrated your mistakes, flaws, fibs and that you never answer a question.

Hey hamme, He’s a legend in his own mind. ;)

And I thought Buddhist were suppose to shed their egos to achieve enlightenment?

… It is not that I don’t think you are not at least a little bit smart …

Ohhh, why coming from someone like you, I am honored beyond words.

I believe it is clear you see some feeling of power in your life.

… And my eternal gratitude for your psychological analysis as well.

Really Pahansiri you are too kind and generous. I certainly hope the other Atheists are as happy you are one of them as I am.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko


Hey hamme, He’s a legend in his own mind. ;)

And I thought Buddhist were suppose to shed their egos to achieve enlightenment?



Ohhh, why coming from someone like you, I am honored beyond words.



… And my eternal gratitude for your psychological analysis as well.

Really Pahansiri you are too kind and generous. I certainly hope the other Atheists are as happy you are one of them as I am.

As planned my post got the response I knew it would… You are too easy, TLOP does not control you, I do…

By the way there are meds to help with that mutable personality disorder. As I have always said I respect you but feel sadness for your low self image and the need to create a personality to use here to make it seem ( in your mind) that someone agrees with and believes in you.. Sad, perhaps more sad is you talk to “eachother”…lol


Be well and if you ever really seek to have a mature conversation and debate one in which you can explain what you believe and support it and statments you make please do e-mail me..

Be well.:rub:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by PahansillyPahansiriParrot


.. Sad, perhaps more sad is you talk to “eachother”…lol



At least your worry will not be someone mistaking you for someone intelligent, or anyone else for that matter. ;)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk


At least your worry will not be someone mistaking you for someone intelligent, or anyone else for that matter. ;) :rub:

[Franko]

As planned my post got the response I knew it would… You are too easy, TLOP does not control you, I do…

Of course! Once again you have demonstrated what you always knew … I am merely a figment of your imagination – just like everyone and everything you perceive.

By the way there are meds to help with that mutable personality disorder.

Did you mean “multiple” o’great Solipsist?

I had no idea that you imagined I was on medication? What kind of medication do you imagine I am on?

As I have always said I respect you but feel sadness for your low self image …

Ohhh great One, you are simply too kind for words! Perhaps you shouldn’t devote so much of your valuable time and energy on a simple figment of your imagination?

Or perhaps you could just imagine my “problems” away since it is your mind that is creating them?

… and the need to create a personality to use here to make it seem ( in your mind) …

But great One, I don’t have a “mind”. Only You have a mind. If you are reading this post now, then you are just imagining me, and all of the others. Your subconscious creates this reality just as surely as it created this post.

… that someone agrees with and believes in you…

You seem to believe in “me”, but I think that deep down you realize that I don’t really exist. That is exactly why you behave the way that you do.

Sad, perhaps more sad is you talk to “each other”…lol

Very Sad, especially since only one of us exists to actually “talk”.

Be well and if you ever really seek to have a mature conversation and debate one in which you can explain what you believe and support it and statements you make please do e-mail me..

As soon as you imagine it, I have no choice but to comply.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Pahansiri Be well and if you ever really seek to have a mature conversation and debate one in which you can explain what you believe and support it and statements you make please do e-mail me..;) :rub:

[Franko]

So Pahansiri, why don't you show me how it is done?

Why don't you define "free will" for me?

[hammegk]

Please hold your breath in meditation until you receive my email to you. Mmm'kay? :rolleyes:

[jan]

Originally posted by Franko


Or perhaps the Individual who started the thread shouldn’t quote me, or direct his comments to me personally in the future?

[...]

These individuals know their argument cannot be made on its own merits so instead they are forced to appeal to the moderators for salvation.


Yes, I did quote you, and in a somewhat impolite manner perhaps. I also tend to agree with Hal that the occurence of derailation of a thread is something one has to accept. I'm fine with it. By the way, it was not me who PMed Hal. I am certainly flattered if somebody thinks this is such an excellent thread that it should be protected, but I guess me and also this thread can stand a lot of abuse and weirdness. And since Immaterialists (sorry, I mean Amaterialists of course) are kind of rare, I think I have to take all I can get.

Nevertheless I would say that your posts fail to address what I was trying to say. Instead it seems to me the word "will" serves as a trigger for you to pop up with your favourite subject. I guess perhaps we could need some more clarification of terms...

Ambitious Free Will
The concept of determinism is, as far as I know, not older than the 19th century. There have been Materialists before, Democrit for example, but as far as I know, there are no hints that Democrit ever considered the problems of Determinism, responsibility, guilt and free will. On the other hand, if you postulate a closed, deterministic world, as modern Materialism does, you run into some problems: how can it be fair if god punishes a sinner, if the sinner just follows the laws of physics? How can anybody be responsible for anything? How can mundane punishment be justified? That is, to be made responsible for something, is it necessary to be able to behave in a manner not completely described by the laws of physics? If you assume an immortal soul, the problems seems to vanish (it only seems to vanish: does the immortal soul obey some "Laws of Beyond"? Or does it behave erratic? Or is there a third possibility?).

Therefore, I would define an Ambitious Free Will as some kind of ability to behave in a way not determinated by the laws of physic. Obviously, from the stance of a Materialist, such an Ambitious Free Will doesn't exist: we obey TLOP, end of story (oh, by the way: if you need to demonstrate it, it should run like this: "according to materialism, everything obeys TLOP, therefore we obey TLOP"; your syllogism is, unfortunatly, a fallacy).

Modest Free Will
Nevertheless, although we are just some aggregations of atoms and nothing more, from a materialistic point of view, not all configurations of atoms are equal. Human beings show some traits the moon doesn't show, and I would say that it sounds perfectly sensible to try to have words at hand for some of those differences. Although human beings obey the laws of physics, they make decisions, like, for example, computers do computations, despite the fact that computers are just made out of atoms, while the moon, also made of atoms, doesn't output the results of computations. I would say that it would be very, very odd to claim that Modest Free Will doesn't exist (and perhaps this is the reason why you have so much trouble here: it is rather pointless to prove the inconsistency of Ambitious Free Will and Materialism to people who believe in Modest Free Will).

This still leaves it as an open problem what kind of Free Will you actually need for certain philosophical and metaphysical purposes. Indeed, this open problem has been discussed and is still discussed by many philosophers. Different Materialists solve it different.

