Light created Life

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Entropy applies to the over all order of a system, in the case of life, an animal eats and disorders organised plant life to survive, plants take order and disorder it, etc.
Wouldn't examples for entropy include the wealth of the suburbs being related to the problems of the cities, or the conditions in Europe verses the places it "sucked" resources from?

[wollery]

Wouldn't examples for entropy include the wealth of the suburbs being related to the problems of the cities, or the conditions in Europe verses the places it "sucked" resources from?No.

[Dancing David]

Wouldn't examples for entropy include the wealth of the suburbs being related to the problems of the cities, or the conditions in Europe verses the places it "sucked" resources from?

Great question LCL! And one that gets discussed on this board rather regularly. First off there is a difference between disorder and entropy, but is a technical one that I can't always explain well.

But what you are talking about is inequitable distribution of resources and economic imperialism.

Those activities generate entropy and rely upon it, there is still more disorder when the whole equation is over, things are spread farther apart than when they started.

[cyborg]

You can't apply thermodynamics to things in that way: I can write a two computer programs, one which is more 'orderly' than another but the operation of that program isn't going to have any thermodynamic significance at all.

[Dancing David]

Doesn't the creation of the computer and the operation of the computer create more entropy? (Not that the programs do more or less)

[cyborg]

What has that got to do with it?

All actions increase entropy - that is unavoidable.

The point here is that one cannot take a higher order concept of 'order' and apply it willy-nilly to thermodynamics.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

All actions increase entropy - that is unavoidable.

So entropy is the dispersal of energy? Is that like saying that that the force of the big bang will eventually reach its limit? Thin out to nothing?
And why shouldn't evolution have a direction? Isn't the process riding on the force of the big bang? Unfolding as the conditions permit?

[Jimbo07]

And why shouldn't evolution have a direction?

That's an interesting question. Without going through the depths of this thread, has someone answered this?

Would it be fair to say that evolution could have a direction, just not a map?

[wollery]

Evolution goes where circumstance takes it. In some cases lifeforms become simpler, losing functions which are unnecessary and sometimes a hindrance.

The koala, for instance, with no natural predators, and a single abundant food-source has lost a huge amount of brain capacity. It doesn't need to think, and brains use up a lot of energy. It got dumber, because brains weren't needed, and just became an unnecessary drain on it's energy resources.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Evolution goes where circumstance takes it. In some cases lifeforms become simpler, losing functions which are unnecessary and sometimes a hindrance.

The koala, for instance, with no natural predators, and a single abundant food-source has lost a huge amount of brain capacity. It doesn't need to think, and brains use up a lot of energy. It got dumber, because brains weren't needed, and just became an unnecessary drain on it's energy resources.
So evolution is tied to the conservation of energy? Oh, the most efficient systems survive. Why wouldn't a brain.... never mind.
And slightly off topic, but do you think that the size of the dinosaurs had anything to do with the amount of energy available to them?

[cyborg]

So entropy is the dispersal of energy? Is that like saying that that the force of the big bang will eventually reach its limit? Thin out to nothing?

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

Did it ever occur to you at any point when you decided to go on an extended run of making stuff up that sounds good to you to, you know, maybe do some research on the stuff you're talking about?

And why shouldn't evolution have a direction?

Because it doesn't.

Isn't the process riding on the force of the big bang? Unfolding as the conditions permit?

What's that got to do with anything? (Clue: bugger all).

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

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

Did it ever occur to you at any point when you decided to go on an extended run of making stuff up that sounds good to you to, you know, maybe do some research on the stuff you're talking about?
But then you wouldn't be able to feel noble when slapping me across the face with what I don't know... thanks... this is going to take me a minute.


Because it doesn't.
Hey, no problem... that convinces me.


What's that got to do with anything? (Clue: bugger all).
:confused:
Lets say it has nothing to do with it, isn't it?

[cyborg]

But then you wouldn't be able to feel noble when slapping me across the face with what I don't know... thanks... this is going to take me a minute.

