changin' ur genes

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by gamelord, Jun 6, 2018.

  1. Vmedvil Registered Member

    Messages:
    94
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    Maybe it's my short attention span, but two things strike me about that article:
    1] The title is in the form of a question. There's an adage that says: if a news article has a question mark at the end, you can bet the short answer to that question is 'no'.
    2] I scrolled through and after screen of transcript of patient and doctor. Is there any hard content, or is the whole article one big appeal to emotion?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Trust me, I'm a hard atheist. But that does not exclude the concept of a natural pseudo-intelligent function, based on the inherent "existing" universal potentials and spacetime mathematical geometry (patterns).

    What happens when we change the term to "MPID" (mathematical pseudo-intelligent design).

    I just think that there is a kind of ingrained human bias (myopia) when it comes to defining "evolution" and "natural selection". It ain't magic! It's mathematical in essence.

    In fact, I believe the definitions tends to support the notion that, while there is no "intent", the combination of both natural phenomena create a form of "pseudo-intelligence", which may well be considered an inherent natural programming language on which all of the current universe (spacetime) is operating.

    No external manipulation. When we begin to speak of "patterns", we're talking pure mathematics and I don't mean human mathematics or any kind of intentional designer or helping hand.

    It was inevitable that all the original potential created during the BB would become expressed in physical form (patterns), given sufficient time and spatial resources. (Hazen proposes that every natural pattern we encounter in electro/magnetism and (bio)-chemistry on earth, has a high probability of forming throughout the entire universe, given the right necessary conditions.

    The construct (and local conditions) itself determine the inherent mathematical functions. Which we continue to discover.

    I find it odd that you would chide me for suggesting that the natural imperative of "necessity and sufficiency" and "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" constitute mathematical formulas essential to expression of universal natural potentials inherent in spacetime since the beginning.

    IMO, universal phenomena are probabilistic (a mathematical function), not by chance (random).
    Given sufficient time and spatial resources the evolutionary explication of all universal potentials and processes will eventually become expressed in physical reality.

    Let's just start with the definitions and see if they meet the required criteria for a continuing spontaneous specialization, honing and refinement of species for successfully coping with specific environments.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    Evolution is random and creates an enormous useless variety as well as very useful traits.
    but Natural Selection is a subtractractive process whch culls the useless varieties, leavng the better adapted varieties.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

    No one seems to object to Darwin's choice of the term "natural selection", but ask does nature select anything?
    How would it do that? It's a process of "deletion" no? Nature does not "select for", it "selects out", a stochastic subtractive process .... difference.

    IMO, these three inherent universal processes create a completely natural functional program which resulted in everything we see today.

    No human, no gods created the universal order we see. The universe managed to produce all we see just by itself without thought, intention, emotion, or god forbid, "love"......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Genes are an ultimate expression of universal self-creative programming, based on these three pseudo intelligent universal functions.

    Four chemical codes plus a little energy and a few billion years later we have humans trying to imitate the very same processes for our personal use.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome


    Looks a lot like an old computer punch card to me.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141107-incredible-tool-use-in-the-animal-world

    Check it out. Why do we speak with reverence about Darwinian evolution and then in the same breath dismiss the ability of natural evolution being able to produce just about everything which is "necessary and sufficient" for practical application in survival techniques.
    https://www.iflscience.com/plants-a...spider-plunges-web-top-prey-kh-work-progress/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Cowboys make lassos, so do spiders.
    Looks like it's even more efficient than roping a calf.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2019
  8. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    I would argue that human technology, exactly like spider lasos or ant's bridges, are also a part of nature, not the other way around. They seem to serve some purposes that are exclusively defined within the species that uses them and they become a part of their survival methods just like their digestive or respiratory systems*.
    Its all chemical reactions**, although this difficult for us to realize, exactly as it is difficult to see your eyes with your own eyes.

    *We strive to achieve whatever is pleasurable. But pleasure is instict-driven. So even recreation is a complex survival tool. Just try not to recreate or sleep for a week.
    **The stars couldn't care less if we are gonna watch netflix tonight.


    Are they or are they not used in humans? Being in the news means nothing. If you follow the news, you will think that there is a new revolutionary treatment for cancer almost every week. I call them, "the cure of the week".
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2019
    Write4U likes this.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I agree, humans are not the only "organism" to employ their own naturally evolved or copied technologies. All of it is part of Darwinian evolution (mutation). All plants utilize hydraulic principles and strategies. A well pump functions on the same hydraulic principles as a tree does in drawing and distributing water throughout its system.

    The reason why all natural organisms share certain survival techniques, is because they are founded on natural constants, common to all things. These constants are equally valid and useable for all extant organisms, from bacteria to humans (who are 90% bacterial).

    Natural constants are the "common denominators" in all physical things. All types of natural or artificial technologies are based on these universal constants.

    This is why I am really enamored with this (to me) new perspective of "quorum sensing" which apparently is a functional part of all biological organisms! From Pseudo-intelligent chemistry to Proto-conscious hive intelligence.