I guess if people say "free will exists", what they mean is most of the times something like "modest free will is sufficient for all of my purposes".

[jan]

Originally posted by hgc
I'll admit to be overly jumpy about this particular bit of terminology, but I'm weary of the basic misunderstanding in general society of the nature of evolution.

I share these concerns. A better word than "purpose" would be welcomed.

Dennett has developed a philosphy that you are able to ascribe intentions to genes, you can say "the genes want to survive". He calls this the "Intentional Stance". Of course, the genes have no intention at all, and they don't want anything at all (after all, they are just abstractions). So Dennetts views are a bit misleading, confusing, and smell of instrumentalism. But I can see what he means: saying that the genes want to survive is misleading, but still a bit better than to say that animals have "an urge to preservate the species". If you follow Dennett, you can say things like "because the genes want to replicate, the animals want to have sex" or "because the genes have a kind of pseudo-intentionality, humans have real intentionality". It's similair to say "mother earth made it work that-and-that way". Of course there is no Big Mommy Gaia who made anything or wants anything. But sometimes such talking comes quite handy.

Originally posted by Kullervo
"Meaning" seems to arise from significance after being brought within the scope of language. It appears to require a social order to exist.

Animals behave as if they recognize signs, but we don't know that they use meaning, except perhaps in the case of Koko the gorilla.

To ask what the meaning of a thing is, is to ask what it signifies. If it does not signify, then it has no meaning.

How's that for a start?

I agree that this describes how the word "meaning" works in sentences like "the meaning of the word x is y". Usually, I have no trouble with this. But the phrase "meaning of life" is usually not used in a manner of talking about something signifying something else. Perhaps the term "meaning of life" is meaningless, since it doesn't signify anything?

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt


Really good stuff, Jan. At the same time, to say that 'the universe was not made/created willingly.' seems awkward to me. When I think of defining God(s), I usually think in terms of intentionality, by which I mean goal-directed effort, e.g., intentionality capable of abrogating natural law, with the intent of excluding such superfluous constructs as those posed by pantheism.

I'm sorry, but I have some trouble to understand you (it's late, forgive me). Could you repeat this, using more or different words?

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
The 'Laws of Physics' are human constructs, testable explanations that describe ever more closely what matter does. Matter does not obey the 'Laws of Physics' but, rather, the 'Laws of Physics' obey the dynamics/attributes of matter.

This one I understand. And agree.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jan


This one I understand. And agree.

I'll be darn. How do you employ the "matter" that is you to change TLOP?

(TLOP being the terrain, not our current math/physics map of that terrain.)

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by hammegk


I'll be darn. How do you employ the "matter" that is you to change TLOP? (TLOP being the terrain, not our current math/physics map of that terrain.) NO! TLOP is not the terrain. Matter is the terrain.

[Upchurch]

I like to think of the laws of physics as a consequence of, or even co-existant of, spacetime and matter/energy rather than the cause of spacetime and matter/energy.

But that's just conjecture.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Jan

If you follow Dennett, you can say things like "because the genes want to replicate, the animals want to have sex" or "because the genes have a kind of pseudo-intentionality, humans have real intentionality".
This is indeed interesting stuff, even though I often find some of the conclusions I arrive at a little disturbing.

You might say genes make us want to do things like have sex whether we want to want to or not. But it's hard to get serious about attributing anything remotely resembling the capacity to 'want' stuff to anything as inert as a sequence of nucleotide bases -- I can't go even as far as pseudo-intentionality.

I doubt if anyone really likes such explanations, but one way of explaining what we experience as desire or intent is as electro-chemical brain states. With us as little more than meat puppets dancing to genetically authored tunes, whatever intent we exhibit, it isn't ours (or maybe it's just that we can't be sure it's ours).

Genes themselves though, don't have anything under them to dictate their actions (except maybe for selection, but genes don't know anything about that). Doesn't matter anyway, since genes don't actually act at all; their effects are a result of them being acted upon -- but then, the same could be said of any element in the system; cells don't decide what tasks to perform, ribozomes don't make choices about what mRNA strands to read, etc. At any level, what happens is an inevitable consequence of what is happening at lower levels, elements at those levels blindly behaving in the only way they can, given their properties and structures. Billiard balls, all the way down (a tentative conclusion, based on a preponderance of the evidence).

From a practical standpoint, acting as if genes (and lots of other things) have intent (usually in the form of human-like intent) can not only be a reasonable working hypothesis, but it's way warmer and fuzzier.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
NO! TLOP is not the terrain. Matter is the terrain.

Boy you catch on fast. The only argument you will ever have is "matter exists" therefore, "matter exists". Well done!

[Franko]

NO! TLOP is not the terrain. Matter is the terrain.

Let’s make an analogy:

TLOP = The rules of Chess
Matter = The Chess board and Chess pieces

Now what you seem to be saying is that if we gave a bunch of chess boards and chess pieces to a bunch of people who had never played chess before that they would all develop/discover the rules of chess just from the board and the pieces alone.

If that is true then it implies that the rules of the game were inherent in (intrinsic to) the chess board and chess pieces.

Now lets imagine two situations:

1) there are two individuals who both know the official rules of chess, but don’t have a chess board or and chess pieces.

2) there are two individuals who possess a chess board and chess pieces, but have no idea about the official rules of chess.

I submit that one of these pairs of individuals will be able to play a game of chess by the official rules, and one will not. It’s the rules of chess that make chess - Chess, not the board or the pieces. If you know the rules you can imagine the board and pieces and play the game in your head. Just ask any grandmaster.

[Upchurch]

Allow me to make a better analogy:

Matter/Energy & Spacetime = jigsaw puzzle pieces
The laws of physics = how those pieces fit together

The laws of physics are what they are because matter, et al., is what it is. How a puzzle fits together is not independent of the puzzle pieces but determined by the pieces themselves. Likewise, the laws of physics and matter, et al., don't exist independently of each other. It is meaningless to speak of the laws of physics in the absence of matter, et al.

[hammegk]

And how do you answer the question, need "matter" exist for the logic of 1+1=2 in every integer base greater than binary to be TRUE?

Does the reality of "integers" depend on "matter"?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
And how do you answer the question, need "matter" exist for the logic of 1+1=2 in every integer base greater than binary to be TRUE?