The problem is not what you know - it's the fact that despite it being pointed out how much you don't know you persist with silly ideas.

Hey, no problem... that convinces me.

As I told you before only the winners matter.

Does it really make a difference how big my brain is if I get killed by a simple little bacterium?

Evolution sure doesn't give a ****.

Lets say it has nothing to do with it, isn't it?

It's certainly not relevant.

[Dancing David]

What has that got to do with it?

All actions increase entropy - that is unavoidable.

The point here is that one cannot take a higher order concept of 'order' and apply it willy-nilly to thermodynamics.

i was sort of saying that, the processes labeled as 'ordered' are dependant upon entropy and create it at every juncture.

[Dancing David]

That's an interesting question. Without going through the depths of this thread, has someone answered this?

Would it be fair to say that evolution could have a direction, just not a map?

This has been aswered, LCL seems to want there to be this progressive ordering of the world and has not understood the refferenxces to the meandering nature of evgolution.

the only direction evolution has is reproductive success.

[Dancing David]

So evolution is tied to the conservation of energy? Oh, the most efficient systems survive. Why wouldn't a brain.... never mind.

No not efficient, not ordered, not progress towards a goal.

Just reproductive success, remember a trait may be very detrimental to the individual, but will be carried if it leads to reproductive success.

Like cholera, it kills it's host which is not very efficient at all. But the method that kills the host also allows it to spread and reproduce.

And slightly off topic, but do you think that the size of the dinosaurs had anything to do with the amount of energy available to them?

No more than elephants.

[wollery]

So evolution is tied to the conservation of energy? Oh, the most efficient systems survive. Why wouldn't a brain.... never mind.
And slightly off topic, but do you think that the size of the dinosaurs had anything to do with the amount of energy available to them?

:bwall

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No not efficient, not ordered, not progress towards a goal.
Now I understand that if it was an accident, it started because it just happened. But, because it "happened" it moves in the direction of whatever just so happened. Is that what you all are getting at?

No more than elephants.
Even elephants have slimmed down compared to their ancestors. Does life "strive" for the most efficient form? That would mean that the reason that sharks and others did not change because they had the best form for the job.

[cyborg]

But, because it "happened" it moves in the direction of whatever just so happened. ...

Does life "strive" for the most efficient form?

Do not think, "life strives towards being more efficient," think, "in a competition would being more efficient mean you'd win more often?"

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

:bwall
[quote]

[quote]Just reproductive success, remember a trait may be very detrimental to the individual, but will be carried if it leads to reproductive success.
I am thinking, fine, some pandas stop thinking, but that does not lessen the chances of the thinking versions of pandas to survive. Doing bad times, it may have even developed in the direction of eating the more stupid version, only, most animals know/feel that that is wrong.

[Dancing David]

[quote=wollery;2827467]:bwall
[quote]

I am thinking, fine, some pandas stop thinking, but that does not lessen the chances of the thinking versions of pandas to survive. Doing bad times, it may have even developed in the direction of eating the more stupid version, only, most animals know/feel that that is wrong.


Um, I think you messed up the quotes there. I made a similar statement.

The point is this, in evolution/natural selection it all comes down to reproductive success. So if a thinking panda has more babies that is great. If a thinking panda has the same number of babies great. If the thinking panda has less babies, it might mean less reproductive success, or it might not , because the traits of the children in having reproductive success are very important.

The point is this traits which are not detrimental or beneficial to reproductive success will be passed on, but those that benefit reproductive success will get passed on more often.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Do not think, "life strives towards being more efficient," think, "in a competition would being more efficient mean you'd win more often?"
You win enough to survive, yes.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

[quote=lightcreatedlife@hom;2829823][quote=wollery;2827467]:bwall



Um, I think you messed up the quotes there. I made a similar statement.

The point is this, in evolution/natural selection it all comes down to reproductive success. So if a thinking panda has more babies that is great. If a thinking panda has the same number of babies great. If the thinking panda has less babies, it might mean less reproductive success, or it might not , because the traits of the children in having reproductive success are very important.