    I don't see why that should be controversial. It's so plainly obvious. Semantics only serve to confuse and "confound" as if there is some sort of magical work v demonstrable human intellectual prowess. The hubris is astounding.
    I agree. "Movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" (the best fit)
    Actually there is serious research in using bee venom in nano-bots (dubbed nano-bees) as a very effective cancer destroyer. A major problem is that bee venom will also destroy healthy cells, thus the solution lies in targeting diseased cell signatures and directing the bot toward that cell only while ignoring healthy cells.

     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2019
  10. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    The thing is that the term "technology" is a human-invented word to describe some human inventions that serve humanity. The fact that it can be somehow connected to some natural phenomena, doesn't mean that these natural phenomena are "technology".
    Think of it like this: The weak nuclear force is connected to electromagnetism. It doesn't mean that we should substitute one of the words.

    I wouldn't say its semantics. It is just different interpretations, with huge consequences. Although the initial interpretations might be slightly different, their overall effect is huge in the long run. Like a butterfly effect.
    For example, if you don't read the phenomena correctly, you might end up misinterpreting quorum sensoring and you might end up developing a whole crackpot discipline, based on the assumption that cells are able to perform complex mathematical calculations by themselves and act accordingly or that they have a sort of gps incorporated in them. And then when you try to build on that, you get totally lost in a chaotic mathematical dead end.
     
  11. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    Even if you add water or saline you will kill cancer cells. The problem is that most normal cells will die faster, because cancer cells are generally more resilient.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    With respect Dave, I really believe you have it backwards.

    Evolution is the natural ability for natural self-assembly, natural self-regulation, natural self-duplication, natural self-evolved survival techniques and self-adapting living technologies. Flight, aerodynamics were used by insects, fluid hydraulics were used by plants, beavers build dams, termites and bees invented air conditioning, bacteria self-developed toxic or anti-toxic substances and reactions. The bacterial flagella MOTOR is a self-assembled natural machine, a chemical technology.

    ALL of these technologies were in self-invented and self-organized without the assistance of any external intelligence. That's what constitutes evolution, not the other way around. The laws of nature (universal constants) were present long before any living organism emerged from them. That much is indisputably self-evident.

    Any different interpretation invokes an external intelligence, i.e. a Designer.

    Any suggestion that nature itself is not the ultimate teacher of the arts and sciences is the factual advocate for ID.
    But any argument of irreducible complexity was settled a long time ago. Nature self-organizes it's own complexity.

    Bohm had a very interesting term about this. He proposed that the ultimate fundamental ability of nature is the ability for self-referential pseudo insight-intelligence, also known in human language as mathematical equations.

    But it's true, humans love to make useful stuff as well as toys based on natural technologies.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2019
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    True, but we can apply the term "force" to both phenomena. It is a more fundamental generic definition common to both.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I am not disputing the importance of interpreting the natural phenomen correctly in order to build functional human technologies based on the mathematics of the phenomena.

    But that is the beauty of mathematics, it will warn you if you have it right or wrong every time, by experiment.
    It is how we test all hypotheses, no?
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    If you use the word 'intelligent' in the same sentence as 'universe' then you are a de facto ID proponent.
    Even if you lack the courage of your convictions to admit it.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    No, I am not.
    I am talking about a self-referential pseudo-intelligent mathematical Universe. No one designed the universe. It designs itself.
    Is a rainbow an evolved pattern? Is a rainbow designed by an intelligence? Is a rainbow evidence of a self-ordering separation of the colorspectrum due to sunlight interaction with rain? Is a rainbow an emerging mathematical pattern?
    Is a rainbow a natural phenomenon? If not who designs it every time it appears? Seems self-referential to me...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    So you don't accept creationism, but you accept intelligent design (or pseudo-,crypto-, neo-intelligent, or however you try to sneak intelligent design in the picture without being accused as a fan of ID).
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    First let me apologize and withdraw my use of the term "pseudo" and substitute it with the term "quasi" which is really what I should have used to begin with. So please wherever the term pseudo appers substitute it with quasi;
    First of all, I never used the word "intelligent". Please do not be stubborn about this.
    I am in the middle of explaining on what principles I base my use of the term "quasi-intelligent" in context of non sentient self-ordering systems.
    IMO, I am using this term in a broader perspective on the defnition of quasi-intelligence, without anything spooky attached to it.
    I absolutely reject creationism and all the other terms you used.

    Please use only the term "quasi-intelligent self-referential system" when referring to my argument.
    This can be positively defended on mathematical grounds.
    I hope that'll make a lot more sense. I apologize for not correcting this horrible mistake sooner.

    Allow me to ask a counter question; How would you define the coding system contained in DNA and justify its self-ordering polymer construction. I know it is a product of evolution and natural selection, but what would you call the "result" of this incredible self-organization into a dynamical coding system which governs all eukaryotic biology.

