Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   bio evolution, light, sound and aroma
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 121 of 142 (717800)
02-01-2014 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by NoNukes
02-01-2014 1:27 PM


We can also note the two heads on that united body. Surely you saw that too? For which side are you arguing here?
I am talking about the arbitrary nature of who you become conscious of being. A different issue.
Consciousness places us in a unique personal location even when like these twins one is very closely linked spatially temporally.
I am talking from my location the mind. You don't know what kind of body I have. It is a complex issue to discuss.
To create consciousness in a robot would be to create a location from which the robot has experiences of existing and perceiving and a self perspective subject to percepts. To occupy that location is an integral part of consciousness the location where one is subject to experiences from a self perspective. It leads to the homuncular problem in theories of perception and the binding problem of unified perception.
If you don't understand this situation you will chronically underestimate the problems involved.
Red exists as a sensation within someone's mental realm. Unless people here have studied issues in theorising about mind at a graduate level I don't think they are equipped to discuss it really. They are not ideas that arise easily in common sense unless you are a philosophical type of person and even then you wouldn't have encountered the vocabulary.
Conscious is not a trivial issue to be pinned loosely atop prevailing paradigms. That is clearly some peoples desire. It challenges the materialist paradigm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by NoNukes, posted 02-01-2014 1:27 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-06-2014 6:35 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 122 of 142 (717801)
02-01-2014 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dr Adequate
02-01-2014 2:58 PM


Specifically, the location of my consciousness appears to be inside my head. Say, what's inside my head? My brain, you say? Hmm, could be worth looking into.
This is a naive analysis of conscious experience.
When I stand on a drawing pin I experience a sharp pain ....in my foot... and not in my head. I also perceive the car outside my house to be outside my head.
Experience doesn't tell us where experience is located it tells us where the ..contents... of experience is located.
When people give verbal report they are unable to tell you which brain location might be causing their experience. It is the indirect observer who is crudely correlating the subjective report to the brain.
And what about when you are dreaming? I don't experience being in my brain when I am dreaming. The correlation between brain regions is not explanatory. The person is in their mental realm when dreaming.
One problem with positing consciousness in the brain is that you can't escape your mind and never experience the world directly to know it exists and therefore are stuck in internal realm of mental representations and chronic skepticism.
That is one of the reasons embodied perception theories have challenged the notion of things existing only in the brain as representations for conscious consumption but then they struggle with the problem of dreams and other things that are not direct perceptions like memories.
Other theorists like panpsychics and substance dualists posit consciousness as a distinct layer of reality.
You seem prejudiced only to examine consciousness as of the brain and are suffering possibly from confirmation bias.
If we weren't conscious then the mechanical view of reality would be far more compelling. Unfortunately we have a mental realm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2014 2:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2014 8:28 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 123 of 142 (717803)
02-01-2014 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Dr Adequate
01-28-2014 5:47 PM


And often they aren't. Perhaps we should look at the most informative cases rather than the least. If we can draw no conclusions from Phineas Gage, whom I never mentioned, let's look at someone else.
The Gage case is still the most cited example and almost the foundation and justification for the correlation project.
It was just recently cited in support of the mind brain connection on the "Axons and Axioms" podcast run by academics.
The surprising thing about the Gage case is how functional and normal he was after the drastic injury and he managed to hold down jobs. One key claim was that he became more aggressive although none of these claims are seen as sufficiently substantiated anymore. But considering he went through the trauma of a shocking accident and severe injury you wouldn't expect him to be psychologically identical to previous to the trauma. So the case was approached with limited skepticism unfortunately (but predictably?)
Most other cases of brain region claims are disputed including the Fusiform face area which is given one of the most clearly delineated roles.
The fusiform face area (FFA) is a part of the human visual system that, it is speculated, is specialized for facial recognition
The FFA is underdeveloped in children and does not fully develop until adolescence. This calls into question the evolutionary purpose of the FFA, as children show the ability to differentiate faces
Fusiform face area - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-28-2014 5:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2014 8:12 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 124 of 142 (717807)
02-01-2014 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by AndrewPD
02-01-2014 12:18 PM