Does the reality of "integers" depend on "matter"? Integers, like TLOP, are a human construct. No matter --> no humans --> no integers.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
Integers, like TLOP, are a human construct. No matter --> no humans --> no integers.
Nice assertion, anyway. The Magic 8 Ball says "unproven" (and of course still circular).

I do agree this topic brings the discussion nearer a crux for materialists & non-materialists alike.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Nice assertion, anyway. The Magic 8 Ball says "unproven" (and of course still circular). Circular how? It's not assuming materialism to prove materialism. It's asserting that without the material world "1+1=2" doesn't exist.

[Dymanic]

Considerable potential for misunderstanding arises from certain implications inherent in words like 'law' and 'obey'.

When we observe elements of the physical world behaving in certain ways with sufficient consistency, we say that 'the laws of physics are being obeyed'. The use of such terms involves considerable baggage -- deeply woven into the fabric of our language -- in the form of certain tacit assumptions that make sense only from a particular perspective, one which includes goals, authority structures, and systems of rewards and punishments. If indulged, these assumptions lead to absurd conclusions.

The rules of chess are arbitrary, having nothing whatever to do with the nature of the pieces (play it with rocks or blobs of jello if you like). For this reason, nothing about the rules of chess can be derived by observing the pieces -- on their own, they don't do anything. If it can be said that there are laws of chess, these would be in the form of observations about the way things work: "bishops are weak when a lot of squares of their color are occupied by pawns", or: "rooks are stronger when united" (though actually, the likelihood of exceptions to these render them too weak to deserve the term, 'law').

The fact that rooks are stronger when united on the same rank or file is not a result of their obedient conformance to some royal decree (TLOC I suppose it would be) but rather something that emerges as an inevitable consequence of the nature of rooks and the geometry of a chessboard.

[jan]

Originally posted by hammegk

I'll be darn. How do you employ the "matter" that is you to change TLOP?


Nobody claims that TLOP changes matter, and nobody claims that matter is able to change TLOP.

I do not know why it is possible to observe the results of laws at all. I admit that this is a problem. But this is a problem for Materialists, Immaterialists or Dualists, as long as they believe that things obey laws.

Originally posted by Dymanic
You might say genes make us want to do things like have sex whether we want to want to or not. But it's hard to get serious about attributing anything remotely resembling the capacity to 'want' stuff to anything as inert as a sequence of nucleotide bases -- I can't go even as far as pseudo-intentionality.

[...]

From a practical standpoint, acting as if genes (and lots of other things) have intent (usually in the form of human-like intent) can not only be a reasonable working hypothesis, but it's way warmer and fuzzier.

I think genes can't be identified with nucleotide bases, but fortunately, you wrote "sequences of nucleotide bases" - as I understand it, genes are abstractions, like a sentence is not the same as the ink on the paper.

So it is even more clear that genes can't do or want anything. And if we talk about what genes "want" and call this a useful (although not strictly true) way of talking (a bit like the Church considered Heliocentrism as something false, but useful to make predictions), I am not very happy with this kind of Instrumentalism. I want to know the real story, not how to talk nice. So I am not perfectly satisfied with Dennett's method to see intentions into things that don't have intentions (therefore I tried to split it into intentions and something I called "purposes").

Originally posted by hammegk
And how do you answer the question, need "matter" exist for the logic of 1+1=2 in every integer base greater than binary to be TRUE?

Does the reality of "integers" depend on "matter"?

I guess most people would agree that TLOP and our universe have a somewhat arbitrary nature mathematics lack. It is quite easy to imagine a universe with physical laws different from those observable in our universe, while it would be a great challenge to imagine a world with a different maths (I know, I know: there are plenty of different kinds of formal logics around, but I am talking about a world where you could start with the same rules of inference and the same set of axioms and where you could get to different conclusions). So it seems to be quite natural to assume that "1+1=2" is independent of any matter (it is still possible to doubt it, as Upchurch and hgc show). On the other hand, it is not very natural to assume that something like gravity has to exist in every possible universe. You have some kind of universe, and it shows some kind of behaviour, and I have no idea why it is this kind of universe showing this kind of behaviour (well, I do have some ideas, but unfortunatly, they are all rather metaphysical...)

Materialism has had some evolution since the days of Democrit. I would say that the main and primary concept is not the atom: "matter" means "that what is responsible for making our experiences lawfull". The electrons and protons are just a subsequent model how this matter (the thing itself, so to speak) works, and it is easy to see that they are not primary principles (since a materialist doesn't hesitate to replace the protons with smaller particles).

Originally posted by Dymanic
Considerable potential for misunderstanding arises from certain implications inherent in words like 'law' and 'obey'.

[...Explanation of 'law' and 'obey'...]


Thanks. That was a good clarification of terms. Now that is what I would call "on topic".

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by hammegk


Boy you catch on fast. The only argument you will ever have is "matter exists" therefore, "matter exists". Well done!
I haven't a clue what you're saying. In retrospect, this is a good thing, since it suggests that we have more in common than I would have thought. :D

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Jan

...as I understand it, genes are abstractions, like a sentence is not the same as the ink on the paper.
We are now staring the problem of the meaning of meaning right in the face.

Genes, like sentences, might be considered as elements within one system which correspond to elements in another, and which may trigger specific changes in the latter system if it treats them as symbols which map to its own local values. The method of encoding does not however, have to be explicit or intentional.

Dark clouds in combination with falling atmospheric pressure may mean that it is likely to rain, but they don't mean to mean that, and whether or not they do mean that depends entirely on their being used as variables with certain values within a system dedicated to predicting weather; absent that, they just are what they are.

One of the most interesting discussions in G.E.B. (I think it was GEB...wasn't it GEB? I can't seem to find it...) is one in which Hofstadter relates his efforts to defend a challenge brought by a student against his assertion that no intrinsic relationship exists between nucleotide bases and the amino acids they code for. Hofstadter had more or less stated flatly that the relationship is arbitrary, deriving entirely from their being interpreted as symbols by the ribozomes. Conceivably, in his view, the encoding could have been accomplished using some other chemical. The pesky student insisted that there must be something about nucleotide bases that made them the only possible choice. Hofstadter's defense is fascinating.

[jan]

It was "Metamagical Themas" (the other big book of Hofstadter), chapter 26.