    Chance...? Probablity...? Product of universal physical constants...?

    The Magical Leaf: The Quantum Mechanics of Photosynthesis


    What about this incredibly coordinated cooperative chemical machinery;
    Quantum Biology: The Hidden Nature of Nature
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2019
  19. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    That is a difficult question.

    I would call it a product of natural laws and a natural event. Isn't this the very definition of science? To define the natural laws behind phenomena? And remove the need to refer to ghosts, intelligent design or cosmic purposes of any kind?

    Sometimes science doesn't have an exact explanation for a phenomenon, but this doesn't mean that there isn't a natural explanation. We just need to figure it out.


    There is also a natural explanation for life that we haven’t figured out yet, but it is totally feasible to do so.


    I am not claiming this is the case, but a good example of why this is doable, is the fact that with 2 simple and self-evident (but often overlooked) assumptions, you can simplify the problem by orders of magnitude.



    1)That living creatures are primarily pure biochemical systems, and as such there is no such thing as a separate individual organism (the latter is just the anthropocentric viewpoint). All living things exist because of the other life that exists or pre-existed, with which they interact. Even food consumption, waste or gas by-products that recycle are part of the system from a very strict biochemical perspective.

    So some of the biochemical reactions are anabolic, some are catabolic, but as a whole they increase the disorder of the system.


    2)That we are the observers. And we observe from inside the system. I mean, the results of a procedure are the very observers of the procedure. This easily cancels out the epicness of self-organization. Lets say you have the series of events: A->B->C.......Y->Z->A->B...etc and the observer is composed by (M+N), then it is obvious that this observer will see this system as self-organized. Now this is an over-simplification, but my point that any system will be viewed as self-organizing from the viewpoint of some results of this system.



    Now i have previously described some of my personal views about life and biology in previous threads, you can see there if you want.

    My short answer to your answer would be that the complex 3D structures of organic macromolecules and their "stickiness" are key factors. The 3D structures (with external energy) turns chemistry into a matter of geometry somehow and enables so many complex spatial conformations and interactions that not only equillibrium becomes impossible, but also you have trillions of different chemical interactions of any kind in small confined spaces. Stickiness creates the stable structures we see locally (e.g DNA packing).

    But then again my personal views on life are not the topic of this conversation so i would not want to go any further.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    Obfuscate it with as many rationalizing words as you want, those are your words there, plain as day.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495

    'Pseudo' or 'quasi' - they are both qualifiers on 'intelligent'. If you're not talking about intelligence, don't keep using the word.
    This has been brought to your attention numerous times over multiple threads: when you repurpose words, you will inevitably run afoul of those to whom you speak.

    And it's willful - you are deliberately burning through screen real estate for no other reason than the desire to be obtuse with your words.


    Yes, you did. I've quoted you each time.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    100 % agreed.
    100% agreed.
    I believe there are only natural explanations.
    Not being a learned fellow, that is where I am trying to start.
    Some very fundamental known constants, and with ever increasing scientific knowledge, build a testable or verifiable hypothesis.
    Yes, I can imagine a stepped evolutionary process, starting from inanimate but reactive chemicals gradually building more complex and responsive patterns, eventually forming cells and learning to duplicate into ever greater variety of compexity and adaptivity.
    According to Anil Seth, being able to view and analyze a thing from the inside out is crucial in understanding that thing.
    I find your post eminently readable and informative.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Yes, as I understand it, there is an active on-line shared site for exploring possible ways of "folding" to afford greatest efficiency in the smallest form.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    During interphase (1), chromatin is in its least condensed state and appears loosely distributed throughout the nucleus. Chromatin condensation begins during prophase (2) and chromosomes become visible. Chromosomes remain condensed throughout the various stages of mitosis (2-5).
    © 2013 Nature Education All rights reserved.
    https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/chromosomes-14121320

    I haven't got the expertise to participate in such exciting shared research, but I try to follow the progress in these areas.

    This stuff fills me with awe and wonder of these mathematical self-ordering systems which emerge from a few simple universal values and functions over long periods of time and in large spaces.
    Sometimes my posts come across as definitive statements based on dubious understanding, but they are always offered as 'probative" and I learn from every considered response. Thanks....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2019
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Quote me the post where I used the term "intelligence" without the qualifier.

    I consider self-ordering to be a form of natural quasi-intelligent behavior. If it can be analyzed, quantified and codified mathematically, we can address it as a form of quasi-intelligent behavior.

    Actually I don't even want to discuss semantics. You know very well what I mean in the abstract.
    So, if you don't want to indulge my perspective, so be it.

    IMO, the difference between motivated intelligence and implacable quasi-intelligence is clear enough, IMO.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    https://medium.com/creating-artific...lligent-behavior-vs-intelligence-e3c0c8854d86

    Lest we forget that even consciously motivated intelligence is still a product of natural evolution, I just don't understand your continued rejection of my non-controversial use of the term quasi-intelligent.
    It just stops all discussion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2019

Share This Page