mechanism (mĕk′ə-nĭz′əm)
n.
1.
a. A machine or mechanical appliance.
b. The arrangement of connected parts in a machine.
2. A system of parts that operate or interact like those of a machine: the mechanism of the solar system.
3. An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being: "The mechanism of oral learning is largely that of continuous repetition" (T.G.E. Powell).
4. A habitual manner of acting to achieve an end.
5. Biology The involuntary and consistent response of an organism to a given stimulus.
6. Psychology A usually unconscious mental and emotional pattern that shapes behavior in a given situation or environment: a defense mechanism.
7. The sequence of steps in a chemical reaction.
8. Philosophy The doctrine that all natural phenomena are explicable by material causes and mechanical principles.
[New Latin mēchanismus, from Late Latin mēchanisma, from Greek mēkhanē, machine; see mechanic.]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
mechanism (ˈmɛkəˌnɪzəm)
n
1. (Mechanical Engineering) a system or structure of moving parts that performs some function, esp in a machine
2. something resembling a machine in the arrangement and working of its parts: the mechanism of the ear.
3. (Mechanical Engineering) any form of mechanical device or any part of such a device
4. a process or technique, esp of execution: the mechanism of novel writing.
5. (Philosophy) philosophy
a. the doctrine that human action can be explained in purely physical terms, whether mechanical or biological
b. the explanation of phenomena in causal rather than teleological or essentialist terms
c. the view that the task of science is to seek such explanations
d. strict determinism. Compare dynamism, vitalism
6. (Psychoanalysis) psychoanal
a. the ways in which psychological forces interact and operate
b. a structure having an influence on the behaviour of a person, such as a defence mechanis
So, a mechanism can be a process. Natural selection is the process where one set of traits are selected over another set of traits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by AndrewPD, posted 02-01-2014 12:18 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 142 (717808)
02-01-2014 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by AndrewPD
02-01-2014 12:18 PM


I don't see how evolution or natural selection are actually mechanisms. I thought a mechanism was a physical structure like a mill.
Then you are confusing a mechanism with a mechanical device (for making flour). A mechanism is the means by which a design goes from the drawing board to production -- the "black box" that does the necessary work to transform raw ingredients into new product.
I have been discussing dispositions at length here and pointing out that things can only emerge if reality has the disposition to allow them. ...
Wishful thinking, not reality. Sorry ... just because you have been discussing it that doesn't make it a valid argument -- you need to show (a) that "dispositions" exist in reality outside your mind, and (b) that organisms are limited by these purported "dispositions" -- where in the DNA does this occur?
Or is this just another retread of the old creationist "limit" to evolution that claims macroevolution cannot occur? Again -- show where that limitation is enacted\engaged in determining what can or cannot evolve.
... The posited mechanism in transforming organism is mutating DNA I thought.
And selection. Evolution's a two step process. Studies have shown that mutations are sufficiently random that any intended design\disposition\whatever can be reasonably ruled out in forming a new trait\feature. It is selection of new mutations that begins the development of new traits\features.
New features can only be created by mutations if reality has the disposition to allow them.
And so you will claim that any new features that evolve are due to these mysterious magical "dispositions" ... without any empirical objective evidence that they actually exist?
Seems like circular reasoning to me. Of course there are the E.coli experiments where a new feature evolved in one cloned population but not in another cloned from the same source.
Curiously this means that either there is no such thing as a disposition or that having a disposition does not predict a new feature and thus is irrelevant to the study of actual new features.
We don't say consciousness doesn't exist because we don't see it in the brain. It is in a private realm of subjectivity
And yet we can map the consciousness and see the patterns that conscious thoughts make. Nothing subjective there.
It is easy to say you have a sufficient explanation for something after the fact more without having to genuinely replicate the totality of events. It is like someone feeling they have a compelling lone suspect for the Jack The ripper murders
That's rather confused linguistically. Let's see if we can break it down ...
It is easy to say you have a sufficient explanation for something after the fact ...
Only when that explanation covers all the known facts in a reasonable manner (ie in concurrence with the known behavior of the elements). For instance we can say that the behavior of planets orbiting the sun is explained by the theory of gravity ... and then check all those orbital facts against the theoretical outputs.
Then we can use that theory to predict the location of those planets in the future, and when those planets just happen to be in those places at the times predicted we can say that we have high confidence in the theory explaining the behavior of planets in orbiting the sun.
It is easy to say you have a sufficient explanation ... more particularly without having to genuinely replicate the totality of events. ...
And again, using the planet\sun example, we don't need to model the beginning of the universe or even of the solar system in order to model the current behavior of the planets and make testable predictions of future locations ... or to have high confidence in the repeatability of making those predictions and tests. Nor do we need to know where gravity comes from to make these high confidence predictions. We just need to know that it exists in a measurable quantity for determining the explanations and predictions.
... It is like someone feeling they have a compelling lone suspect for the Jack The ripper murders.
But it's not one person and it's not one line of inquiry when we are dealing with science. It is several different lines of inquiry and many people doing the investigations ... and they have to be peer reviewed and those discoveries need to be independently replicated.
Your analogy fails to adequately describe science and thus leads you to false conclusions. Straw man arguments are like that.
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by AndrewPD, posted 02-01-2014 12:18 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by AndrewPD, posted 02-02-2014 3:10 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 126 of 142 (717809)
02-01-2014 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by AndrewPD
02-01-2014 3:42 PM