The point is this traits which are not detrimental or beneficial to reproductive success will be passed on, but those that benefit reproductive success will get passed on more often.
Why did less thinking lead too such success that the thinking version died out? Unless the genes of the stupid version was stronger than the smart version, the smart version such have been able to outwit its dumber rivals to reproduce.

[Dancing David]

[quote=Dancing David;2829973][quote=lightcreatedlife@hom;2829823]Why did less thinking lead too such success that the thinking version died out? Unless the genes of the stupid version was stronger than the smart version, the smart version such have been able to outwit its dumber rivals to reproduce.

I will try to parse out what you wrote, but it is unclear.

Who said what about a less thinking form doing what?

It doesn't matter if you are smart or dumb, unless it benefits your reproductive success.

There is no 'outsmarting' rivals, you can be smart all you want, if you don't reproduce then you don't reproduce.

It is not the genes that are strong, it is the interplay of expressed traits in the environment.

Take dominance in chimps, in particular male chimps. For many generation males who were obsessed with their own power looked at the dominant chimps and thought "That dominant male chimp must be the one getting all the female chimps.” such an obvious thing.

And then some smart person decided that observing chimps is better than making broad generalizations that are based upon thoughts and not evidence.

Turns out that the submissive chimp is having sex more often than the dominant ones. In horses, yes the dominant male horse controls the harem of females, and at a high cost. So yes dominant male horses are more likely to reproduce, but in chimp society it is different and the same sort of traits does not lead to greater reproductive success.

Same for smarts, you can be smart and reproduce; you can be dumb and not reproduce. You can be smart and not reproduce and you can be dumb and reproduce. It all depends on the interplay of environment and expressed traits.

[wollery]

[quote=Dancing David;2829973][quote=lightcreatedlife@hom;2829823]Why did less thinking lead too such success that the thinking version died out? Unless the genes of the stupid version was stronger than the smart version, the smart version such have been able to outwit its dumber rivals to reproduce.I'll try to keep it simple.

Once there were no natural predators for the koala and it had started to eat only one type of food (eucalyptus leaves) it no longer had to think to survive. There was no need for it to evade predators, and it didn't have to decide what was good or bad to eat. This leaves the koala with just two things to do in life. Eat and procreate. Since a larger brain requires more energy the koalas with smaller brains didn't need to eat as much and could spend more time procreating. It isn't a huge advantage in the procreation stakes, but it's enough.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

[quote=lightcreatedlife@hom;2830645][quote=Dancing David;2829973]I'll try to keep it simple.

Once there were no natural predators for the koala and it had started to eat only one type of food (eucalyptus leaves) it no longer had to think to survive. There was no need for it to evade predators, and it didn't have to decide what was good or bad to eat. This leaves the koala with just two things to do in life. Eat and procreate. Since a larger brain requires more energy the koalas with smaller brains didn't need to eat as much and could spend more time procreating. It isn't a huge advantage in the procreation stakes, but it's enough.
That's simple enough, the bold face is alittle much, but okay.
So it dumbed down enough to fit the circumstances, and allow the lifeform to remain viable. Why do you think sharks and alligators kept their form again?

[Dancing David]

That's simple enough, the bold face is alittle much, but okay.
So it dumbed down enough to fit the circumstances, and allow the lifeform to remain viable. Why do you think sharks and alligators kept their form again?


Because their others were at the cleaners?

Why should they change, if they have reproductive success , that is all that matters.

[wollery]

That's simple enough, the bold face is alittle much, but okay.
So it dumbed down enough to fit the circumstances, and allow the lifeform to remain viable. Why do you think sharks and alligators kept their form again?Because they have not yet had any mutations which were advantageous, they fill their niche in the ecosystem.

