PDA

View Full Version : Philosophy and Mechanisms of Evolution



Ric
05-16-2016, 02:13 PM
Haven't found a "Philosophy" forum on this site yet, but I haven't looked all that hard. The concept of our chromosomes constantly mutating every century or so means what, I wonder? Is it still evolution, are we still evolving? Or, if a person is religious-minded, is it some kind of reaction within us by the directive of a deity? Brings us closer to or moves us farther away from a god or gods? I found a post that kind of touched upon that subject on the FTDNA site, I think it was in the DF27 Project but it's deleted now. So, if we're still constantly mutating somehow and for some reason, Z2573 being maybe 4,400 years old is older or younger than the norm? If older, the lack of recent mutations means that it's a fairly good chromosome and needs no improvement? Maybe those who are Z2573 live in climates that don't require changes in our internals to compete with the environment and whatever it is that shares it with us. Or that's not the way to look at things at all? But that does touch upon the debate whether or not the individual ethnic groups were designed to remain at the point of their origins on the planet, or if migratory habits were permissible by whatever it is that controls the mutations in our genes.


The 'Physic' of Evolution is not specific to DF27, so I guess such topic has to be in a more general section of Anthrogenica. But I can mention here that regarding the mutation rates, it has been shown in Bacteria that the mutation rates greatly increase during period of stress.
First, a small 101 biology, the mutation rates depends, among other things, on the proof reading activities of so-called DNA-polymerases and their proof reading associated proteins. The DNA polymerases are enzymes that copy strands of DNA into new strand during the replication process that occurs when a bacteria, or a cell, produce a daughter bacteria/cell. Obviously that daughter bacteria/cell needs DNA of her own, and this new DNA is synthetized using the mother cell's DNA as a template, therefore the 'replication' term. However, from the general point of view of Information Theory and Thermodynamic, no process of copying information, whatever information it is that is copied, can be error free indefinitely, in principle. DNA is replicated with about 1 nucleotide miscopied for every 10^9 nucleotides in the case of genomic vertebrate DNA in general but other DNA, such as repetitive elements or mitochondrial, have a higher rate of mutation.
Most cells in our body replicate several times during one individual's life, or generation. For example a gamete cell can take as much as 10 cell divisions to mature from an undifferentiated precursor such as a spermatid incapable of fertilizing an oocyte cell. This sperm precursor has to perform 10 cell divisions and replications before it becomes a fully operational spermatozoid capable of transmitting information to the next generation and therefore in that case the global mutation rate for genomic DNA will be : 10x10^-9 = 10^-8 mistake per generation, instead of per single replication event.
This is a very low rate of mistake, but since the human genome contains ~3.5 10^9 nucleotides to be copied, it is guarantied that this final sperm will contain several mutations. To ensure that zero mutations would occur, and therefore that no Darwinian variants would appear at the next generation (aka NO EVOLUTION in Darwinian terms) the proof reading activity during DNA Replication should have to reach an astonishing 1 mistake/10^10 nucleotides rate, which is probably possible but at great cost. For example we could imagine a DNA template with 3 DNA strands, or 3 set of chromosome instead of two in diploids animals. But copying 1 nucleotide has an energy cost, and takes time. A vertebrate cell with 2 set of chromosomes takes ~ 1 hour, at least, to replicate, More Nucleotides will take longer. So even if the energy and time cost increase are very small per nucleotide, it will add up eventually at great cost to the global energetic budget of our bodies. I wouldn't be surprised if such putative error proof mutation rate for the human body would cost us 10 times as much food intake, which would be impractical, perhaps impossible within a reasonable energy budget like 2000 kcal/day. Imagine our ancestors having to look for 10 times more food every day, just to survive at rest. For all practical reasons, Nature has settled that it wasn't worth it and that it can deal with a few mutations per generations.
However not perfect, this effort of the cell to keep a proof reading replication process as good as it is practically possible indicates, to me, that the true purpose of DNA is to transmit information intact and unchanged, and not to mutate. Since Darwinian Evolution equals Evolution with change, I could rephrase it saying the purpose of DNA, to me, is to transmit information unchanged and not to evolve.
Darwinian Evolution is just a consequence of the thermodynamic principle but I am convinced that if it was up to the Cell, and without that Thermodynamic law (which is not a trivial thing to explain), the Cell would produce a DNA per generation totally unchanged and there would be no Evolution.
The real non-trivial thing here, is to explain the law of thermodynamic entropy, not Darwinism, once it is done Darwinian Evolution is trivial. But if you skip the Entropy, of course you start by explaining Darwinism 'out of nowhere' and you find that Darwinism is not trivial. This is where philosophy merges with Evolution.

So what happens with Bacteria ? well if the purpose of the DNA is to transmit information unchanged, but the environment changes, there is a problem because the Information contained in that DNA is only relevant to survive in a certain environment. If the environment changes, the information becomes irrelevant and the cell needs to change the DNA-information carrier as well. Then the high proof reading accuracy becomes a burden. Simply, during periods of environmental change and stress, the proteins that perform that proof reading activity are shut down and the mutation rate during replication jumps at much higher levels. In addition, bacterial cells also exchange DNA with other bacteria, not always from their own species, but when a foreign dna enters a bacteria, there is a system that checks if that DNA comes from the same or a different bacterial species and only allows the DNA/information to be integrated IF they are from the same species. Usually that exchanges is controlled with a Species-specific barrier system of proteins that prevent recombination between the DNA of different species. For example, recombination will occur only if long stretch of DNA are identical, ensuring that the foreign DNA inside a bacteria is from the same Species. But during period of stress, even that Species-specific barrier is shut down, which result in DNA, and therefore information, from other bacterial species to be integrated into a bacteria. I would be surprised if higher animal kingdoms have not integrated similar mechanisms of change 'a la carte'. Globally, we could say that these mechanisms have evolved to make Bacteria evolve much faster during environmental change. . You'll notice the trick here: Evolution generates Evolution....again, Philosophy is not very far.

curiousII
05-17-2016, 06:13 PM
...I can mention here that regarding the mutation rates, it has been shown in Bacteria that the mutation rates greatly increase during period of stress.

And what type of stress? In a simple organism as bacterium stress would have to be physical, say an environmental event that would, perhaps, cause it discomfort. Heat, cold, lack of water, I suppose something along those lines. With humans that could be different? Would mental stress cause such a change? Happiness, sadness, strife? Or curiousity itself?


For example we could imagine a DNA template with 3 DNA strands, or 3 set of chromosome instead of two in diploids animals. But copying 1 nucleotide has an energy cost, and takes time. A vertebrate cell with 2 set of chromosomes takes ~ 1 hour, at least, to replicate, More Nucleotides will take longer. So even if the energy and time cost increase are very small per nucleotide, it will add up eventually at great cost to the global energetic budget of our bodies. I wouldn't be surprised if such putative error proof mutation rate for the human body would cost us 10 times as much food intake, which would be impractical, perhaps impossible within a reasonable energy budget like 2000 kcal/day. Imagine our ancestors having to look for 10 times more food every day, just to survive at rest. For all practical reasons, Nature has settled that it wasn't worth it and that it can deal with a few mutations per generations.


But with life having been on the planet for so many hundreds of millions of years, wouldn't evolution itself have evolved into something much more efficient? Wherever the necessity for specie change lies, it is obvious that the inefficiency of random specie production would have entailed a much more efficient form of creation. The misuse of energy as you cite it would have become apparent to whatever the controlling force is simply an unimaginably long time in pre-history.


However not perfect, this effort of the cell to keep a proof reading replication process as good as it is practically possible indicates, to me, that the true purpose of DNA is to transmit information intact and unchanged, and not to mutate. Since Darwinian Evolution equals Evolution with change, I could rephrase it saying the purpose of DNA, to me, is to transmit information unchanged and not to evolve.

Exactly! A specie was created in its purest form when it originated. Subsequent generations have devolved from the original, pristine, and perfect creature. Is that what it is?


Darwinian Evolution is just a consequence of the thermodynamic principle but I am convinced that if it was up to the Cell, and without that Thermodynamic law (which is not a trivial thing to explain), the Cell would produce a DNA per generation totally unchanged and there would be no Evolution.

With all the diverse forms of life that our world has seen over who knows how many eons, for us to believe that we begin whole and spin endlessly in an evolutionary downward spiral is novel. If a deity did create the planet and all its life, that god would have patented our genetic structure to avoid evolution entirely. Or, if we are citing Christianity as a guideline, then the fall of Satan may have brought destruction to the genetic blueprint that God gave us. So, then, Darwin and Evolution could be seen themselves to be proof of evil as it now exists in the world. The inefficient manner in which our cells copy themselves could be due, no less, than to the Devil's failed attempt at miming life as God created it for evolution itself, operating on its mindless own without any Divine guidance, would have expelled as uselessly inefficient the time-consuming and energy-wasting form of replication as it would have, by necessity, eliminated the need for creatures to consume anything as energy sources and replenishments. Yes, that's right, the need to eat anything be it vegetable, mineral, or flesh would've become obsolete. That itself negates the contradiction of thermodynamic entropy. Replaced it with what? Well...