The Gage case is still the most cited example and almost the foundation and justification for the correlation project.
That's the least accurate use of the word "almost" I've ever seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by AndrewPD, posted 02-01-2014 3:42 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 127 of 142 (717810)
02-01-2014 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by AndrewPD
02-01-2014 3:23 PM


When I stand on a drawing pin I experience a sharp pain ....in my foot... and not in my head.
Yes, the pain is located in your foot.
I also perceive the car outside my house to be outside my head.
Yes, your car is located outside your house.
Now, where does your consciousness seem to be located?
You said, after all, that consciousness has "a location", indeed a "unique conscious perspectival location". Now, if you ask practically anyone where their consciousness is located, and what the unique perspective is, they will answer --- a little behind the eyes, looking out.
So it is at least suggestive that what's actually in that location is the brain.
And what about when you are dreaming? I don't experience being in my brain when I am dreaming.
And in my dreams I can levitate. This is one of many reasons why I don't take my dreams as being informative about reality.
One problem with positing consciousness in the brain is that you can't escape your mind and never experience the world directly to know it exists and therefore are stuck in internal realm of mental representations and chronic skepticism.
I can make nothing of this paragraph, would you like to take another shot at it?
You seem prejudiced only to examine consciousness as of the brain and are suffering possibly from confirmation bias.
How about I tell you what I think, and you tell me what you think? One aspect of this "unique conscious perspectival location" of which you speak is that I can read my mind, and you can't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by AndrewPD, posted 02-01-2014 3:23 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 128 of 142 (717874)
02-02-2014 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
02-01-2014 7:37 PM


you need to show (a) that "dispositions" exist in reality outside your mind, and (b) that organisms are limited by these purported "dispositions"
I am not sure what your problem with dispositions is. I am not sure how anything could come to exist without dispositions.
If there were no limits on reality then anything could happen so there must be limits and constraining forces. Pigs don't develop wings because that is not a viable option for them. Are you suggesting that DNA can create anything and is not constrained by rules of biochemistry?
I am not sure what your stance on emergent properties is but I don't see how they could emerge without dispositions. Are you saying that if consciousness emerges from the brain theee is non lawful causal reason for that?
The causal explanation would usually cite the disposition of prior state to create the emergent property.
An example of a lack of disposition is the inability of A to be come B. Such as the inability of pure water to transform into sugar.
An example of a latent disposition is the ability of glass to shatter whether it does over its lifetime. If you make a glass and then melt it down years later and it never shattered it still had the disposition to do so under the right circumstances.
It seems you want to deny reality of having these dispositions and to have evolution creating new things from scratch simply to make the only creative force blind evolution. A biased stance.
From a dispositions stance you can posit evolution and a creator of the dispositions. The ultimate disposition is that of the universe or reality in which evolution is purported to happen. That is why the likes of Krauss would like to exorcise the need for a creator here and try desperately to have an unitelligent creation of physical laws from quasi nothingness.
You are no more entitled to your claims than me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2014 7:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2014 5:05 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 129 of 142 (717889)
02-02-2014 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by AndrewPD
02-02-2014 3:10 PM


