update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

Why do you persist in trying to add useless confusing language? Why not just discuss what mutations or genetic processes have gone into the creation of species we see today? Or what selective pressures have shaped the creation of species we see today? What advantage does adding a vague and numinous concept such as 'decisions' bring?Wouldn't almost every single event which has ever occurred in the evolution of the many lineages of life we see today have had possible alternatives which will have been resolved by 'decisions'? What if the dinosaur killing meteorite had decide to miss the Earth? What if DNA had decided to prefer a levorotatory form?The new science sounds pretty much useless. Can you give us an example of its actual experimental application? It sounds like another venue for postmodernist parvenus to babble endlessly about meaning. As far as I can see there isn't a shred of evidence for 'strong anticipation'. TAborsky says in her blog ... As far as I can see this view is pretty well entirely divorced from the real world. We have real world concrete mechanisms for the production of non-hypothetical solutions, they are the mechanisms of mutation, and a system for making a non-random choice between them, natural selection. Have you never come across Occam's razor? What is Taborsky doing if not multiplying entities needlessly, even if they are hypothetical informational entities.How exactly does one differentiate between the existence of non-chosen informationally relevant hypothetical solutions which a system 'comes up with' and those which are simply inherent possibilities due to the properties of the material composition of that system? Is there a difference? If not then what is the point of 'Strong Anticipation'? How does such a system explain deleterious mutations? As with the design hypothesis the explanation must encompass bad design/maladaptation since presumably the system has also come up with these hypothetical solutions.The one thing this does remind me of is some pretty far out QM speculation I came across somewhere that DNA functions as a form of quantum computer where a sequence phase space is explored described by the possible evolution of the wavefunction for that DNA and that this wavefunction interacts with itself in such a way that a specific result is propagated backwards in time from the most advantageous outcome, or I guess one of a number of equally advantageous, outcomes to instantiate itself in reality. This of course sounds like pretty much complete nonsense, but it does seem to resemble the Strong anticipation hypothesis quite strongly. I'm not sure if this is where it came from originally but a very similar theory is that of Vasily V. Ogryzko. How does this relate do you think?TTFN,WKP.S. Sorry if this is a bit late in the discussion, I drafted this reply at work and when the network crashed I was unable to post it although I didn't lose the text at least.

You need to just use common knowledge and go with the flow. Since I can go left or right, then it's not a logical function for me to go left, I did not predetermine to go left, neither did I predetermine to go right. So that is why strictly speaking the decision comes from nothing, and just for convience sake we talk about the thing itself deciding, but actually the thing is being decided.So objectively speaking nothing decides, and subjectively speaking what decides is in the spiritual domain ie goodness, badness etc.

In the hierarchy of knowledge subjective knowledge or faith is highest. Statements such as "my parents love me" etc. That postmodernism is apparently subjective, well that makes it more valuable then science, potentially. So I think your criticism of postmodernism is misplaced.Reality works with freedom, or so to say, reality is less efficient then you think apparently. But on the other hand reality is more efficient by freedom, because according to the theory things are simply left undecided in a state of alternatives untill a decider comes along to decide their state. And even more efficient is the universe because first kinds are created in it, basic forms, as described before. So when you compare a single description of a basic form, and you have about a zillion descriptions of forms, then freedom theory wins out Occam's razor.Although this is irrellevant since you just have to follow the evidence of how things are.To see the difference, the choices will statistically follow a map of results, which map is different then the map of all possibles.I've seen the DNA anticipation theory applied just for the development of the organism into adulthood, the anticipatory properties of DNA guide the development of the creature to adulthood. I don't know about directed mutations.

Studies of brain damaged patients have shown that the ability to make decisions, and in particular moral and social decisions, can be severely impaired and altered by damage to the brain.This pretty conclusively supports the idea that decisions are a function of the brain and refutes your assertion that decisions "come from nothing".Case closed?