I'd like to tackle the rest of your treatise at a later time. You're incredibly brilliant, it's obvious you've given this great thought, but to believe that a life form begins in its perfect state and later generations are base, inferior caricatures of the original could be considered controversial. Unless, of course, you are a Creationist.

Thank you very much. Your writing is really quite wonderful.

Ric
05-17-2016, 09:15 PM
And what type of stress? In a simple organism as bacterium stress would have to be physical, say an environmental event that would, perhaps, cause it discomfort. Heat, cold, lack of water, I suppose something along those lines. With humans that could be different? Would mental stress cause such a change? Happiness, sadness, strife? Or curiousity itself?
Yes, changes in salinity, pH, temperature etc. for a bacteria but it is not so different for humans: we have, sorry we had, a genome adapted to tropical Africa and moving to the North must have created a maladaptation, therefore a stress. Very recently it has been shown that epigenetic changes can be caused by stress in mice.

Exactly! A specie was created in its purest form when it originated. Subsequent generations have devolved from the original, pristine, and perfect creature. Is that what it is? This is the traditional position of the Indo-European 'cosmology' that has been kept on Hinduism or even Budhism, but ironically lost by the Indo-European. That the Indo-European abandoned this philosophy, is a consequence, to me, of a progressive switch to analytic thinking, which produced western science and concepts but forgot other ways of thinking, perhaps.
I rediscovered that recently, Hinduism posits an Archetypal Perfect 'Shape' or Species, which thereafter devolves, you are correct to mention this interesting point. It puzzles me and I didn't understand it, because at first sight it opposes Darwinism (and other Transformisms, like Lamarckism) because Evolution starts with imperfect 'shapes' or 'species' that with time become more perfectly adapted in their environment. That's the point of natural selection : it removes the imperfect shapes and keep the good one, plus a tiny improvement. And this is a pretty obvious thing to observe. So I wondered, how come these early Indo-European came up with a philosophy that seem to contradict the obvious ? And if they are right, how could they figured that out when all the appearances of the material world indicate that Species complexify and get better as they evolve and not the opposite ?

If a deity did create the planet and all its life, that god would have patented our genetic structure to avoid evolution entirely. Or, if we are citing Christianity as a guideline, then the fall of Satan may have brought destruction to the genetic blueprint that God gave us. So, then, Darwin and Evolution could be seen themselves to be proof of evil as it now exists in the world. The inefficient manner in which our cells copy themselves could be due, no less, than to the Devil's failed attempt at miming life as God created it for evolution itself, operating on its mindless own without any Divine guidance, would have expelled as uselessly inefficient the time-consuming and energy-wasting form of replication as it would have, by necessity, eliminated the need for creatures to consume anything as energy sources and replenishments. Yes, that's right, the need to eat anything be it vegetable, mineral, or flesh would've become obsolete. That itself negates the contradiction of thermodynamic entropy. Replaced it with what? Well...
Very good points.

it's obvious you've given this great thought Thanks, yes, I've always been interested in this topic and tried to understand it from different perspectives.

but to believe that a life form begins in its perfect state and later generations are base, inferior caricatures of the original could be considered controversial. Unless, of course, you are a Creationist. No, I am not. Evolution is a reality. You can find fossils quite easily. The idea that God created fossils with the intention to fool us and force us to believe that the world is very old, when it is not, is nonsense.
Recently I thought about that in the conceptual frame of Algorithmic and Information theory. In this framework, things can be complex or simple, and they can also be deep or shallow. Deep in the sense that it takes lots of thinking (or computation) to produce its 'output' and shallow in the sense of triviality. Shallow or trivial things can be complex however, like an encrypted file containing a long suite of numbers that seems random, but when you have the key to decrypt the file, suddenly it makes sense as an image of something. Creationists, to me, are like that. They pretend that the World is encrypted but only them have the key to de-encrypt it. With that key, they find that God made fossils to 'look like' etc. etc. They can produce a very complex image of the world, but it only make sense with that key, that only they, have. At the end, their World is very shallow and I am afraid that the World is very very deep and it is not 'encrypted'.

Baltimore1937
05-18-2016, 05:15 AM
It had crossed my mind that stress may have caused mutations, such as sailing the cold northern seas in open Viking boats, etc.

FredH
05-18-2016, 07:01 AM
However not perfect, this effort of the cell to keep a proof reading replication process as good as it is practically possible indicates, to me, that the true purpose of DNA is to transmit information intact and unchanged, and not to mutate. Since Darwinian Evolution equals Evolution with change, I could rephrase it saying the purpose of DNA, to me, is to transmit information unchanged and not to evolve.
Darwinian Evolution is just a consequence of the thermodynamic principle but I am convinced that if it was up to the Cell, and without that Thermodynamic law (which is not a trivial thing to explain), the Cell would produce a DNA per generation totally unchanged and there would be no Evolution.
The real non-trivial thing here, is to explain the law of thermodynamic entropy, not Darwinism, once it is done Darwinian Evolution is trivial. But if you skip the Entropy, of course you start by explaining Darwinism 'out of nowhere' and you find that Darwinism is not trivial. This is where philosophy merges with Evolution.

Interesting! I didn't think about the fact that Environment could speed up the adaptation ability of Living World.Thanks!
I think the copy error rate is adjusted by the Cell itself to fit the environment change in order for the System or the Cell to stay alive. I mean that the Cell do the right effort to adapt the Environment Change. It's like a 2nd order Filter in System Engineering, this filter control the output State of your System function of the input Environment State X but also function of Its velocity Change dX/dt.



So what happens with Bacteria ? well if the purpose of the DNA is to transmit information unchanged, but the environment changes, there is a problem because the Information contained in that DNA is only relevant to survive in a certain environment. If the environment changes, the information becomes irrelevant and the cell needs to change the DNA-information carrier as well. Then the high proof reading accuracy becomes a burden. Simply, during periods of environmental change and stress, the proteins that perform that proof reading activity are shut down and the mutation rate during replication jumps at much higher levels. In addition, bacterial cells also exchange DNA with other bacteria, not always from their own species, but when a foreign dna enters a bacteria, there is a system that checks if that DNA comes from the same or a different bacterial species and only allows the DNA/information to be integrated IF they are from the same species. Usually that exchanges is controlled with a Species-specific barrier system of proteins that prevent recombination between the DNA of different species. For example, recombination will occur only if long stretch of DNA are identical, ensuring that the foreign DNA inside a bacteria is from the same Species. But during period of stress, even that Species-specific barrier is shut down, which result in DNA, and therefore information, from other bacterial species to be integrated into a bacteria. I would be surprised if higher animal kingdoms have not integrated similar mechanisms of change 'a la carte'. Globally, we could say that these mechanisms have evolved to make Bacteria evolve much faster during environmental change. . You'll notice the trick here: Evolution generates Evolution....again, Philosophy is not very far.

Is this could biased the mutation rate and the estimated age of the Mutation in the Human case?
This 2nd order effect could explained why we can link burst of Mutation with brutal Environment change or a burst of Demography in an environment with limited ressources. Thanks again!

Ric
05-18-2016, 12:13 PM
It had crossed my mind that stress may have caused mutations, such as sailing the cold northern seas in open Viking boats, etc.

I'd bet it was staying at home that was causing stress. Once on the sea, the stress was relieved but of course, they may have feared the ocean, but not in the same way, not in a stressful way.
Anyway here is a link to 'epigenetic' change: http://www.nature.com/news/sperm-rna-carries-marks-of-trauma-1.15049
From the paper :
stress also leaves ‘epigenetic marks’ — chemical changes that affect how DNA is expressed without altering its sequence. A study published this week in Nature Neuroscience finds that stress in early life alters the production of small RNAs, called microRNAs...
How much of that could eventually impact a mutation rate in certain genes is not known. They suggest methylation could be affected and methylation can cause a decrease in activity, that is, the gene sequence itself is intact, but it's transcription into RNA is blocked by the presence of Methyl residues on the DNA. If one of the methylated gene was linked to the proof activity of the DNA polymerase itself, or anything linked to the accuracy of the Replication, then you'd have a global increase in the mutation rate. That is not a smart way to speed up evolution though, because as much deleterious mutations than the good ones would occur. A much better way would be if these epigenetic changes could influence the rate of Recombination via the associated proteins that are specialized in the task of recombining DNA during meiosis. Then you'd had more crossingover during period of stress and a few generations after. Recombination, or Crossing over, doesn't qualify as a mutation but it's a way to shuffle information faster. It would certainly increase the genetic diversity in a population faster.

But none of that is a real challenge to Darwinism per se. Epigenetic is still genetic and it is more like 'biased Darwinism' than Lamarckism, at the core.