I am not sure what your problem with dispositions is. ...
Simple: they don't add to our knowledge of how things work, they fail to show up in one group when appear to occur in another, and they don't appear to explain anything.
That makes them a waste of time.
... I am not sure how anything could come to exist without dispositions.
If it has no predictive value then it isn't necessary to discuss it when using science to understand and predict things.
Ever heard of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy?
You look at all the dogs in the world and claim that they evolved from wolves because they had a "disposition" to become dogs ... but that doesn't predict what the dogs look like, it's an after the fact assessment for a fantasy.
If there were no limits on reality then anything could happen so there must be limits and constraining forces. ...
We call those natural laws: gravity is one.
... Pigs don't develop wings because that is not a viable option for them. ...
And evolution doesn't occur to provide wanted traits, just traits occur by random mutation and that are selected because they provide an advantage. Pigs and bats come from a common mammalian ancestor ... so did bats evolve wings because of a disposition in that ancestor while pigs did not develop wings because of a disposition in that same ancestor?
Evolution explains wings in bats but not in pigs ... your "disposition" fantasy doesn't.
I am not sure what your stance on emergent properties is but I don't see how they could emerge without dispositions. ...
Your lack of imagination and critical thinking is noted.
Emergence
quote:
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.
Biology can be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of chemistry which, in turn, can be viewed as an emergent property of particle physics. Similarly, psychology could be understood as an emergent property of neurobiological dynamics, and free-market theories understand economy as an emergent feature of psychology.
See also Synergy
quote:
Synergy is the interaction of multiple elements in a system to produce an effect different from or greater than the sum of their individual effects. ...
In the natural world, synergistic phenomena are ubiquitous, ranging from physics (for example, the different combinations of quarks that produce protons and neutrons) to chemistry (a popular example is water, a compound of hydrogen and oxygen), to the cooperative interactions among the genes in genomes, the division of labor in bacterial colonies, the synergies of scale in multi-cellular organisms, as well as the many different kinds of synergies produced by socially-organized groups, from honeybee colonies to wolf packs and human societies. Even the tools and technologies that are widespread in the natural world represent important sources of synergistic effects. The tools that enabled early hominins to become systematic big-game hunters is a primordial human example. ...
Synergies don't need dispositions to explain them.
... Are you saying that if consciousness emerges from the brain theee is non lawful causal reason for that?
Gibberish.
The growth of the brain from the reptilian beginning is an increase in kind, but it reaches a synergistic point where added brain function allows different uses. This is classic emergent behavior.
We see this in many organisms that reach a certain point in brain development.
An example of a lack of disposition is the inability of A to be come B. Such as the inability of pure water to transform into sugar.
An example of a latent disposition is the ability of glass to shatter whether it does over its lifetime. If you make a glass and then melt it down years later and it never shattered it still had the disposition to do so under the right circumstances.
It seems you want to deny reality of having these dispositions and to have evolution creating new things from scratch simply to make the only creative force blind evolution. A biased stance.
A lack of the carbon molecules needed to make sugar in water is a disposition? Really?
The fact that glass is brittle is not a disposition of glass to break, it is a characteristic of the material.
Again I don't need to invent a word usage to explain these aspects of the materials, I can just use existing words, without the incredulity.
From a dispositions stance you can posit evolution and a creator of the dispositions. ...
You can posit all you want, but that still does not mean that the theory of evolution can be derived from "dispositions" nor that "dispositions" predict the path evolution takes in any way.
... The ultimate disposition is that of the universe or reality in which evolution is purported to happen. ...
Which again is not something you can derive from "dispositions" nor that "dispositions" predict the path the universe development takes in any way or its behavior.
... That is why the likes of Krauss would like to exorcise the need for a creator here and try desperately to have an unitelligent creation of physical laws from quasi nothingness.
Do you think soap bubbles need to be explained by godly imposed dispositions? Are sand grains tumbling down a sand dune driven by godly dispositions? At what point do you say "dispositions" are not involved? If everything has "dispositions" then it becomes as meaningless as the luminiferous cosmic ether fantasy.
Curiously I don't need "dispositions" in order to posit creator god/s in any way, nor do I need to "exorcise the need for a creator" to see that science explains how things are done, how that creation is being continually effected\realized\developed.
When god/s create the laws of gravity they don't need to be included in every explanation of how gravity works.
You are no more entitled to your claims than me.
True, you are free to have whatever opinion strikes your fancy ... I prefer ones based on objective evidence, tested science and consilience with observations of reality as much as possible, then I allow speculation ... but it "lives" in a world constrained by what we do know.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by AndrewPD, posted 02-02-2014 3:10 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by AndrewPD, posted 02-04-2014 8:56 AM RAZD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 130 of 142 (718077)
02-04-2014 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by RAZD
02-02-2014 5:05 PM