[Solus]

Wow! In just another month nearly, it will be the one year anniversary of this thread's creation. Anyone bringing a cake? :p

[Tricky]

Wow! In just another month nearly, it will be the one year anniversary of this thread's creation. Anyone bringing a cake? :p
We should make on in one of those old EZ-Bake Ovens that used to be a kid's toy. They use a light bulb to cook.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Because their others were at the cleaners?

Why should they change, if they have reproductive success , that is all that matters.
That can't be the only reason. Mutations should not care if the lifeform is good with what its has.

[cyborg]

That can't be the only reason.

It is.

Mutations should not care if the lifeform is good with what its has.

They don't.

[RandFan]

80+ pages and 3200+ posts. Wow.

[wollery]

That can't be the only reason. Mutations should not care if the lifeform is good with what its has.The question isn't whether the lifeform is good as it is, but whether the mutation improves it's reproductive success. If none of the mutations that occur in that species improve the reproductive success then the species will not change noticeably (although there may well be some phenotype changes).

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'm see studying this.

[wollery]

Wow, you wait more than a month to post a 4 word sentence that makes no grammatical sense!

[Apathia]

Wow, you wait more than a month to post a 4 word sentence that makes no grammatical sense!

And just in time for the anniversary of this thread began on the 10th of September 2006.

In hornor of the occiasion. I present Richard Carpenter's lyrics to the fatally prophetic song, Crescent Noon.

Green September burned to October brown,
Bare November led to December's frozen ground.
The seasons stumbled 'round
our drifting lives are bound
to a falling Crescent Noon.

Feather clouds cry a vale of tears to earth,
Morning breaks and no one sees a quiet mountain birth.
Dressed in a brand new day
the sun is on it way
to a falling Crescent Noon.

You and I were born like the breaking day,
All our seasons all our green Septembers burn away.
Slowly we'll fade into
a sea of midnight blue
and a falling Crescent Noon.

[Complexity]

I'm see studying this.


Well, you, like, need to study a lot more.

First, throw out what you think you've learned so far.

[Dancing David]

That can't be the only reason. Mutations should not care if the lifeform is good with what its has.

Your right, muations don't care but those that lead to reproductive success are passed on more often, those that are a detrimental to reproductive success are passed on less frequently. Most are neutral.

[sts60]

I'm going to take an uninformed guess that there are three kinds of "neutral" mutations.

1. Those that are truly neutral in that no detectable change in the organism occur as a result, e.g., same shape/size of body and parts, no change in immunity to whatever, doesn't gain ability to metabolize something, etc.

2. Those that are neutral in one habitat or environment but are deleterious if the organism were placed in another environment that would otherwise not pose a problem.

3. Those that tend to be slightly beneficial or slightly harmful, but the effects lie in a "deadband" so that they are effectively neutral.

Does that make any sense? Any experts care to comment?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Wow, you wait more than a month to post a 4 word sentence that makes no grammatical sense!
Sorry, I meant to say "still" but you are not surprised, are you?
What I think, and what I type is not always the same thing. I didn't want to pick a fight, but I couldn't find the thread anymore.

And just in time for the anniversary of this thread began on the 10th of September 2006.
I didn't know that, but I am only mildly surprised, coincidences are my life.

In hornor of the occasion. I present Richard Carpenter's lyrics to the fatally prophetic song, Crescent Noon.

Green September burned to October brown,
Bare November led to December's frozen ground.
The seasons stumbled 'round
our drifting lives are bound
to a falling Crescent Noon.

Feather clouds cry a vale of tears to earth,
Morning breaks and no one sees a quiet mountain birth.
Dressed in a brand new day
the sun is on it way
to a falling Crescent Noon.

You and I were born like the breaking day,
All our seasons all our green Septembers burn away.
Slowly we'll fade into
a sea of midnight blue
and a falling Crescent Noon.
That's nice, thanks for marking the occasion.

Well, you, like, need to study a lot more.

First, throw out what you think you've learned so far.

Sorry sir, I can't do that.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Sorry sir, I can't do that.

still working

[Cosmo]

Ahhhhh! Thread necromancy!