Ric
05-18-2016, 07:58 PM
Is this could biased the mutation rate and the estimated age of the Mutation in the Human case?
This 2nd order effect could explained why we can link burst of Mutation with brutal Environment change or a burst of Demography in an environment with limited ressources. Thanks again!
Honestly I don't think the mutation rate could change advantageously for a human. I am talking about classical mutation here, a nucleotide change, a deletion etc. But the proof reading system is too hardwired so it is probably not easily manipulated. For a Bacteria with a much smaller genome and a much higher population and faster replication, it maybe a good solution to touch it to speed up evolution, but not for a vertebrate.
The Recombination/Crossingover rate, on the other hand, could advantageously increase during a period of stress. Technically, it is a safer way to acquire new information than by random mutation, since any piece of chromosome that is going to be fused with another one, and that is going to generate a 'new chromosome' in the process, has been 'debugged' in its previous owner.

curiousII
05-19-2016, 04:02 AM
Very good points.Thanks. I was hoping for a little more of a detailed analysis of that position.

With selective breeding and survival of the fittest, all the old catch-phrases that were used to describe the "novel" concept of evolution, I've yet to read anywhere a sound critique of the total absurdity of a life form having to ingest any matter in order to create the energy needed for survival. It's ridiculous and obviously gaining that source of energy is dangerous to the organism, whether it be by hunt or foraging, be it carnivore or herbivore.

If evolution had even a semblance of intelligent design, a more efficient means of keeping an organism alive would certainly have been reached over the past 300 million years (a total a quick Google gives up). Being present on the planet merely as a food source for another organism, or to be the nemesis of whatever prey that particular being needs to maintain life, is so incredibly inefficient it would certainly have been eliminated from any creature's internal engine design eons ago. The differing digestive tracts of the Earth's life forms does show that experimentation has been in effect by Nature or whatever's governing all of this, but it still isn't in step with the rest of life's advances here. The very concept of hunger and starvation is so inimical to a living creature's good health and life longevity (another obvious point) that the this "appendix" would be found only in ancient fossils, if even there.

This just a brief response, thank you. But really, if one was to cite entropy as a hindrance to living organism's need to evolve to a more efficient state, the replacement of an inefficient internal engine would be the first improvement made. Wouldn't it? Doesn't that seem logical? For hundreds of millions of years, all Earth's creatures needed to ingest other living things in order to remain alive? Honestly, that doesn't even seem rational, and I'm not a vegan ranting about people eating beef or an environmentalist harping about cramped chicken coops. It just doesn't seem possible that we still have this vestigial tail.

curiousII
05-19-2016, 04:04 AM
It had crossed my mind that stress may have caused mutations, such as sailing the cold northern seas in open Viking boats, etc.No, empty wine skins would've sent them over the edge. Hence being genetically altered with larger stomachs and bladders were their additions to humanity.

FredH
05-19-2016, 05:56 AM
Honestly I don't think the mutation rate could change advantageously for a human. I am talking about classical mutation here, a nucleotide change, a deletion etc. But the proof reading system is too hardwired so it is probably not easily manipulated. For a Bacteria with a much smaller genome and a much higher population and faster replication, it maybe a good solution to touch it to speed up evolution, but not for a vertebrate.
The Recombination/Crossingover rate, on the other hand, could advantageously increase during a period of stress. Technically, it is a safer way to acquire new information than by random mutation, since any piece of chromosome that is going to be fused with another one, and that is going to generate a 'new chromosome' in the process, has been 'debugged' in its previous owner.

With no Mutation rate, then no adaptation and then no life. So Life => Adaptation => Mutation rate not equals Zero. It's a question of Logic.

As fas as I understand some Life subsystems are much more locked than the others. I heard that we share subsystem unchanged since Millions of years with animals like cows because if you change a bit of info. in the description of this subsystem you died. In other hand, some Y-DNA zones, for instance, have almost no impact on our survival chance. I think we called that high variability zone DNA. As far as I understood, I am not genetician, these zones are of some interests for Human History because their mutations rate are higher. That give us a chance to follow with more accuracy human lineages spanned on thousands or even hundreds of years instead of Millions of years. Right? The stress could speed up the mutation rates on these zones triggering burst of mutations without any impact on our survival chances. For the Historian, these bursts of Mutation due to a kind of stress mechanism could be the signature of a new environmment changes. Possible?

Apart that, I think that Life is not possible without random mutation process. It's a part of Life. For Life to start working you need at least 2 modules: one replication process plus a random error generator, but truely random (white noise) MHO.

Saetro
05-19-2016, 10:16 AM
Deleted

Ric
05-19-2016, 02:40 PM
energy-wasting form of replication as it would have, by necessity, eliminated the need for creatures to consume anything as energy sources and replenishments. Yes, that's right, the need to eat anything be it vegetable, mineral, or flesh would've become obsolete. That itself negates the contradiction of thermodynamic entropy. Replaced it with what? Well...and
If evolution had even a semblance of intelligent design, a more efficient means of keeping an organism alive would certainly have been reached over the past 300 million years (a total a quick Google gives up). Being present on the planet merely as a food source for another organism, or to be the nemesis of whatever prey that particular being needs to maintain life, is so incredibly inefficient it would certainly have been eliminated from any creature's internal engine design eons ago

The need for energy is actually a need for the organism to get rid of entropy, but since there is no way, as far as we know, to get rid of entropic disorder other than by spending energy, organisms need to obtain this energy one way or the other.
Only plants can get it directly from light. Your argument about food reminds me of Erwin Schrodinger's argumentation in his book 'What is Life?'. He talks about negative entropy, or Negentropy, as the real food. But he also notices that eating coal (energy) or eating plant with the exact same content in energy than the coal is not the same thing in terms of Negentropy. So he concludes that what we eat matters and it is not just about the energy contained in the food. That also reminds me of a point made by Roger Penrose about the solar input received by Earth. Penrose notices that it is not just the amount of Energy that matters but the entropy that is carried by the solar photons. Because most of the sun energy that the earth receives is made of photons with a wavelength in the visible spectrum, and what the Earth radiates back in space is made of infrared light with a longer wavelength that carries away more entropy. The Sun is a high source of Negentropy in space, aka food for Schrodinger.
It seems that the proper conceptual framework to think Life and Evolution in the western analytical way, is Entropy, Information Theory and Algorithmic Complexity.
And if you do that, you'll hit a bug, i'll explain later.

FredH
05-19-2016, 05:59 PM
and

The need for energy is actually a need for the organism to get rid of entropy, but since there is no way, as far as we know, to get rid of entropic disorder other than by spending energy, organisms need to obtain this energy one way or the other.

It seems that the proper conceptual framework to think Life and Evolution in the western analytical way, is Entropy, Information Theory and Algorithmic Complexity.
And if you do that, you'll hit a bug, i'll explain later.

So far, scientists proved that Nature can produce the molecules, the bricks of the life but it seems that they are very far away to undetstand how an auto-created self replication process came to existence. But I think they will have an undertsanding how things came some time. Basicaly Life forms are physical invariants as others.
Also, Complexity is not necceseraly part of life. If the environment was simple, the life would be simple. Life complexity reflect exactly the Environment complexity as Genese 1:27" So God created man in His own image" MHO :angel:

Ric
05-19-2016, 07:09 PM
With no Mutation rate, then no adaptation and then no life. So Life => Adaptation => Mutation rate not equals Zero. It's a question of Logic.

Of course, let's say a bacterial population is going through an environmental change. Increasing the mutation rate to get many more mutations, good or bad, is a brutal way to adapt to this new situation. Bad mutation means death for billions of the bacterial population, but isn't the change in environmental conditions having the same effect of killing these bacteria anyways ?
So that even without a particular lethal mutation that appeared because the proof reading activity was inhibited during the previous generation, the bacteria that carried that lethal mutation would have died anyway. So death for death, it's only the armies that don't count their soldiers that use this strategy.
It's an OK system for them but for us vertebrates, I would hope and wish for something a bit more refined, like I said an increase in the rate of crossing over during period of stress for example. Technically this can generate novelty without the lethality associated with the brute charge strategy.
A bit more explanation here, by brute change I mean a mutation that appeared de novo in the DNA sequence. Like in a bacteria, it is either good but if it is a bad mutation, the sentence is immediate. So if the rate of mutation is increased blindly in response to stress, huge numbers of lethal mutations will occur. On the other end, inside the chromosome of a higher vertebrate, IF this mutation is still present at the meiosis stage, it means that at least in an heterozygous state, the mutation allows its carrier to go that far in development of gamete production. This is some sort of natural selection already. Whoever is going to inherit that mutation by the process of recombination or crossing over should at least go as far as the previous carrier. So Crossing Over should produce novelty with a better rate of good vs lethal mutations than bacteria.