I am not sure what your problem with dispositions is. ..
Simple: they don't add to our knowledge of how things work
Yes they do.
When you know the dispositions of glass you know that it wouldn't be a suitable material for making certain things with because of its disposition to shatter.
Also you you would not expect a bird to evolve glass wings because they wouldn't function adequately. As in the case of the pig and wings you can rule out lots of things evolving (the predictive value) because they don't have the adequate disposition to be selected or survive. And the same in the case of pink and green polar bears. These don't need to be selected to against if they aren't likely to emerge even as defunct forms.
Synergy and Emergence don't displace dispositions. Something won't emerge without a disposition to do so you need the correct chemicals and context and forces for something to emerge it is not the magic creation of something new.
Such as the example with pure water it has an impressive but limited set of dispositions on its own without the addition of new chemicals or forces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2014 5:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2014 10:08 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2014 10:08 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 02-04-2014 11:57 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2014 11:58 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 131 of 142 (718081)
02-04-2014 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by AndrewPD
02-04-2014 8:56 AM


When you know the dispositions of glass you know that it wouldn't be a suitable material for making certain things with because of its disposition to shatter.
As I've pointed out, it's the reification that puzzles people. Why are you saying that glass has a disposition to shatter, instead of just saying "glass can shatter" or "glass is brittle"?
Also you you would not expect a bird to evolve glass wings because they wouldn't function adequately. As in the case of the pig and wings you can rule out lots of things evolving (the predictive value) because they don't have the adequate disposition to be selected or survive.
Or again, why do you say "don't have the adequate disposition to" instead of "can't"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by AndrewPD, posted 02-04-2014 8:56 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 132 of 142 (718082)
02-04-2014 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by AndrewPD
02-04-2014 8:56 AM


I am not sure what your problem with dispositions is. ..
Simple: they don't add to our knowledge of how things work
Yes they do.
How is a disposition different from a "possibility"?

Added by edit:
Seriously, check it out, I used the Find and Replace function in Word to replace your word 'disposition' with the word 'possibility':
quote:
When you know the possibilitys of glass you know that it wouldn't be a suitable material for making certain things with because of its possibility to shatter.
Also you you would not expect a bird to evolve glass wings because they wouldn't function adequately. As in the case of the pig and wings you can rule out lots of things evolving (the predictive value) because they don't have the adequate possibility to be selected or survive. And the same in the case of pink and green polar bears. These don't need to be selected to against if they aren't likely to emerge even as defunct forms.
Synergy and Emergence don't displace possibilitys. Something won't emerge without a possibility to do so you need the correct chemicals and context and forces for something to emerge it is not the magic creation of something new.
Such as the example with pure water it has an impressive but limited set of possibilitys on its own without the addition of new chemicals or forces.
The meaning hasn't changed at all, it just sounds less pretentious.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by AndrewPD, posted 02-04-2014 8:56 AM AndrewPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2014 11:25 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 136 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2014 12:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 133 of 142 (718092)
02-04-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2014 10:08 AM


How is a disposition different from a "possibility"?
Because that's not sufficiently "deified" ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2014 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 134 of 142 (718100)
02-04-2014 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by AndrewPD
02-04-2014 8:56 AM