You have been playing Spore this whole time. Glad this topic moved out of Science Forum since it clearly IS NOT SCIENCE
Although, I would still like to see you give an honest answer to Message 101

So you think natural selection is 'applied just for the development of the organism into adulthood'? Or is this whole thread just irrelevant nonsense? If you don't think this theoretical process is involved in producing genetic change then how do you think it is involved in evolution? I think you are being modest in limiting yourself only to directed mutations here.TTFN,WK

Hi, Syamsu. Do remember that post way back at the beginning of this thread where I said that it sounds like Edwina doesn't seem to believe in extinction? (It was Message 25). I provided this quote from Edwina's essay: To which I responded: The reason I then went on to conclude that Edwina doesn't seem to believe in extinction is because her concept of decision-making natural systems is apparently built on a comparison of efficiencies. She believed the concept she was proposing was a more logical explanation precisely because it was more efficient than natural selection.Efficiency, by the way, is not the point of Occam's Razor. The Razor is about simplicity. It is about the simplest fit of the theory to the evidence. "Decisions" add a lot of unnecessary complexity to a system that is rather easily described by non-decision, so they are clearly a violation of parsimony (which is essentially the same thing as Occam's razor). Actually, you're not looking at "about a zillion forms" with evolution: you are looking at only one form that has been modified in many ways over time. So, even by your criteria, you lose the razor battle.Edited by Bluejay, : Paranthesis

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

I think you misread. Natural selection is not relevant in development, the supposed anticipatory aspect of DNA guides the development.Personally I think that natural selection does not exist at all, it is invalid. For natural selection to be valid there need to be actual "comparisons" made in nature on the basis of being a slightly different organisms as another. So it is not enough anymore to have some useful description as a science theory, according to anticipation theory hard science must reflect the actual way information is processed in nature exactly.And there won't be any new science after anticipation theory, since it is based on final causes. In principle using anticipation theory we will extract all possible information from the universe, so after anticipation theory is finished then comes the final judgement for science.And what you are all calling nonsense is in essence the simple knowledge of freedom as it is used in daily life on a practical basis.I suggest you try to think of a similar situations in your life where you had to go through a lot of options, but still guided your choices. Use your practical knowledge to try to get a handle on something which is basically inevitable in scientific progress.

This is exactly what we see in nature. You have one gender of an animal with it's own unique DNA. Combine that with another gender of the same species with it's own unique DNA and you end up with a new animal with it's own unique DNA, that is a compilitation of the previous two. The two sets of DNA were compared and combined to create a unique new animal.I also have alot of problems with your example of choosing left or right as evidence for anticipation theory. From what I can glean from your posts. It appears that you are suggesting that the decision to proceed in one direction or the other is made with out cognitive thought. When in reality that is not the case. If I have a decision to make, my brain will run through all the possible advantages/ disadvantages of either choice and determine which is the most suitable decision. After that process I am still left with the ability to pick which alternative I choose regardless of how advantages’I may have determined it to be.

And what you are calling the freedoms of daily practical life are the decisions derived from brains.Not decisions from "nothing" and not choices pulled out the arse of a subjectively known supernatural aether as you have been suggesting. Brains. Which inanimate objects and molecules do not have.Your whole argument is a mass of quantum incomprehension, physical impossibility and back to front common sense. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The end of science as we know it.........
We'll see.

You should explore common practical knowledge about freedom, find the structure in it, see if that structure works, it does, dont go philosophizing about brains.

Ok that is not actualy an answer to anything. Stucture in freedom? Philosophizing about brains? All I did was describe a part of the cognitive thought process. Which is what we actualy observe in the real world. Exploring the structure of freedom is nothing but philosophy. Could you please explain something, anything that you are talking about.

Ah yes. Lets not submit to that outrageously philosophical position borne of evidence and observation that brains have a rather important role to play in decision making.Let us instead follow Syamsu's common practical knowledge based approach. The one that concludes that toothbrushes make decisions, paperclips are capable of love and walnuts can decide between good and evil. It would be funny if it wasn't true. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I already explained in the thread. The most important thing to notice is that the alternatives are in the future.People dont actually use your knowledge on a practical basis, it is mere philosophy. People dont talk about being brainbroken, they talk about being heartbroken. So that indicates that your braintheory is just philosophy with no practical use. So as before, explore the knowledge you actually use yourself. That knowledge has a structure, that structure works. As explained in the thread but you should investigate yourself.

ummmmm no that doesn't indicate anything like that. In fact I can't even fathom what one has to do with the other or how you can make that equivication. That is nothing but a statement with no purpose. alternatives are in the future. If I am at a crossroad on a path, I can choose which direction to proceed. In this case my path will continue in the future down one of the selected paths. However that does not mean that the alternatives are in the future. I could still have the option in the present to change my mind and select a different alternative. one more comment. There are plenty of studies that show the brain is the component when it comes to making decisions.Human decision making These decision do not stem from an external process.