As fas as I understand some Life subsystems are much more locked than the others. I heard that we share subsystem unchanged since Millions of years with animals like cows because if you change a bit of info. in the description of this subsystem you died. yes, the older the subsystem, the less likely it is to change. Because they are all interconnected. That is one reason why I don't think the proofreading DNA polymerase activity can be changed in human, This is one of the basic and oldest subsystem of the cell. All the other subsystems 'count on it' to be what it has always been.

rate In other hand, some Y-DNA zones, for instance, have almost no impact on our survival chance. I think we called that high variability zone DNA. As far as I understood, I am not genetician, these zones are of some interests for Human History because their mutations rate are higher. That give us a chance to follow with more accuracy human lineages spanned on thousands or even hundreds of years instead of Millions of years. Right? The stress could speed up the mutation rates on these zones triggering burst of mutations without any impact on our survival chances. For the Historian, these bursts of Mutation due to a kind of stress mechanism could be the signature of a new environmment changes. Possible? Yes possible. But again, if a response to stress, in humans, is to increase the rate of recombination rather than the brute rate of mutations, then the Y chromosome that we use to follow the paternal lines should be untouched, because the Y doesn't recombine 'mostly' since 'he' doesn't have any partner in the cell to recombine with. So in such a period of stress, the autosomal chromosomes may recombine more with an apparent surge in mutation rate, but not the Y chromosome. Only geneticists that study the Y chromosome evolution could confirm that. There have been such period of stress in human history : recently the Great Pest, but before that the Glaciations and not just for modern humans, Neanderthals should have been stressed to see their numbers constantly shrink.


Apart that, I think that Life is not possible without random mutation process. It's a part of Life. For Life to start working you need at least 2 modules: one replication process plus a random error generator, but truely random (white noise) MHO.
The white noise is the 2nd principle of thermodynamic. But it is something that the living cell has to deal with because it is inevitable, not something that the cell needs. Actually as said above, all the feeding of a cell is to get rid of that inevitable increase in entropy and 2nd principle.

FredH
05-20-2016, 07:49 AM
Only geneticists that study the Y chromosome evolution could confirm that. There have been such period of stress in human history : recently the Great Pest, but before that the Glaciations and not just for modern humans, Neanderthals should have been stressed to see their numbers constantly shrink.

I read many time that archaelogists linked the burst of Y-DNA mutation with population burst following a techno discovery without explaining it. We see a possible link but I didn't see any explanation in scientific media so far. I tried to find some ref after a discussion with foucart but with no success.

Concerning Neanderthal , I note that the rule in life is : " what don't kill you completly gets you stronger" , this is consistent with the evolution, then when you go through an ordeal, you have a two solutions, either you die or you get stronger. Apparently Neanderthal male line died. All gardeners know that because more you fight a species without killing it completly more you reinforce it and the other way around more you protect or cure a species more that species is getting fragile and the process is striking rapid.



The white noise is the 2nd principle of thermodynamic. But it is something that the living cell has to deal with because it is inevitable, not something that the cell needs. Actually as said above, all the feeding of a cell is to get rid of that inevitable increase in entropy and 2nd principle.

Yes, White Noise is due to the 2nd principle. But 2nd principle says that any system description gets simpler, this seems in contradiction with Life systems whose the description gets more complex. Also, 2nd principle gives a sense to a physical process. It must evolve from complex to simpler. Since there is a sense we are not far away from an intelligent design, at least it's looks like.

Ric
07-26-2016, 05:31 PM
I read many time that archaelogists linked the burst of Y-DNA mutation with population burst following a techno discovery without explaining it. We see a possible link but I didn't see any explanation in scientific media so far. I tried to find some ref after a discussion with foucart but with no success.

The more people, the more DNA globally, the more mutations will occur and will be selected for or against. In the case of the Y chromosome, there is almost no genes and no selection, so mutations will just accumulate.


2nd principle says that any system description gets simpler
Not necessarily, a classical example is the spontaneous formation of tornadoes that dissipate more energy than a general windy weather. An homogenous windy pattern demands less Information content to be described (example: 50mph wind NNW at temperature T) than an area filled with tornadoes (require information about the size, speed position of each tornadoes). Lots of dissipative systems show some level of self organization that require more descriptive information than the isotropic system. But you are right when you say the system will eventually get simpler: without any additional solar energy input in the weather pattern, the system WILL get simpler at the end, whether or not it went through a general high wind, or a tornado pattern, aka only the final states matter.

Note that none of these concepts become easy to understand as you dig in. Even when ignoring the problem of Life, Entropy/disorder is increasing in the Universe which nonetheless shows a high level of self organization in stars, galaxy planets etc. When you go back in Time, Entropy had to be less than today (since it has increased since then) so does that mean that the entire Universe was more complex in the past than today ? No, we know the Universe had no Galaxies, planets or molecules 'near' its beginning. It may have been near total isotropy, 'identical in any directions' plus or minus tiny fluctuations that had become todays' galaxies. The present self organization, like tornadoes, could only be transient dissipating systems or fluctuations.

Yet, Life has a real bug and it is not because it violates a thermodynamic law, it doesn't. Classically, we can consider Life as an out of equilibrium, self organized and dissipative system that appeared as a result of a series of 'computations' during Evolution.
These Computations can also be considered as a measurement of the Environment during Evolution, which can be described by the Darwinian model, which said model is computable, that is, it can be modeled by algorithms on a computer. When we accept the Darwinian model of Evolution we implicitly acknowledge that Evolution (the real Thing, not the model in our representation) is Computable.
This vision of the Universe with Life inside it is called 'Computationalism'. At this point, everything is fine.

But is Evolution really computable ? I mentioned a bug or bugs. One bug is a consequence of the view of Sir Roger Penrose, expressed in his book "Emperor's new Mind" and "Shadows of the Mind". Penrose conjectures that 'Consciousness' is not computable. Said otherwise, no computer can simulate Conscioussness. The problem is that the Human Mind is a product of Evolution, which as said above, is considered a computable thing. But how come ? A non-computable result cannot be obtained by computation.
One can reduce Darwinism to a classical decision problem and show that Darwinism is indeed just a computation, hopefully i'll elaborate on that later.
Of course Penrose's view is more of a conjecture than a proof, but I believe it is sound and true. Then, I cannot explain how a non-computable output can be obtained from a computation.

curiousII
07-26-2016, 07:47 PM
Kudzu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu

Kudzu seems to have handled itself fairly well. I had a short conversation with a biologist and asked him why evolution hasn't replaced the need for warm-blooded creatures to hunt for their energy, why they had to expose their physical shell to danger merely to replenish their energy stores, and he responded to the effect that the total body surface area was too small to allow warm-blooded humans to develop into beings that could use photosynthesis or its equivalent as a means to retain life. The total body mass is inadequate for that purpose, the need to ingest large amounts of matter to remain alive precluded it.

OK, there's that. But then I mentioned kudzu and he really became animated. The change was really swift and awe-inspiring. He got quite vocal and said that he'd spent time in the South with kudzu, and wondered where I'd come across that analogy, basically. Not a hard stretch of the imagination, lots of people know of the plight in the South of kudzu conquering just about everything.

But entropy and the use of energy: kudzu seems to be an anomaly, doesn't it? Its growth rate is extraordinary and contradicts the need for body surface area to absorb energy in a manner that doesn't require a physical hunt, that doesn't jeopardize its entire physical self to harm and destruction. I'm certain there's other analogies in nature, but this is a good one and one that's contemporary with modern times.

The need for the hunt, the hunt being a main ingredient in Darwin's survival of the fittest (article's a few years old): http://www.newsweek.com/how-hunting-driving-evolution-reverse-78295 Yet, the victorious life form in a hunt isn't always the most intelligent or largest. Evolution certainly could have found a number of far more efficient methods for humans to acquire and consume energy in amounts sufficient to keep us alive and aware, to keep us competitive with our environment without constantly exposing ourselves to danger. Why it hasn't, I don't know. There's simply so many different types of life on the planet, evolution could've found a life-support system much more effective for us and for those around us that doesn't entail any hunting, trapping, or conquering another. it isn't cost effective.

Ric
07-27-2016, 01:12 AM
Kudzu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu
Evolution certainly could have found a number of far more efficient methods
A Method = an Algorithm, or a Computation.
I rephrase your statement as :

Evolution certainly could have found a number of far more efficient Algorithm
Here we are.
Now, as I mentioned above Darwinism IS a Model, and a Computable model of Evolution. So you are asking if a computer can found a more efficient Algorithm than the one it is already using. This is a question of theoretical Algorithmic Complexity that may have NO solution.

Ric
07-31-2016, 07:28 PM
Kudzu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KudzuThe need for the hunt, the hunt being a main ingredient in Darwin's survival of the fittest (article's a few years old): http://www.newsweek.com/how-hunting-driving-evolution-reverse-78295 Yet, the victorious life form in a hunt isn't always the most intelligent or largest
I'm not sure to understand where you want to go. Being vegetarian certainly was not an option for a bipedal creature with a high caloric demand. Eat a meal with meat and be done in one hour, you'll have the rest of the day for other things like thinking, or eat grass all day long with nothing else to do.