Perhaps we should clarify the notion of genes? A natural way to think of them is to say that a gene is a specific sequence of nucleotide bases. But it is also possible to define a "gene" in a way that is independent of nucleotide bases. Remember, Mendel obviously hadn't any clue what nucleotide bases are, and he was nevertheless able to discover the genes. Therefore I was saying that I consider genes to be abstractions. On the other hand, if you think of them as sequences of nucleotide bases, they are quite concrete and material, and (unlike sentences) without meaning (but with a function?).

[Dymanic]

Clarifying the notion of genes may prove to be a fairly tough challenge.

What's interesting here is the way genes can be viewed from a number of different levels, their meaning being somewhat different on each level.

Since natural selection can't 'see' genes, acting only on whole organisms, the relevant context is that of an organism interacting with its environment. Mendel could be said to be looking at genes at a level below this, but to what extent it is proper to say that the traits he was looking at were the results of genes, or composites of genes, is not clear, at least when we make reference to 'genes' in the ordinary, somewhat casual way. Being able talk about 'genes for long legs' is convenient, but it is important to understand that this is a shorthand device, and that such a thing is more accurately described as the result of the collective effects of large numbers of genes. (Of course, a listener might hear, "jeans for long legs", and thereby become even more confused).

When talking about genes, we are more or less free to draw the line anywhere we want -- it's like talking about writings, or collections of writings. To further confuscate the matter is the fact that the genetic code appears rich in instances of 'multiple superimposed functionality', and 'frame dependent interpretation'. The former makes it hard to guarantee coherent explanations of what it is that individual genes (however you define that) are doing. The latter illustrates beautifully the fact that meaning resides as much in the decoding as it does in what is encoded -- the same sequence read from a different starting point produces a completely different series of amino acids.

[Peter Soderqvist]

A gene is an arbitrary piece of a chromosome, it is large enough to pass on heritage on germ lines, but not so large so its inheritance gets lost through meiotic shuffling, natural section works directly on the organism, and indirectly on genes, since a gene is a member in a gene-manship, and the genes programming the organism's behavior, so the organism can carry out the instruction, so natural selection can work on it! The "smaller" the brain is, the closer connection there is between genotype, and phenotypic behavior!

A sea elephant can have approximately 80 females in his harem, and he attacks every intruder who dares to invade his territory, but humans because of their "bigger" brains are busy in the main with cultural activity! Humans are more engaged with propagation of information, or pass on knowledge into next generation, than to spread genes, like the sea elephants do! Variation and selection are at work in nature, just as demand and supply is at work in societies! A beaver is an excellent builder of dams, but the beaver dams 50 thousand years ago, are build in a similar manner today, as they where then, compare that with a ancient human Mud-Hut from The Stone Age, in a Forest, with a modern Skyscraper in New York today, and you will see that; the human mind, differ a lot from the animal mind! :)

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

...humans because of their "bigger" brains are busy in the main with cultural activity! Humans are more engaged with propagation of information, or pass on knowledge into next generation, than to spread genes...
Danger...warning...sensors detect presence of unstated assumptions.

Throughout the animal kingdom there are examples of ritualized combat between males in competetion for females for the purpose of breeding. Such contests may be decided according to some system of rules. Often, these are limited to 'displays', stopping far short of actual death or injury to the participants. Human culture might be viewed as such a system -- significantly more complex and abstract, but nonetheless concerned primarily with the spreading of genes and the associated status posturing. Viewed as such, things like the erection of a skyscraper might be viewed as having an explicit (and rather simple) 'meaning'.

[jan]

Peter, I fail to see the point in your post!

Instead, I just see some exclamation marks!

[Dorian Gray]

NOT in terms of the Laws of Physics they aren’t. The fatal flaw with your entire line of reasoning is that you cannot prove we know all there is to know about physics. Therefore, you cannot prove that we are governed by TLOP. The best you can hope for is claiming that we are governed by what we know of TLOP so far.

For all you know, our current understanding of physics is equivalent in development to the belief that the sun revolves around the earth.

Are you implying that you are personally responsible for the behavior of certain subatomic particles? If this is true, then why haven’t you claimed Randi’s million dollar prize by demonstrating your Mind’s command over the “matter” and the laws of physics? Because everyone can do it, so it's not remarkable in any way. It is not surprising that someone as tunnel-visioned as yourself cannot even grasp the fact that simply exhaling can cause particles to move and eating can cause particles to interact. That is 'making decisions' about particles. I can choose to eat or not, and to breathe or not, therefore I can choose to manipulate particles or not.

As a Materialist I have no doubt that it is well beyond your ability to grasp or comprehend.

It would be analogous to attempting to explain genetic mutations role in evolution to a young earth creationist. It would be analagous to a completely insane person trying to convince a large mass of intelligent people of his theories by using selective and flawed reasoning and ignoring any contrary or conflicting evidence or arguments.

Okay, not analagous. That IS the situation.

If I am incorrect, perhaps you could give me an example of this “thing” you refer to which does not fall under the omnicontrolling, omnipresent Laws of Physics? If I am incorrect, perhaps you could provide proof that all current LOP are all there are and nothing further will ever be discovered.

Ohhh, but someone like us already does … Then why are you wasting your time here? You should be publishing works in all the peer-reviewed physics journals your amazing proof that all physics-related knowledge that has ever existed is now known, and that physicists should all quit and choose another profession.


Another thing to consider - why would matter and TLOP cause people to disagree? Nothing else that humans have deemed to be without sentience ever disagrees.

Another - what do TLOP have to say about concepts such as love, freedom, honor, etc.? Show how TLOP directly control such concepts.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
The fatal flaw with your entire line of reasoning is that you cannot prove we know all there is to know about physics.

Who makes such an assertion?

For at least some of us, TLOP is shorthand for the math-physics map of "what-is" to "perceived reality" that homo sap has at the moment.

Do you contend "reality" is defined by the "math"? I have never seen good disproofs of that idea that I recall. :D

[jan]

Originally posted by hammegk

For at least some of us, TLOP is shorthand for the math-physics map of "what-is" to "perceived reality" that homo sap has at the moment.


If TLOP is just the link between the thing itself and the perceived reality, how can TLOP rule anything? It would be the "what-is" instead, I would assume.