AndrewPD writes:
When you know the dispositions of glass you know that it wouldn't be a suitable material for making certain things with because of its disposition to shatter.
So knowing about that "disposition" would have prevented us from inventing fiberglass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by AndrewPD, posted 02-04-2014 8:56 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 135 of 142 (718101)
02-04-2014 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by AndrewPD
02-04-2014 8:56 AM


I am not sure what your problem with dispositions is. ..
Simple: they don't add to our knowledge of how things work
Yes they do.
No they don't -- every thing you mention can be just as easily described as the properties of the objects. I can discuss things endlessly without having to refer to any "disposition" but just using common words properly.
When you know the dispositions of glass you know that it wouldn't be a suitable material for making certain things with because of its disposition to shatter.
When you know the properties of glass, you know that it wouldn't be a suitable material for making certain things with, because of its propensity to shatter.
And as a designer I know that all materials have different degrees of brittleness and strength. A pure glass thread can hold more weight than a steel thread of the same diameter. Steel will also fracture when it's cold and the brittleness modulus is exceeded. Aluminum will have brittle fatigue cracks propagating over time until failure occurs. I also know that glass flows over time such that ancient panes of glass are thicker at the bottom and thinner at the top than when first installed. Heated it can flow instead of fracture, and so it can be blown into many artistic shapes.
Reference to "disposition" not required.
Also you you would not expect a bird to evolve glass wings because they wouldn't function adequately. ...
Or because we would not expect organisms to be able to fashion glass from melting sand ... without burning themselves up in the process.
Reference to "disposition" not required.
... As in the case of the pig and wings you can rule out lots of things evolving (the predictive value) because they don't have the adequate disposition to be selected or survive. ...
Curiously I don't find this argument persuasive in the slightest - I could only rule them out in the short term. Meanwhile we can observe squirrels and marsupials with evolved wings, flying snakes and frogs to say nothing of all the insects ... so it is not inconceivable that some species of pig could evolve wings if the ecological conditions were available.
What you can rule out is evolution that makes any organism unfit to live in their ecology because they will not pass selection for breeding and survival.
Reference to "disposition" not required.
... And the same in the case of pink and green polar bears. ...
Again only if you can establish that these would not provide a selective advantage. If we looked at brown or black bears the question is not so unimaginable ... so it is only a matter of degree of advantage, not a matter of a difference in the kind of advantage.
Reference to "disposition" not required.
... These don't need to be selected to against if they aren't likely to emerge even as defunct forms.
Bass Ackwards thinking again. If there is no disadvantage there will be no negative selection.
Curiously we could look at bird plummage if we want to really eviscerate your argument.
Reference to "disposition" not required.
Synergy and Emergence don't displace dispositions. Something won't emerge without a disposition to do so you need the correct chemicals and context and forces for something to emerge it is not the magic creation of something new.
Synergy and Emergence don't displace (?affect?) properties. Something won't emerge without a propensity to do so, you need the correct chemicals and context and forces for something to emerge, it is not the magic creation of something new.
Reference to "disposition" not required.
Such as the example with pure water it has an impressive but limited set of dispositions on its own without the addition of new chemicals or forces.
Such as the example with pure water it has an impressive but limited set of properties on its own without the addition of new chemicals or forces.
Reference to "disposition" not required.
Further the properties of materials are due to what they are, not to any "mystical disposition" of the components. Sand does not have the property of being fragile, and nor does it have tensile strength to hang weights of any amount.
Glass does not have the properties of fragility and tensile strength because these were "dispositions" in sand, rather it is a function of the structure and molecules of the material.
Reference to "disposition" not required.
If I can discuss anything with the relevant properties without "disposition" being mentioned or needed, then it doesn't add to our knowledge of how things work. QED.
Furthermore, the normal connotations of disposition are based on the primary definitions
disposition
noun
1. the predominant or prevailing tendency of one's spirits; natural mental and emotional outlook or mood; characteristic attitude: a girl with a pleasant disposition.
2. state of mind regarding something; inclination: a disposition to gamble.
So implying these for inanimate objects is confusing and contrary to succinct discussions.
Sadly I don't need to personify or deify materials for you.
Edited by RAZD, : +
Edited by RAZD, : +

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by AndrewPD, posted 02-04-2014 8:56 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024