Within conceptual Darwinism, the response to your question is obvious because a Darwinian interpretation always come from observations 'after the fact'. So your biologist friend will find easy explanation like the one I suggest : that there is not enough energy in vegetarian food, hence the hunting.
But you could keep asking : But why do we need so much energy ?
Biologist : because our big brains at rest already consume 1/5 of our energy/food income.
You : Why do we need big brains ?
Biologist : to compute the information necessary for the survival of a big brained bipedal hominid.

You'll notice that the biologist is already stuck in a loop. Some people have compared the entirety of Darwinism to a self-referential loop. I quote a book on Intelligent Design : "Darwinism = Survival of the Survivaliest", that made me laugh because it is actually somehow true.
As I mentioned above, I am not a proponent of ID, as such as it is proposed by IDers now. Their theory is comparable to an encrypted theory that make no sense to anybody, except to them, because They have the Key to decrypt it and only with this key it makes sense. From the Logical Depth point of View expressed by Charles Bennett, ID is a 'Shallow' theory. And Evolution is very deep...3.8 billion years worth of computations so far.

curiousII
08-01-2016, 06:34 AM
I'm not sure to understand where you want to go.

Nowhere in particular, actually. Just random, maybe not as random as evolution seems to be, though.
Being vegetarian certainly was not an option for a bipedal creature with a high caloric demand. Eat a meal with meat and be done in one hour, you'll have the rest of the day for other things like thinking, or eat grass all day long with nothing else to do.

For how many millions of years before evolution eliminates the need for such high energy consumption levels and replaces them with...what? Eating all day is certainly inefficient unless that, itself, serves a purpose for the environment or the greater good of something else. Just as much good as a short meal of meat and then spend the rest of the day doing what, pondering? Of course, that's the entire concept of our civilization: once our hunter-gatherer forebears learned agriculture and domestication, they could spend more hours of the day contemplating their surroundings and passing on that intelligence to their children. But then evolution, not to be outdone, would certainly have shown its presence again. Is that bacteria on our chromosomes?


Within conceptual Darwinism, the response to your question is obvious because a Darwinian interpretation always come from observations 'after the fact'. So your biologist friend will find easy explanation like the one I suggest : that there is not enough energy in vegetarian food, hence the hunting.

Right, you're right. But he was talking about photosynthesis and why it wouldn't work in warm-blooded life forms, not just being vegan. And now we limit our thinking again (probably due to our being, basically, island dwellers. No matter the size, continent or a mere dry pebble, we all know our travels end at a shore and since we're not amphibious...): Not just photosynthesis or solar, but nuclear itself? Why would life limit its evolution to that which is so benign? If a more efficient means of energy replenishment could be had by nuclear means or fashion, why would evolution stop short of that? Here the life form has no need to seek food, it's given to it every day. And not just the solar energy that reaches the planet's surface filtered as it is by the atmosphere.

Our physical shell need not have ended at this stage we live in, we're so inefficient, weak, and incessently vulnerable in our present form. This isn't a new idea or one that's mine, you can find it in all kinds of science fiction. But why does that end with fiction? We can die of radiation poisoning, true, but in the past we could also die from infection. Antibiotics ended that in a large part.

Algorithm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm#Informal_definition

Here "...a set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations" implies there are rules. In evolution, whose rules are they? Darwin's concepts? Some organic internal process of the specific species? Either one, the hunt, carni- or omnivore, is inefficient and flawed and does nothing to better the species or environment. It's really nuclear energy and whatever type of life form evolved from it, no matter the organism's end appearance. If that level of evolution is not reached, then it's some form of IT hindrance that disproves of it.

That biologist was quite kind in speaking with me. As you are, Ric, and I do appreciate it.

Edit: Meant "ID," Intelligent Design, a Creator. Someone or Something has really thrown out some spike strips and raised some roadblocks in life's quest for an efficient form. Be that hindrance malicious or beneficial, it's left us all inhabiting flawed products.

whattodo
08-05-2016, 11:34 AM
Evolutionary psychology is one of many biologically informed approaches to the study of human behavior. Along with cognitive psychologists, evolutionary psychologists propose that much, if not all, of our behavior can be explained by appeal to internal psychological mechanisms. What distinguishes evolutionary psychologists from many cognitive psychologists is the proposal that the relevant internal mechanisms are adaptations用roducts of natural selection葉hat helped our ancestors get around the world, survive and reproduce. To understand the central claims of evolutionary psychology we require an understanding of some key concepts in evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Philosophers are interested in evolutionary psychology for a number of reasons. For philosophers of science 洋ostly philosophers of biology容volutionary psychology provides a critical target. There is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise. For philosophers of mind and cognitive science evolutionary psychology has been a source of empirical hypotheses about cognitive architecture and specific components of that architecture. Philosophers of mind are also critical of evolutionary psychology but their criticisms are not as all-encompassing as those presented by philosophers of biology. Evolutionary psychology is also invoked by philosophers interested in moral psychology both as a source of empirical hypotheses and as a critical target.

curiousII
08-05-2016, 12:49 PM
Evolutionary psychology is one of many biologically informed approaches to the study of human behavior...What distinguishes evolutionary psychologists from many cognitive psychologists is the proposal that the relevant internal mechanisms are adaptations用roducts of natural selection葉hat helped our ancestors get around the world, survive and reproduce.Nice! Thank you.
There is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise.A good definition of evolution itself
Evolutionary psychology is also invoked by philosophers interested in moral psychology both as a source of empirical hypotheses and as a critical target.That should keep them busy.

Ric
08-06-2016, 02:47 PM
I found Penrose's approach very smart ass.
Instead of asking a general question way too much philosophical, such as : ' Can Death be inferred from a system of rules running in a totally Abiotic world ?'
He goes with a demonstration ad absurdum on a tiny subset of Life's byproduct, namely a mathematical theorem.
Current theories state that all cognitive processes are the result of some Neural Network activity, and that in turn, a cognitive process, however complex it is, is a computable process that can be simulated in a computer with Neural Network algorithms.
He then notices that there are theorems in mathematics that cannot be inferred from previous rules on numbers such as the Goodstein's theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein%27s_theorem
Immediately he asks, what Neural Network Algorithm running in the brain of a mathematician, or in a computer processor, could produce the Goodstein's theorem ?
None, by definition. But you can only know that only a posteriori.
If you can't produce this theorem from previous rules on numbers, part of the cognitive process that took part in Goodstein's brain was non computational in Nature. Then even if this part is very small among the other massive computational Neural Network activity, this is nonetheless a proof that living processes can elicit, or contain, I am not sure how to say it, parts that are not computable in Nature.

The wiki link indicates it is one of Four such theorems that are NOT provable by computation, any computation. The first being Gdel' s incompleteness theorem in 1931.
Notice again that the proof of the presence of a non-computational activity in the living kingdom, namely in the Brain, had to wait for 3.8 billion years of....what, computation ?. Before 1931, you could assume that the entire mechanisms that ruled the living 'machine', including Evolution that produced the Brain, were reducible to computations, but now ?

Inigo Montoya
08-06-2016, 03:26 PM
As usual with attempts to leverage one of Gdel's incompleteness theorems or some equivalent result for philosophical purposes, this fails because "not provable in Peano arithmetic" =/=> "not computable". Goodstein's theorem can still be proved by an automated theorem-proving program running on any sufficiently powerful computer.

Ric
08-06-2016, 04:45 PM
Oh I have no doubt that any creation of the mind, like a mathematical theorem, that is initially not provable with a former set of rules may eventually become provable with an updated and smarter set of mathematical rules. In the video where Penrose uses the Goodstein theorem, he doesn't fail to mention that the Goodstein is provable using Transcendental numbers, whatever that means his point is that a computer using Natural numbers could not find it. There may be no end to that. Even his initial example in the book with the polyominoes problem, which solution is not computable right now, may find a solution in the future with smarter future mathematics.
But Evolution, or the current Neural Networks that runs in our brains don't have access to algorithms from the Future, they just have the algorithms they have now with the computing power they have now.

Agnimitra
08-07-2016, 08:44 AM
This is the traditional position of the Indo-European 'cosmology' that has been kept on Hinduism or even Budhism, but ironically lost by the Indo-European. That the Indo-European abandoned this philosophy, is a consequence, to me, of a progressive switch to analytic thinking, which produced western science and concepts but forgot other ways of thinking, perhaps.


What makes you say that PIE cosmology was something on this line?