And if you concede that "TLOP" stands for those parts of the link man "has at the moment", it becomes even more puzzling how TLOP could be able to rule anything.

Also, I used to think that the "what-is" and the "perceived reality" is the same thing for you. Have you become a Materialist recently?

[Peter Soderqvist]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Danger...warning...sensors detect presence of unstated assumptions.

Throughout the animal kingdom there are examples of ritualized combat between males in competetion for females for the purpose of breeding. Such contests may be decided according to some system of rules. Often, these are limited to 'displays', stopping far short of actual death or injury to the participants. Human culture might be viewed as such a system -- significantly more complex and abstract, but nonetheless concerned primarily with the spreading of genes and the associated status posturing. Viewed as such, things like the erection of a skyscraper might be viewed as having an explicit (and rather simple) 'meaning'.

Soderqvist1: The utility function of DNA is to maximize DNA's survival!
The fabric of genes exerts phenotypic effects on the organism, and so makes the organism horny, since horny organisms are more eager to spread their genes. But why do humans refusing to have as many children as they are able to, and why do they use contraception, if genes are the " only rulers in New York"? Isn't this clear-cut evidence; that the New Yorkers, and others have a tendency to revolt against the selfish gene's dictatorship? :D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jan


If TLOP is just the link between the thing itself and the perceived reality, how can TLOP rule anything? It would be the "what-is" instead, I would assume.

And if you concede that "TLOP" stands for those parts of the link man "has at the moment", it becomes even more puzzling how TLOP could be able to rule anything.

Also, I used to think that the "what-is" and the "perceived reality" is the same thing for you. Have you become a Materialist recently?

Words are tricky aren't they? Look, 2 choices are: either TLOP are just the math-physics we currently have to guide us, or they refer to the the terrain itself, "what-is".

A third meaning is also available: TLOP refers to both -- math for materialists, as well as the actual terrain of "reality". Now stating the actual terrain of "reality" controls the physical for materialism -- that's the way it is. If you consider the math-physics "map", that aspect doesn't (necessarily) control anything -- unless you believe that math IS reality; if you get my drift.

Can we agree "what-is" is the terrain itself. Perceived reality is the third person view provided by our bags-of-bones (also part of perceived reality) that for myself I call *me*, as opposed to *I* that thinks (thinking being the only objective data point I'm sure of).

The only way I avoid solipsism is by gentlemens' agreement; *I* think, and so do the rest of you.

[Whomp]

I just know I'm stepping in it here, but why does this have to be so complex?
The "Laws" that we currently have are humanity's current best guesses about how matter interacts.
There is nothing that states that matter MUST behave this way, just that so far from our observations it seems to.

They are human constructs. Going back to the chessboard analogy, if we were to watch two people play chess for a time, we could postulate a set of "laws" that define the rules of chess.
But until we watched and studied long enough, our "laws" would likely be incomplete, because there are some non-intuitive rules that aren't used very often.

Just a thought.

Whomp!

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

Isn't this clear-cut evidence; that the New Yorkers, and others have a tendency to revolt against the selfish gene's dictatorship?
Making connections between causes and effects is always an ambitious undertaking, but when applied to the interplay between two such complex systems as human genetics and human society, clear-cut evidence is likely to be a particularly rare commodity.

It seems to me that you can do what you want, but you can't want what you want. A human being is a bundle of urges. These may be experienced as like inner voices. If you pay attention, you can almost watch these urges bubbling up from the electrochemical substrate, looking for words to use to announce their presence. If an urge is strong, and well-defined enough to be clearly expressed, resisting it may come at a cost of considerable discomfort (as anyone can testify who has ever had to give up smoking, or heroin, or a bad relationship). When a genetically driven urge is overruled, how can we know that it was not simply shouted down by an even stronger urge to do something else, that urge itself also a result of genetically driven behavior?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Whomp

I just know I'm stepping in it here, but why does this have to be so complex?
The "Laws" that we currently have are humanity's current best guesses about how matter interacts.
There is nothing that states that matter MUST behave this way, just that so far from our observations it seems to.

I think that why this has to be so complex goes directly to how our understanding about things is inevitably limited by the necessity of forcing fits to pre-defined categories. We already know what obeying the law means, so what is meant by obeying the laws of physics comes for free (or so we think -- without noticing that we think so).

Maybe a different analogy will help.

So a guy is driving down the road in his car, and he's obeying the posted speed limit. He does this because that is consistent with an internalized set of rules he has formed for what kind of person he is, and what is to his best advantage in the long run in terms of interacting successfully with others in the society he depends on for survival. Or maybe he just doesn't like to go fast because it's too scary. Whatever. So we might say that he has certain properties that emerge when he's driving that tend to cause him to observe the speed limit -- but we wouldn't ordinarily refer to these properties as laws. They're more like guidelines really. Without necessarily dissecting his motivations down to a genetic level, we could say, in simple terms, that he chooses to obey the law.

The car might also be said to have an internal speed limit, that being something that emerges as a product of the aerodynamics of its design, its power-to-weight ratio, etc. We could make detailed observations about the relationships between all these factors, and (expressing them mathematically) come up with an estimate of the vehicle's top speed.

Now the law says the speed limit is whatever it is, and all drivers must obey this law. This meaning of the word 'law' is the one that gets us into trouble (so to speak) when we start talking about the laws of physics. Attempting to derive a vehicle's top speed by any application of the word 'law', in this sense, is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

[jan]

Originally posted by hammegk


Words are tricky aren't they? Look, 2 choices are: either TLOP are just the math-physics we currently have to guide us, or they refer to the the terrain itself, "what-is".

A third meaning is also available: TLOP refers to both -- math for materialists, as well as the actual terrain of "reality". Now stating the actual terrain of "reality" controls the physical for materialism -- that's the way it is. If you consider the math-physics "map", that aspect doesn't (necessarily) control anything -- unless you believe that math IS reality; if you get my drift.

Can we agree "what-is" is the terrain itself. Perceived reality is the third person view provided by our bags-of-bones (also part of perceived reality) that for myself I call *me*, as opposed to *I* that thinks (thinking being the only objective data point I'm sure of).

The only way I avoid solipsism is by gentlemens' agreement; *I* think, and so do the rest of you.