[Belz...]

No!! No!!! Let It Die!!! LET IT DIE!!!!


Edit: why the hell does the forum remove my all caps, all of a sudden ?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Ahhhhh! Thread necromancy
The search feature does not work above page 11, and I have to study. Don't worry... I want to forget my first try. See? No shooting.

[immaterial]

All actions increase entropy - that is unavoidable.



In that case we would have an universal law saying "entropy always increases". Which is the same as saying that temperature always drops. Which again would mean that temperature would never be able to rise above absolute zero. That's neither logical nor what we see when we look at the world.

Try this instead: all motion is cyclic and oscillates between entropic and negentropic activity. Building up/tearing down, integrating/disintegrating, heating/cooling, expanding/contracting. That's what we see out there in the real world.

im

[immaterial]

Why should they change, if they have reproductive success , that is all that matters.

Reproductive succes alone makes no sense, there must be a reason for wanting to reproduce also. An inner motivating force. If you watch your own activities, you'll see that anything you do without exception is inspired by some kind of emotional or sensual movitation. Just watch the emotions that motivate you to reply to this post.

That's true for all life - all activity is inspired by emotional or sensual (or in humans, spiritual) satisfaction. And whatever created life built into it the desire for survival and reproduction, because it wanted it to grow and evolve. Sexual desire and satisfaction - making the act necessary for reproduction attractive and rewarding - is per design. No being would want to have sex if it wasn't joyful. No being cares to do anything that doesn't provide some kind of satisfaction.

Same goes for food - no being would want to eat if the act of eating did not provide sensual and emotional satisfaction. Why do women feel joy by having their breast nipples sucked (some can even get an orgasm from it)? An accident? No, it's per clever design - it's the reward you get for nursing your children, one of the motivating forces. Humans have just learned to expand this potential source of joy into becoming a part of the sexual act also.

Joy and satisfaction is the motivating forces behind all the activities of life, and is used as such to suistain life and ensure reproduction. When people find no joy in anything, they become apathic, depressed. In extreme cases they commit suicide. A person who is happy with his life would never commit suicide - he is in contact with those natural inner desires that are supposed to keep life growing and evolving.

Why all this have never become part of evolutionary theory is a mystery to me. It really is so obvious, when you think about it.

im

[bruto]

Reproductive succes alone makes no sense, there must be a reason for wanting to reproduce also. An inner motivating force. If you watch your own activities, you'll see that anything you do without exception is inspired by some kind of emotional or sensual movitation. Just watch the emotions that motivate you to reply to this post.

That's true for all life - all activity is inspired by emotional or sensual (or in humans, spiritual) satisfaction. And whatever created life built into it the desire for survival and reproduction, because it wanted it to grow and evolve. Sexual desire and satisfaction - making the act necessary for reproduction attractive and rewarding - is per design. No being would want to have sex if it wasn't joyful. No being cares to do anything that doesn't provide some kind of satisfaction.

Same goes for food - no being would want to eat if the act of eating did not provide sensual and emotional satisfaction. Why do women feel joy by having their breast nipples sucked (some can even get an orgasm from it)? An accident? No, it's per clever design - it's the reward you get for nursing your children, one of the motivating forces. Humans have just learned to expand this potential source of joy into becoming a part of the sexual act also.

Joy and satisfaction is the motivating forces behind all the activities of life, and is used as such to suistain life and ensure reproduction. When people find no joy in anything, they become apathic, depressed. In extreme cases they commit suicide. A person who is happy with his life would never commit suicide - he is in contact with those natural inner desires that are supposed to keep life growing and evolving.