I rediscovered that recently, Hinduism posits an Archetypal Perfect 'Shape' or Species, which thereafter devolves, you are correct to mention this interesting point. It puzzles me and I didn't understand it, because at first sight it opposes Darwinism (and other Transformisms, like Lamarckism) because Evolution starts with imperfect 'shapes' or 'species' that with time become more perfectly adapted in their environment. That's the point of natural selection : it removes the imperfect shapes and keep the good one, plus a tiny improvement. And this is a pretty obvious thing to observe. So I wondered, how come these early Indo-European came up with a philosophy that seem to contradict the obvious ? And if they are right, how could they figured that out when all the appearances of the material world indicate that Species complexify and get better as they evolve and not the opposite ?
'.

I am not sure I understand what you refer to by the archetypal shape. Perhaps it is the Vedic Prajapathi( Greek Protogonos)?

My own assessment of the Vedic literature gives me a contrary opinion. I checked out the two most ancient Indo European philosophies - The Vedanta(monist) and Samkhya( Dualist). The roots of both of them sink deep into the Rig Vedic times. They both talk of evolution(parinama) not just in the biological sense but in a material sense too, where the universe evolves and expands out of the first cause or primordial matter(called Pradhana in Samkhya). According to Samkhya, life emerges sometime in the midst of this because consciousness is "entrapped" inside matter awaiting the right conditions, or something like that. Parinama or evolution proceeds until consciousness "recognizes" itself as distinct from matter. Well, at the level of the human species, evolution did recognize itself, though not the same in meaning as the former. It is in the nature of this first cause that these two most ancient philosophies, not just of the Indo Europeans but of humanity itself, differ. Also important to note is that both these philosophies agree that the universe will finally dissolve back into the first cause only to start again. Its a cyclical cosmology that the early IE people believed in, I'd wager.

About Vedanta, the later texts like Upanishads and the epics are very unmistakably agreeing in the most general sense that we are progressing towards perfection and not the other way around. The later texts actually fuse Vedanta and Samkhya, unwilling to accept one and reject the other. But it would be more relevant to search for what the Rig veda itself says because it is the closest extant literature to the PIE and its culture.

I welcome you to share my rude shock in finding a line of thinking in the Aranyaka of the Rig veda that is simply anachronistic and does not belong in such a primitive, unenlightened age. Seriously...

"He who is aware how that the Self gradually unfolds within him
obtains for himself a greater development. Herbs and trees and
animals he sees, and he knows that in them too the Self is gradually
revealed. For in herbs and trees there is only sap, but in animals there
is mind. Among animals, moreover, it can be seen that the Self is
manifested little by little, for in some of them thought is present as
well as sap, but in others there is sap only. And in man, especially the
Self by degrees unfolds itself, for he of all beings is most endowed
with consciousness. He says what he has known, he sees what he has
known, he knows what is to happen tomorrow, he knows the gross
and the subtle. In his mortality he desires the immortal. Thus is he
endowed. In other animate beings understanding goes no further
than hunger and thirst: they do not say what they have known, nor
do they see what they have known. They do not know what is to
happen tomorrow, nor do they know the gross and the subtle. To
a certain point they go — but they go no further."
Aitaraya Aranyaka 2.ii.1-5, Rig veda

The author of the above passage is a rishi(sage) called Mahidasa Aitareya. A badass to the say the least. He makes a crude and archaic recognition that something fishy is going on in nature.

The most striking difference of Vedic systems to the modern theory is that the latter says only animate things evolve by radical changes to the organism as a whole. And there is no such thing as a permanent component beneath the change. According to Vedanta and Samkhya, all creation evolves, animate and inanimate. And this evolution is only an "apparent" modification of an unalterable substance not revealed to our inefficient and undependable sense organs. Perhaps, Homo sapiens futuris will have senses that can perceive reality better?B)

To go even further back into the Rig vedic core would be bothersome, but rewarding. The hyms to Prajapathi(X. 121) actually talks of a "primordial flood" containing the "universal germs" and "productive force".
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10121.htm

All this serves to show that the early Indo Europeans had a primitive concept of evolution rather than devolution.

Ric
08-07-2016, 03:36 PM
What makes you say that PIE cosmology was something on this line?
Some similarities between Proto-Indo-European, or Indo-Aryan, with Hinduism as a Proto 'religion' can be found here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion

Devolution from perfect spiritual archetypes is mentioned here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution

. Michael Cremo defines this process of devolution as "The process by which conscious selves descend to the realm of the material energy, and are placed in material bodily vehicles."[41] Cremo proposes that human beings have not evolved from other animals, but they have devolved down from a spiritual world.[42] This process of devolution is rooted in the Hindu teaching of Sat Desh, (translated "True Home") which teaches that a spiritual homeland exists eternally which is the location where spirits dwell before they enter material bodies on earth.[43]

But I agree that the concept of Cyclical Evolution encapsulates this idea of devolution. My own curiosity is about how 'they' came up with this idea of cyclical time then, perhaps it was an intuitive grasp based on the observation of the seasons, or death and birth ? Roger Penrose, him again, wrote about cycles on a cosmic scale, although each cycle is not necessarily a reproduction of the former cycle.



I am not sure I understand what you refer to by the archetypal shape. Perhaps it is the Vedic Prajapathi( Greek Protogonos)?
My own assessment of the Vedic literature gives me a contrary opinion. I checked out the two most ancient Indo European philosophies - The Vedanta(monist) and Samkhya( Dualist). The roots of both of them sink deep into the Rig Vedic times. They both talk of evolution(parinama) not just in the biological sense but in a material sense too, where the universe evolves and expands out of the first cause or primordial matter(called Pradhana in Samkhya). According to Samkhya, life emerges sometime in the midst of this because consciousness is "entrapped" inside matter awaiting the right conditions, or something like that. Parinama or evolution proceeds until consciousness "recognizes" itself as distinct from matter. Well, at the level of the human species, evolution did recognize itself, though not the same in meaning as the former. It is in the nature of this first cause that these two most ancient philosophies, not just of the Indo Europeans but of humanity itself, differ. Also important to note is that both these philosophies agree that the universe will finally dissolve back into the first cause only to start again. Its a cyclical cosmology that the early IE people believed in, I'd wager.
OK, Cyclical cosmology is the important concept.


About Vedanta, the later texts like Upanishads and the epics are very unmistakably agreeing in the most general sense that we are progressing towards perfection and not the other way around. The later texts actually fuse Vedanta and Samkhya, unwilling to accept one and reject the other. But it would be more relevant to search for what the Rig veda itself says because it is the closest extant literature to the PIE and its culture.
Ok, you are more knowledgeable than I in this matter, so I have to believe you on this important point.


I welcome you to share my rude shock in finding a line of thinking in the Aranyaka of the Rig veda that is simply anachronistic and does not belong in such a primitive, unenlightened age. Seriously...

"He who is aware how that the Self gradually unfolds within him
obtains for himself a greater development. Herbs and trees and
animals he sees, and he knows that in them too the Self is gradually
revealed. For in herbs and trees there is only sap, but in animals there
is mind. Among animals, moreover, it can be seen that the Self is
manifested little by little, for in some of them thought is present as
well as sap, but in others there is sap only. And in man, especially the
Self by degrees unfolds itself, for he of all beings is most endowed
with consciousness. He says what he has known, he sees what he has
known, he knows what is to happen tomorrow, he knows the gross
and the subtle. In his mortality he desires the immortal. Thus is he
endowed. In other animate beings understanding goes no further
than hunger and thirst: they do not say what they have known, nor
do they see what they have known. They do not know what is to
happen tomorrow, nor do they know the gross and the subtle. To
a certain point they go — but they go no further."
Aitaraya Aranyaka 2.ii.1-5, Rig veda

The author of the above passage is a rishi(sage) called Mahidasa Aitareya. A badass to the say the least. He makes a crude and archaic recognition that something fishy is going on in nature.
Can you elaborate about the fishy thing ?
A modern equivalent of 'fishiness' would be the problem of the cosmological constants that seem fined tuned to allow life to emerge, aka the Anthropic Coincidences. All the explanations I've seen don't make these coincidences less puzzling.


The most striking difference of Vedic systems to the modern theory is that the latter says only animate things evolve by radical changes to the organism as a whole. And there is no such thing as a permanent component beneath the change. According to Vedanta and Samkhya, all creation evolves, animate and inanimate. And this evolution is only an "apparent" modification of an unalterable substance not revealed to our inefficient and undependable sense organs. Perhaps, Homo sapiens futuris will have senses that can perceive reality better?B)
As an interesting note about this putative future 'sense', Rupert Sheldrake made the excellent point that, if we wanted to prevent this future sense to emerge, 'we' would not act differently than we do now by allowing the proliferation of all social media device that are supposed to improve 'communication'. And as an application of the rule 'The function creates the Organ', the more we use these devices, the less we have a chance to develop our awareness of other things.


All this serves to show that the early Indo Europeans had a primitive concept of evolution rather than devolution.
Ok, I appreciate this correction. Thank you for your input in this thread.