Your post leaves me a bit puzzled. Dorian Gray was attacking the view of another well-known poster that TLOP rules, by stating that TLOP is just the map. You tried to refutate Dorian by claiming that TLOP is just the map. I replied with the remark that claiming that TLOP is just the map isn't such a good idea if you want to disprove that TLOP is just the map. Now you seem to say that TLOP can be interpreted as the map or as the territory. Well...




Dynamics,

I add to the list of clarified terms law and guideline.

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO DYNAMIC

Originally posted by Dymanic

Making connections between causes and effects is always an ambitious undertaking, but when applied to the interplay between two such complex systems as human genetics and human society, clear-cut evidence is likely to be a particularly rare commodity.

It seems to me that you can do what you want, but you can't want what you want. A human being is a bundle of urges. These may be experienced as like inner voices. If you pay attention, you can almost watch these urges bubbling up from the electrochemical substrate, looking for words to use to announce their presence. If an urge is strong, and well-defined enough to be clearly expressed, resisting it may come at a cost of considerable discomfort (as anyone can testify who has ever had to give up smoking, or heroin, or a bad relationship). When a genetically driven urge is overruled, how can we know that it was not simply shouted down by an even stronger urge to do something else, that urge itself also a result of genetically driven behavior?

Soderqvist1: what explanation do you have for your allegation that "a gene for curbing its self-propagation" has become dominant in the gene pool rather than recessive, when organisms with strong religious urge for celibate, etc, should fade away through the Arms Race competition? I mean we should suspect the opposite since genes' utility function is to maximize DNA's survival! Here is my references online, note my emphasis in bold type by me, that the E. O. Wilson is the founding father of Sociobiology, The New Synthesis!


The Selfish Gene By Richard Dawkins, Chapter 11: Memes The New Replicators
I think that Rose and his colleagues are accusing us of eating our cake and having it. Either we must be `genetic determinists' or we believe in `free will'; we cannot have it both ways. But -- and here I presume to speak for Professor Wilson as well as for myself -- it is only in the eyes of Rose and his colleagues that we are `genetic determinists'. What they don't understand (apparently, though it is hard to credit) is that it is perfectly possible to hold that genes exert a statistical influence on human behavior while at the same time believing that this influence can be modified, overridden or reversed by other influences. Genes must exert a statistical influence on any behavior pattern that evolves by natural selection.

Presumably Rose and his colleagues agree that human sexual desire has evolved by natural selection, in the same sense that anything ever evolves by natural selection. They therefore must agree that there have been genes influencing their sexual desires -- in the same sense as genes ever influence anything. Yet they presumably have no trouble with curbing their sexual desires when it is socially necessary to do so. What is dualist about that? Obviously nothing. And no more is it dualist for me to advocate rebelling `against the tyranny of the selfish replicators'. We, that is our brains, are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them. As already noted, we do so in a small way every time we use contraception. There is no reason why we should not rebel in a large way, too. It is our own species that really shows what cultural evolution can do. http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html

Life In the Universe Lecture By Stephen Hawking
This has meant that we have entered a new phase of evolution. At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information. But in the last ten thousand years or so, we have been in what might be called, an external transmission phase. In this, the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly.

But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage, has grown enormously. Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes. We may be no stronger, or inherently more intelligent, than our cave man ancestors. But what distinguishes us from them is the knowledge that we have accumulated over the last ten thousand years, and particularly, over the last three hundred. I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race.

There is no time, to wait for Darwinian evolution, to make us more intelligent, and better natured. But we are now entering a new phase, of what might be called, self designed evolution, in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. There is a project now on, to map the entire sequence of human DNA. It will cost a few billion dollars, but that is chicken feed, for a project of this importance
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html

[jan]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
What explanation do you have for your allegation that "a gene for curbing its self-propagation" has become dominant in the gene pool rather than recessive, when organisms with strong religious urge for celibate, etc, should fade away through the Arms Race competition?

Example of a successful "gene for curbing":

Suppose you are a young male in a tribe of social animals in which males gather harems. Now there are several possible strategies:

-Attac the oldest male (probably futile)
-Try to cheat (try to mate while the boss is absent)
-Wait your turn

The third possibility could be most successful, depending on circumstances.

How can life-long religious chastity be explained? Could be a pathological effect, or a genetically determinated urge going in the wrong direction ("wrong" in terms of self-propagation) due to circumstances that changed rapidly, or divine inspiration.

Besides, where did Dynamic use the term "gene for curbing"? Your quote makes it more likely that he (or she?) was talking about something like "if you are hungry, you forget sex" (or, more complicated: "If you care for your grandchildren, you forget sex").

And besides, what have the quotes of Dawkins or Hawkings to do with this?

[Peter Soderqvist]

What have your reply to do with it????

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

What explanation do you have for your allegation that "a gene for curbing its self-propagation" has become dominant in the gene pool rather than recessive, when organisms with strong religious urge for celibate, etc, should fade away through the Arms Race competition?
Actually I didn't say anything about "curbing". Evidently you got me confused with Richard Dawkins, whom (as you noted further down in your rather difficult to parse post) said: "Yet they presumably have no trouble with curbing their sexual desires when it is socially necessary to do so." And I especially like the part where he said: " What they don't understand [snip] is that it is perfectly possible to hold that genes exert a statistical influence on human behavior while at the same time believing that this influence can be modified, overridden or reversed by other influences." I didn't say any of that, but it is very much in the same spirit as what I did say. Confuse me with Dawkins anytime you like.

But I think you are getting rather ahead of things by correlating behaviors with genes so directly. I certainly don't see how we can go so far as to discuss them in terms of being dominant or recessive, and I would never make any such allegations.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Maybe we can sort things out here?
My contention is that genes as alleles compete with each other for a loci on a chromosomal spot! The gene on that locus is dominant, and its allele is recessive, and vice versa! Is this usage of dominant and recessive correct?

[whitefork]

A brief Entr'acte. Does anyone wish to hazard a guess as to what "will" means here?

Sonnet 135Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy 'Will,'
And 'Will' to boot, and 'Will' in overplus;
More than enough am I that vex thee still,
To thy sweet will making addition thus.
Wilt thou, whose will is large and spacious,
Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine?
Shall will in others seem right gracious,
And in my will no fair acceptance shine?
The sea all water, yet receives rain still
And in abundance addeth to his store;
So thou, being rich in 'Will,' add to thy 'Will'
One will of mine, to make thy large 'Will' more.
Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill;
Think all but one, and me in that one 'Will.'