Why all this have never become part of evolutionary theory is a mystery to me. It really is so obvious, when you think about it.

im

That's a very anthopocentric viewpoint, as well as assuming design where evolution would at least as easily explain the gradual development of rewards and satisfactions associated with useful actions. We have no reason to believe that reproductive urges in other animals or plants require a degree of motivation greater than the instinctual need to do it followed by doing it. I have never seen a depressed apple tree or an apathetic (I assume that's the word you meant above) woodchuck, or a suicidal squash. It is entirely speculative to suggest that the term "wanting" applies in any meaningful way to hydras, peaches, wasps or axolotls, and it's arguable even the degree to which it applies to dogs and horses and even, when it comes right down to it, people. It's not so difficult to suppose that we'd "do it" out of sheer biological pressure, even if it were not emotionally rewarding, just as we will eat horrible, disgusting, unpleasant stuff if we are hungry enough.

[Dancing David]

Hiya IM welcome to the forum!

Reproductive succes alone makes no sense, there must be a reason for wanting to reproduce also.

Sexual desire and gratification would seem to improve the chance of reproductive success.
An inner motivating force.

No reason that can’t be the product of natural selection.

If you watch your own activities, you'll see that anything you do without exception is inspired by some kind of emotional or sensual movitation. Just watch the emotions that motivate you to reply to this post.

Another possible product of natural success.



That's true for all life - all activity is inspired by emotional or sensual (or in humans, spiritual) satisfaction.

I am not sure that amoebas are hedonistic.

And whatever created life built into it the desire for survival and reproduction, because it wanted it to grow and evolve.

Really , how so?

Sexual desire and satisfaction - making the act necessary for reproduction attractive and rewarding - is per design.

that design could be natural selection.

No being would want to have sex if it wasn't joyful. No being cares to do anything that doesn't provide some kind of satisfaction.

More assertion.


Same goes for food - no being would want to eat if the act of eating did not provide sensual and emotional satisfaction.

Uh huh, do amoebas taste or enjoy the taste?

Why do women feel joy by having their breast nipples sucked (some can even get an orgasm from it)? An accident? No, it's per clever design

Could be that pesky natural selection as well.

- it's the reward you get for nursing your children, one of the motivating forces. Humans have just learned to expand this potential source of joy into becoming a part of the sexual act also.

Joy and satisfaction is the motivating forces behind all the activities of life

Assertion.

, and is used as such to suistain life and ensure reproduction. When people find no joy in anything, they become apathic, depressed. In extreme cases they commit suicide.

more assertions, I can find joy when I have suicidal ideation. Please learn before you speak more.

A person who is happy with his life would never commit suicide - he is in contact with those natural inner desires that are supposed to keep life growing and evolving.

Please don’t become a crisis worker. Most people are motivated by escaping pain.


Why all this have never become part of evolutionary theory is a mystery to me. It really is so obvious, when you think about it.

im

The obvious is merely your assertion.

:)



[rocketdodger]

I would just like to say that this thread has generated the most awesome phrases I have seen in a while:

-hedonistic amoebas

-depressed apple

-apathetic woodchuck

-suicidal squash

[H'ethetheth]

And just in time for the anniversary of this thread began on the 10th of September 2006.

In horror of the occiasion... There, fixed it for you!

[cyborg]

Reproductive succes alone makes no sense, there must be a reason for wanting to reproduce also.

If I do not exist but desire to exist then I will not exist in the future.
If I do not exist and desire not to exist then I will not exist in the future.
If I exist but desire not to exist then I will not exist in the future.
If I exist and desire to exist then I may exist in the future.

If I do not exist now and do not exist later I will not exist later.
If I do not exist now and exist later I will exist later.
If I exist now and do not exist later I will not exist later.
If I exist now and exist later I will exist later.

Existence is its own reason. You impose desire on it later.

[bruto]

When lovers consummate desire,
It often stirs imagination:
That all the world shares passion's fire
And love embraces all creation.

But sex serves well for those not born,
Scattered and spawned where seed has fallen.
Desire is as alien to the corn
As to the ruthless wind that bears its pollen.

Metaphor's a blunt edged tool,
Best left to lovers, bards and fools.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

that design could be natural selection.
Evolution is a natural design.