My own shock came after reading 'The Tao of Physics' of Fritjof Capra, after I read Penrose's book. In his book, Capra put all the modern concepts of physics in parallel with Hinduism and related philosophies.
I t is certainly interesting, but hard to grasp the relevance of such enterprise, unless you have read Penrose book before that suggests the existence of natural phenomena that are not reducible to computations.
About that, I disagree with Inigo above that Gdel' Incompleteness' should never be used outside a formal system of rules. Evolution, as it is conceptualized in Darwinism can be formalized as a formal system with decisions rules and within this formal system in which the brain and neural networks are just an output, the incompleteness theorem should apply. I repeat that It is a judgment on our Darwinian model of evolution, not Evolution per se.
So, Incompleteness holds only for our current conceptions. Even Penrose mentions that while Consciousness cannot be simulated with current computers, we can't exclude that it may be possible with future concepts in computation and mathematics. If this happens, chances are that our model of evolution will also change.

Agnimitra
08-09-2016, 03:02 PM
But I agree that the concept of Cyclical Evolution encapsulates this idea of devolution. My own curiosity is about how 'they' came up with this idea of cyclical time then, perhaps it was an intuitive grasp based on the observation of the seasons, or death and birth ? Roger Penrose, him again, wrote about cycles on a cosmic scale, although each cycle is not necessarily a reproduction of the former cycle.

Penrose's view that consciousness is a result of biological quantum processes and that it is not algorithmic is interesting even though critics abound.

The devolution may not involve the species reverting to lesser forms, perhaps just a total extinction. The cyclical timescale removes the logical problem of T-ZERO and causation. That was the reasoning adopted by Kapila in his Samkhya. It also makes some kind of moral sense- time is also conserved and so there is equity in the universe, creation is not biased to anyone or anything. Add the theory of Karma to that and the moral problem is no more. It keeps circling endlessly. And yes, as you say, cycles that are distinct adds further flavour. Even better, cycles of multiverses. But of course Philosophy often never bothered to step out of speculations into the realm of proof.

Science holds time to be linear. All those millenniums of speculations for nothing, it would seem.



Can you elaborate about the fishy thing ?

Abstraction is the ability to separate a mental experience from an actual object. Symbolization is the ability to convert experience into distinct symbols or words. Then you make logical connections between the words forming language which is partly learned and partly inherited in the prelingual structures in the brain. Object-Thought-Referent form the triangle of meaning. These three are uniquely human capabilities which allowed us to form language.

It is fishy if these three superpowers suddenly emerged by mutations at the level of the human species. Did it takes hundreds of thousands of years of hominids to achieve them? It was long held by philosophers that only humans possess self consciousness. But now quite a few animals have passed the mirror test.



As an interesting note about this putative future 'sense', Rupert Sheldrake made the excellent point that, if we wanted to prevent this future sense to emerge, 'we' would not act differently than we do now by allowing the proliferation of all social media device that are supposed to improve 'communication'. And as an application of the rule 'The function creates the Organ', the more we use these devices, the less we have a chance to develop our awareness of other things.


What we see, hear and feel of the outer world is actually just our brain's best guess of what's really outside. An internal simulation of the external reality. It is scary to think that evolution has given us only the necessarily truthful sense capacity to survive in fitness as a species. We dont need to really know whats outside to survive as we are it would seem. Cognitive scientist Donald D Hoffman says that evolution is increasing fitness by driving truth to extinction. But our perception must have some level of truth to it, or we would have long since been wiped out. The fitness function does not match external structure. Perceptions are tuned to fitness, not to truth.

On the one hand, the hard problem of how a few pounds of neurons produce first person experience still stands firm. Then of course the quantum problem that objects cant be held to have an absolutely observer independent existence, defying common sense. So what is more significant? The universe or the scientist staring out into space through a telescope?

On game theory, one of Hoffman's theorems has already been proved by a mathematical physicist- "According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never."

But of course we need to be able to tell a tiger from a plant. The unnecessary details are hidden from us. Hoffman gives the example of a file on your desktop. Its blue and square. But actually its just how the system allows you to perceive it . The file is really not blue and definitely not square.



About that, I disagree with Inigo above that Gdel' Incompleteness' should never be used outside a formal system of rules. Evolution, as it is conceptualized in Darwinism can be formalized as a formal system with decisions rules and within this formal system in which the brain and neural networks are just an output, the incompleteness theorem should apply. I repeat that It is a judgment on our Darwinian model of evolution, not Evolution per se.
So, Incompleteness holds only for our current conceptions. Even Penrose mentions that while Consciousness cannot be simulated with current computers, we can't exclude that it may be possible with future concepts in computation and mathematics. If this happens, chances are that our model of evolution will also change

What could be these rules in this Darwinian system? Rules must be written in codons. But mutations are random and evolution is directionless. This seems more chaotic and blind serving chance rather than rule abiding and ordered.

I have read of a theory(speculation of course) that the purpose of the brain may be to filter out a greater consciousness. An interesting proposition that could serve to explain the many problems that plague the subject . It would also support these philosophies. But oh well, we must follow the lead of evidences wherever they take us.

Ric
08-10-2016, 04:57 PM
What could be these rules in this Darwinian system? Rules must be written in codons. But mutations are random and evolution is directionless. This seems more chaotic and blind serving chance rather than rule abiding and ordered.

Going back to Darwin, Evolution is about "On the Origin of the Species".

Here I reduce the Darwinian principles to a series of decision problems that either have a solution and STOP, or don't have a solution and never stop.
Since Darwinism is about how to explain the 'Origin of the Species', if you follow what comes next, you will agree that Darwinism is reducible to a computer whose job is to find NUMBERS. That is, Darwinism is computable and can be simulated on a computer.

But first, let's start with a short introduction. During Evolution, most of the Evolutionary changes stem from developmental changes in the Embryo. DNA is considered as a source code that is interpreted and produces (i skip some steps) an Embryo. The embryonic growth itself is generated by the run of the DNA source code and the millions of algorithms that it encodes. At least at the level necessary for the simulation of a few thousands cells, there are already some Cell Simulators that can simulate a group of cells in an organ rudiment. For Example the software 'CompuCell3d (CC3d)' has been able to reproduce the formation of the embryonic somites. Once formed, organs will produce physiological functions that are also reducible to algorithms, to model pH, salt concentrations, enzyme activities, mechanical movements, flow, etc.
So, a Program called 'Darwinian Computation' produces a source code, called 'DNA', that produces a certain species with organs, said organs are also reducible to programs that produce a physiological function and, for the people that hold that the Mind is computable (Computationalist point of view) , that is to say that Evolution produced h. sapiens species, that produce the Brain, that produced the Mind.
But instead of h. sapiens and as a reference to Darwin who characterized species of Finch based on their beaks, i am going to use the Beak developmental algorithms as an example. Among all the algorithms that describe the avian embryonic development, Evolution didn't use different Algorithms from Birds species to other birds species (and even from Vertebrates to other vertebrates), rather, the same algorithms are re-used for the growth of a chicken beak or for the growth of a duck beak, but only with different parameters passed to these algorithms. For example the number of days N that a beak grows rostrally after hatching is important, it will define part of the beak shape and size. This number N can be dependent on another Algorithms, such as the activity of a DNA promoter or the presence of a growth factor. But the end result is that the developmental program produces a beak that grows for N days post-hatching, in a particular species of birds.
Now, I am going to use exactly the same notation that Penrose used in his book 'Shadows of the Mind'.

When Darwin defined a bird species based on its beak shape and lenght, he, in fact defined a bird species based on a particular parameter n passed to an algorithm that control the beak growth.
We call the millions of algorithms that run during development C0, C1, C2,....Cn, and the one in particular dedicated to the number of days of post hatching beak growth, Cq.
But we said that these algorithms are most often parametric of some number n, so we call them C0(n), C1(n), C2(n)....and the particular one that controls the length of the beak is Cq(n). Cq(40) produces a beak that grows for 40 days, long and slender, while Cq(10) produces a short, thick and strong beak.
Basically, Darwin assigned a nut cracker finch Species to Cq(10) and he assigned another bird Species, one that is looking to catch mosquitoes or shrimps in the puddles of the shore, to Cq(40).
The Darwinian first precept is 'Descent with modification', so, n will change randomly for the particular Algorithm Cq, because of a mutation for example, and new values of n define mutant bird.

This is our first decision problem of the 'Origins of the Species' :
For this n, Is Cq(n) defining a new viable Species ?

There is no way to answer a priori this question.
We reformulate the question :
Find n, such as Cq(n) defines a new Species in this particular environment (a shore with worms deep in the sand) .
Any ways we formulate this question on Cq(n), we refer to it as the decision problem on Cq(n), or Cq(n) for short.
It's the same answer anyways: there is no way to know - a priori- if any value of n can produce a new Species of Bird in this particular environment. So we don't know if the question has a solution and therefore will return n and stop, or has no solution for any n and therefore will never stop, in which later case you can imagine Evolution producing all sorts of values for n in Cq(n), no Species of bird, whatever long or short are their beaks, can live on these shores.