Sonnet 136If thy soul check thee that I come so near,
Swear to thy blind soul that I was thy 'Will,'
And will, thy soul knows, is admitted there;
Thus far for love my love-suit, sweet, fulfil.
'Will' will fulfil the treasure of thy love,
Ay, fill it full with wills, and my will one.
In things of great receipt with ease we prove
Among a number one is reckon'd none:
Then in the number let me pass untold,
Though in thy stores' account I one must be;
For nothing hold me, so it please thee hold
That nothing me, a something sweet to thee:
Make but my name thy love, and love that still,
And then thou lovest me, for my name is 'Will.'

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

My contention is that genes as alleles compete with each other for a loci on a chromosomal spot! The gene on that locus is dominant, and its allele is recessive, and vice versa! Is this usage of dominant and recessive correct?
Not exactly, but you're pointed in the right direction. Chromosomes come in pairs. If the two alleles at a particular locus on the two chromosomes are the same, the organism is said to be homozygous for those alleles; and if they are different, heterozygous. A dominant allele is one that will be expressed if it appears on either chromosome, whereas a recessive one requires the presence of two like alleles to be expressed.

My larger point is that genes don't code for behaviors, they code for proteins. At any point, the particular behavior that achieves actual implementation is the current winner of a struggle between alternatives. Each of the alternatives is in turn a product of a massive number of neurons being in certain states (neurons which potentially might have been in other states). It represents a statistical trend among elements whose structures represent a statistical trend in the production of specific proteins at specific times in developing cells (cells which, had they instead been in slightly different states at those times, would have produced different proteins). But of course, this is simplifying things considerably (let's don't even get into protein folding).

We should consider ourselves extremely lucky if we are ever able to reach down inside all this chaos and complexity and make definitive statements about this or that gene coding for this or that behavior.

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO DYMANIC


You wrote 10-29-2003 02:29 PM: Not exactly, but you're pointed in the right direction.


Soderqvist1: Your answer is correct!


Chromosomes come in pairs.


Soderqvist1: yes in general, except in Haploids!


If the two alleles at a particular locus on the two chromosomes are the same, the organism is said to be homozygous for those alleles; and if they are different, heterozygous. A dominant allele is one that will be expressed if it appears on either chromosome, whereas a recessive one requires the presence of two like alleles to be expressed.


Soderqvist1: Yes, and unread genes are labeled recessive too!


10-22-2003 04:16 PM When a genetically driven urge is overruled, how can we know that it was not simply shouted down by an even stronger urge to do something else, that urge itself also a result of genetically driven behavior?

10-29-2003 02:29 PM: My larger point is that genes don't code for behaviors, they code for proteins.


Soderqvist1: This is not consistent!
My proposal is that; genes code directly for proteins, and thus indirectly for behavior!
One particular gene X influence all other genes in the organism, and all other genes influence gene X, in a pleiotropic interrelation, but under the condition that everything else in the gene's environment is equal, there are in the gene pool, particular genes which, when one of them are in "the chromosome 12 on locus X", have a higher probability than other genes to influence the phenotypic expression in a particular direction, say; brown eyes, or violent behavior, and various "eye color alleles" say green, black, etc competes with each other to reach that particular spot X.


At any point, the particular behavior that achieves actual implementation is the current winner of a struggle between alternatives. Each of the alternatives is in turn a product of a massive number of neurons being in certain states (neurons which potentially might have been in other states). It represents a statistical trend among elements whose structures represent a statistical trend in the production of specific proteins at specific times in developing cells (cells which, had they instead been in slightly different states at those times, would have produced different proteins). But of course, this is simplifying things considerably (let's don't even get into protein folding).


Soderqvist1: this is how I see it; the genes have a program, and the neurons - the thickness of cerebral cortex, especially the frontal part is (the processor)-. The bigger the processor is, the more able the processor is, to modify the organism's behavior!


We should consider ourselves extremely lucky if we are ever able to reach down inside all this chaos and complexity and make definitive statements about this or that gene coding for this or that behavior.


Soderqvist1: See my earlier illustration!
I have some books in my home about chaos, complexity, and nonlinear dynamics. James Gleick, Making a New Science, and 3 books by Stuart Kauffman, one of them is: Origins of Order, adaption on the edge of chaos! I have lot of books in my home, as a rule of thumb; my ideas stems in general from my bookcase, and close to never from the top off my head, frankly; I buy more books than I have time to read, the fact I have more books, than time to read them all, make me sad!

But I think that is something a voluptuous reader like me has to live with! :book:

Best regards :)

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

Yes, and unread genes are labeled recessive too!
No, it's really not the same thing. Introns as well as exons may be either homozygous or heterozygous. Non-coding segments of DNA aren't referred to as 'genes' anyway, that being defined by phenotypic effects.
My proposal is that; genes code directly for proteins, and thus indirectly for behavior!
I agree, with much emphasis on indirectly.

When I use the phrase, 'genetically driven behavior', think of a person driving a flock of ducks before him. I don't know if you have any experience herding ducks, but suffice it to say that while one may exert an influence over the path such a herd will take, that influence will fall far short of anything like actual control, and will at all times be very dependent on other factors such as local terrain and the whims of individual ducks which, for all practical purposes, may be considered random.

The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that behavior, human behavior in particular, is a complex composite of what might be called sub-processes, some co-operating with each other, some competing, and some of which are, in turn, composites of sub-sub-processes.

A behavior is not expressed in a phenotype any more than a melody is built in to the structure of a musical instrument. But an instrument may be designed and built in such a way as to make certain types of melodies easier to play, and others difficult or impossible. A simple, primitive behavior (like flinching when someone pokes a stick at your eye) may quickly produce predictable results by limiting the number of available choices, making it easier to say that this is an effect produced by this or that (or these or those) genes. But as the number of potential 'notes' increases, it becomes harder (either for us or the genes) to predict the results, and exactly what behavior is being coded for becomes less and less definable; at best we can only talk about types of behaviors being statistically influenced.

You mentioned pleiotropy, another example of the convoluted nature of the path from DNA to behavior (or any other phenotypic effect). Even if we can establish a connection between a particular DNA sequence and a particular effect, how do we prove that the same sequence can not have other, unknown effects?