Please don’t become a crisis worker. Most people are motivated by escaping pain.
There is some joy in escaping pain.

[bruto]

Evolution is a natural design.




There is some joy in escaping pain.

So if you have a headache, and know the aspirin will only remove 90 percent of the pain, and do nothing for the weather, your rotten relative, the barking dog next door, or the cost of living, do you say, "no joy in that," and toss the aspirin?

There may be joy in escaping pain, but it is generally enough motivation to escape pain even if the result is neutral, joyless, or even simply somewhat less painful. To say that joy motivates everything requires real tunnel vision.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

There may be joy in escaping pain, but it is generally enough motivation to escape pain even if the result is neutral, joyless, or even simply somewhat less painful. To say that joy motivates everything requires real tunnel vision.
Maybe not everything, but it seems a prime mover. And I dare say that (for humans at least) seeking joy is on par with avoiding pain. Some people even seek joy through pain. Isn't it the threat of pain that adds the thrill/joy to rock climbing, hunting, sky diving and all the others potentially painful things that people seek out when they don't have to. One of the joys of shared experience is to be able to laugh when the odds are very long against having any such feeling.
"I don't know how, but we made it!"

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

In that case we would have an universal law saying "entropy always increases". Which is the same as saying that temperature always drops. Which again would mean that temperature would never be able to rise above absolute zero. That's neither logical nor what we see when we look at the world.

Try this instead: all motion is cyclic and oscillates between entropic and negentropic activity. Building up/tearing down, integrating/disintegrating, heating/cooling, expanding/contracting. That's what we see out there in the real world.

im
Could I add living/dying? I mean... isn't life a cyclic motion?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If I do not exist but desire to exist then I will not exist in the future.
If I do not exist and desire not to exist then I will not exist in the future.
If I exist but desire not to exist then I will not exist in the future.
If I exist and desire to exist then I may exist in the future.
Some things do exist, even though they don't desire to.

Existence is its own reason.
Are you saying that living things seek to exist because they do exist?
You impose desire on it later.
Humans just think that there is some type of desire behind it?

[cyborg]

Are you saying that living things seek to exist because they do exist?

No. I'm saying that in the world of things today that do exist only those that seek to exist will exist in the world of things tomorrow.

Humans just think that there is some type of desire behind it?

Well duh. That's the MO of our brains but not the MO of the universe.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No. I'm saying that in the world of things today that do exist only those that seek to exist will exist in the world of things tomorrow.
You must be talking about lifeforms... right? We both know that rocks don't seek to exist. But if you are talking about life, you are saying that it has a purpose-to exist.


Well duh. That's the MO of our brains but not the MO of the universe.
We are a product of the universe. Humans are "keyed" to recognize patterns because they are a product of a patterned process.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

That's a very anthopocentric viewpoint, as well as assuming design where evolution would at least as easily explain the gradual development of rewards and satisfactions associated with useful actions.
Evolution is the design. I don't understand why intelligent design does not apply to evolution? Even if its workings came about due to a "cosmic accident," it still fits the bill an elegant, patterned, process.
And why, if intelligent design is in reference to a being, is it not referred to as "Intelligent designed."

[Cosmo]

Evolution is the design. I don't understand why intelligent design does not apply to evolution? Even if its workings came about due to a "cosmic accident," it still fits the bill an elegant, patterned, process.
And why, if intelligent design is in reference to a being, is it not referred to as "Intelligent designed."

:bwall

[bruto]

Evolution is the design. I don't understand why intelligent design does not apply to evolution? Even if its workings came about due to a "cosmic accident," it still fits the bill an elegant, patterned, process.
And why, if intelligent design is in reference to a being, is it not referred to as "Intelligent designed."

I would argue that the pattern is a result, not a cause. Patterns emerge without intelligent input. It's part of the wonder of the way chaotic and ungoverned systems evolve. The process certainly is elegant, but not itself patterned.

As for your last question, I guess you'd have to ask the bozos who coined the term.