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO DYMANIC


You wrote 10-30-2003 04:53 PM:
Soderqvist1: Yes, and unread genes are labeled recessive too!

Dymanic: No, it's really not the same thing. Introns as well as exons may be either homozygous or heterozygous. Non-coding segments of DNA aren't referred to as 'genes' anyway, that being defined by phenotypic effects.


Soderqvist1: I was too broad in my definition; I didn't mean the large stretches of inert unread chromosomes this kind of inertness are not the "recessive kind"! I mean that in the double helix, chromosome 12a, and 12b, loci X and Y. Hence X brown is dominant when Y is blue. Two recessive blue, one on X and one on Y is read. But what happens when other colors are involved say X black, and Y green? Something intermediary, or fractionally can be the outcome. Y is recessive when its reading ratio is lower than 50% or zero, as far as I have understood!


Soderqvist1: My proposal is that; genes code directly for proteins, and thus indirectly for behavior!

Dymanic: I agree, with much emphasis on indirectly.


Soderqvist1: Ditto!


When I use the phrase, 'genetically driven behavior', think of a person driving a flock of ducks before him. I don't know if you have any experience herding ducks, but suffice it to say that while one may exert an influence over the path such a herd will take, that influence will fall far short of anything like actual control, and will at all times be very dependent on other factors such as local terrain and the whims of individual ducks which, for all practical purposes, may be considered random.


Soderqvist1: genetic driven behavior is algorithmic!
Human strollers in a city doesn't know exactly what steps their feet has taken under the strolling either, because their feet has simply unconsciously carried out the algorithm, just as our hands do it by themselves when we write messages in this forum! Frankly, we lose our ability to write if we think too much about it, somehow the algorithm disturbs by conscious intervention! Just as school boys under oral exam who thinks too much about what to say, can suffer from tongue-tied-ness! The remedy is: don't think, do it!


The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that behavior, human behavior in particular, is a complex composite of what might be called sub-processes, some co-operating with each other, some competing, and some of which are, in turn, composites of sub-sub-processes.


Soderqvist1: Yes, the Turing machine carries out its algorithms!
Chaotic behavior like strolling is unpredictable, but walking from our home to our work is a volitional act, yet our particular steeps are still unpredictable, but our work is anyway consciously reached!


A behavior is not expressed in a phenotype any more than a melody is built in to the structure of a musical instrument. But an instrument may be designed and built in such a way as to make certain types of melodies easier to play, and others difficult or impossible. A simple, primitive behavior (like flinching when someone pokes a stick at your eye) may quickly produce predictable results by limiting the number of available choices, making it easier to say that this is an effect produced by this or that (or these or those) genes. But as the number of potential 'notes' increases, it becomes harder (either for us or the genes) to predict the results, and exactly what behavior is being coded for becomes less and less definable; at best we can only talk about types of behaviors being statistically influenced.


Soderqvist1: My proposal is that the genes exert phenotypic behavior, that behavior is more or less modified by the environment, for instance prenatal development need the environment!


You mentioned pleiotropy, another example of the convoluted nature of the path from DNA to behavior (or any other phenotypic effect). Even if we can establish a connection between a particular DNA sequence and a particular effect, how do we prove that the same sequence cannot have other, unknown effects?


Soderqvist1: I simply don't know!
But the sum is bigger than its component parts, in a complex system, because a complex system raises emergent properties, which cannot be found in its individual elements. For instance a vortex in your bathtub cannot be understood from the knowledge of the properties, of the molecules, which makes up the water! Because interaction between these indefinitely many molecules rises emergent properties (a vortex), which can only be understood on higher level, or order, namely, at the laws of fluid dynamics.

A single ant is considered as automaton and has only 6 ways to signalizing to his fellows, and is considered unconscious by the biologists. But interactions between ants in an anthill is very complex, for instance some ant species takes other ants as slaves, and some of these ants are "farmers" and cultivates fungus, and other keep aphids as domestics, and milking them, etc! These emergent properties cannot be found in a single ant's psychology, not in its physiology either! Natural selection made the human brain big, but most of our mental properties, and potentials may be emergent properties, as a consequence of building a device with such a structural complexity!

All this seems to suggest that consciousness is an emergent property, just as Hofstadter & Dennett has said in the Mind's I. Ants in the anthill, and neurons in the brain is analogous, and the anthill is an individual, eloquently named; Anthillary! It is a very well known fact that introversion wear down, or disturb a learned pattern, how can it be so if complexity generates consciousness; that the conscious decision to learn to write existed before the learned pattern, and that it is impossible to learn a complex task let's say writing without consciousness, but afterward when writing is learned and thus automaton, and we simply just do it by habit, the complex mental pattern cannot endure conscious awareness anymore?

I will be back at Monday!

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

genetic driven behavior is algorithmic!
I think the jury is still out on that -- certainly on whether all aspects of human behavior are algorithmic.

But what exactly is meant by algorithmic behavior anyway? Let's say that a fish has algorithms that govern the behavior of swimming. The actual behavior -- swimming -- is very dependent on the presence of water. Throw the fish up on the beach, and these same algorithms will produce very different results -- would we then say that we were observing the results of algorithms for 'flopping'? It's not enough to say that the behavior is modified by the water; the water is as much a part of the behavior as are the algorithms themselves.

Arguably the most distinctive feature of human behavior is its flexibility. A human can (quickly) improvise solutions to unique problems without (necessarily) having to reference a database of hard-wired responses (a database created through trial-and-error on the part of countless ancestors and stored as genetic information). Or, at least, while a response may be a composite which includes the influences of some such references, these serve more as guidelines than rules in an algorithmic sense when they form part of a complex behavior.

A modern human navigates an environment which includes many significant aspects far too recent in innovation to have become visible on an evolutionary timescale, yet he is sensitive to the subtlest of these nuances, formulating responses to situations neither he nor any of his ancestors may have ever encountered before. The treatment of specific details in such an environment as mere variables in an algorithmic decision-making process does not seem to me powerful enough to explain the full extent of human creativity and flexibility, because of limitations that arise from what I see as an unavoidable necessity to give such variables a predetermined scope. (Though this may amount to little more than an argument from personal incredulity on my part -- and also, I would consider such an explanation to have some value.)

You might be interested in Yerkes-Dodson law.