Now, I am going to follow Penrose again. Imagine that there are actually some logical procedures, called A, that are able to predict if the question " Find n, such as Cq(n) defines a new Species in this particular environment", has a solution and stop, or has no solution and never stop.
In the Darwinian model of Evolution, these procedures A are simply Natural Selection, or specifically, all the Algorithms necessary to model the shore environment . But because the procedure A applies to the particular Beak Developmental Algorithm Cq, it is a function of q, so we call it A (q) and in addition, because it is a function of the parameter n passed to Cq, A is also a function of n, so we call it : A(q,n).
In terms of Darwinian Evolution we simply say : if Natural Selection makes the bird carrier of that beak Cq(n) unfit on this beach, the bird will not survive or won't be able to reproduce, and therefore for this particular value of n, Cq(n) doesn't define a new (viable) bird Species that could live here. Which translate into :

If A(q, n) STOPS, aka Natural Selection killed the new mutant bird on this beach, then Cq(n) DOESN'T STOP, and inversely,
If A(q, n) never STOPS, aka the new mutant bird doesn't die, then Cq(n) STOPS, n is a viable solution here.
This Darwinian Model of Evolution is really just about finding numbers. Now, because n and q are just numbers, we could imagine the inevitable occurrence of q = n. The decision problem becomes:
If A(n,n) STOPS, then Cn(n) DOES NOT STOP.
A only depends on ONE number, n. But now comes a difficult step. Penrose poses that A encapsulates ALL the possible procedures on the number n , that is, ALL the possible Computations on n, in which C will be one such computation, necessarily. In the big, but finite world of Natural Selection, the particular shore environment doesn't need to be simulated with All the possible computations on n, but at least one procedure simulating the presence of these worms at depth d, has to be included in A to simulate the Environment. And because the growth of a beak for n days is related to the beak's length and therefore the depth d reachable with that length, in Natural Selection too, it is inevitable that the procedure A(n,n) will be the same as one of the computation C that command the beaks length. It could be Cq itself, but Let's generalize and say it is Ck. So we have :
A(n,n) = Ck(n)
Since we deal with numbers, we can have n=k. It is a legitimate case. So we have now:
A(k,k) = Ck(k)
NOTE: this is a litteral copy of Penrose's demonstration. If you are tired of it, just keep in mind that A = Natural Selection and C = Developmental program as a product of Evolution.
From above, this means : If A(k,K) STOPS, then Ck(k) DOES NOT STOP and, since A(k,k) = Ck(k), then it becomes :
If Ck(k) STOPS, then Ck(k) DOES NOT STOP.

The paradox stems from the self reference condition mentioned above, namely that one procedure of Natural Selection used to test the developmental program has to be the same as one algorithm running in the developmental program.
To avoid the paradox we must conclude that Ck(k) DOES NOT STOP, but A(k,k) is the same as Ck(k), therefore A(k,k) doesn't stop, which means that a procedure simulating the Natural Selection on the beach has allowed a mutant bird to survive despite having a value for n (here n=k) that cannot define a viable new Species.
Or said otherwise, A, the Natural Selection, is INCAPABLE to ascertain that this particular mutant is unfit and cannot represent a new Species.

In addition, Penrose continues and notes that, If 'we' know that A is 'sound', aka that Natural Selection is truthful, then we know that Ck(k) DOES NOT STOP, aka there is no solution for n=k in this environment. Who is we ? to me, 'we' is Evolution, the real thing, not its model according to Darwin. Therefore, not surprisingly since we borrowed the argumentation from Penrose, we reach the same conclusion, in our case that Natural Selection, which is part of the Darwinian model of Evolution, or Darwinian Computation, cannot encapsulate the real Evolution. The Darwinian Computation is Incomplete.

curiousII
08-12-2016, 04:49 AM
Who is we ? to me, 'we' is Evolution, the real thing, not its model according to Darwin. Therefore, not surprisingly since we borrowed the argumentation from Penrose, we reach the same conclusion, in our case that Natural Selection, which is part of the Darwinian model of Evolution, or Darwinian Computation, cannot encapsulate the real Evolution. The Darwinian Computation is Incomplete.

Which again sounds like sentience, an intelligence controlling a living organism's growth, appearance, and function.

But "does not stops" and "stops" would appear to us in conventional time. But what if some of our evolution or process that brings us to our present state isn't visible to us with our senses? This is an old premise of Lorentz's from a, now, couple of centuries ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory.

I can't find it on the Web anywhere, but I know I read that his theory was described as "artificial time," time that did not proceed at a rate that we live in. Granted, this theory is aged now, but I did read that he was able to gauge the speed of a particle that differed from the speed that we, in our local time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) experience.

Perhaps this theory is more up-to-date with modern science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement. Both give us small glimpses into another concept of our reality, of how time and distance could possibly affect our environment.

If different concept of time affects physical transformation of a species from one appearance or function to another, we might not be able to perceive how that occurs with our limited five senses. Would evolution be hindered by our physical world, or does some of that process occur in another, one that we simply cannot view? If we believe that one species "stops" and another one "does not stop," is that what really happens? Of course the answer that we'd have is yes, of course, and the fossils of the ended species would end themselves, there would be none after a certain point in time or epoch. But are the mutations limited to those that we can see and touch?

Is what we describe as Intelligent Design merely the portion of evolution that takes place in an environment or plane that we are not privy to in our present stage of development? Are the vagaries of successful and discarded stages of a specie's evolution not specifically from a Creator, but rather from the governing forces of time and space that we can only guess at, or only view via premise and supposition? Are the changes that an organism experiences over, to us, thousands of years merely a controlled rate of change that is a natural state of being when viewed with senses that, now, are unavailable to us? A minor occurrence? What possibility does quantum entanglement lend to evolution or the creation of a species, or to the beginnings of intelligence?

Is time no longer linear with this concept? Are all events simultaneous, as religion would describe a Creator as being all-seeing, all-knowing, and to know His universe from beginning to end? Or are the periods of time, in fact, so unimaginably long that we can never attempt to even fathom time's depths?

This isn't mine, it's from an old story of Lord Dunsany: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/dun/fotd/fotd03.htm

"It was not with him a matter of years or of centuries, but of wide floods of time..." Time that we cannot yet imagine. How can that type of time affect life?

curiousII
08-14-2016, 12:16 AM
Hey, Ric, did we just figure out basics of a time machine? I mean energy, time, space, it's all right there and looked at from an organic rather than an artificial, mechanical viewpoint.

I read a lot of science fiction when I was growing up (including Jules Verne, though not in his original French); I suppose it shows.

Edit: We think of our existence as being in, to us, conventional time and space. We're born, age, and die. We're at the mercy of our environment. But what if organic life itself creates and controls our world and universe? The planet's many species don't exist and evolve through time, their existence itself creates the realm, the universe we live in? That puts life and evolution in a whole new light, and actually somewhat to touchs on humanity and if we do differ from the animal kingdom. If there is such a thing as a soul, and which forms of life has it.

A few posts ago I mentioned the idea of mankind having an islander mentality due to our knowledge of being surrounded by ocean and now, due to science, the airless expanse of outer space. But that limitation, making humanity aware of its fraility and limitations, gave mankind the incentive and drive to approach and conquer these obstacles to his expansion, or the Manifest Destiny of old. Did this drive itself create man's road to intelligence and rise above the animal kingdom, or was this just another phenomenon and vagary of time and space and not an aspect of evolution at all?

What about that, Ric?

Ric
08-16-2016, 09:35 PM
Hey, Ric, did we just figure out basics of a time machine? I mean energy, time, space, it's all right there and looked at from an organic rather than an artificial, mechanical viewpoint.
No, we didn't figure out anything, anything new that has not been said in one form or another since the last 5000 years or so.
I have been watching videos there :
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoNDcpkKXg2UioJKxTZI-ZA
For example one with the promising title : 'Does Consciousness influence Evolution ?' this is right on topic in this thread here. But to me, the Scientists don't seem to get it. They are asking 'Does consciousness influence Evolution' but that question has been asked countless times, already 40 years ago with the Anthropic principle, and more than 200 years ago by Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, chevalier de Lamarck, who implicitly admits that a form of awareness can shape Evolution.
Among those who want to keep the best varnish of scientific respectability aka darwinism, Stuart Kauffman is the most ambiguous. OK, he visibly understands Penrose's argumentation but despite that, he seems unwilling to leave the Darwinian triviality. In the video on the supergenes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Hh9c9MubQ Kauffman makes the best case in support of Darwinism with his example about a screwdriver (about 30 minutes to the end of the video) . A screwdriver has an un-numerable number of applications, and of course, that is relevant for modern evolutionary concepts such as pre-adaptation. Yes, organs have evolved for one task and turned out to be used millions of years later for another task (example : the lung of primitive fish was a buoyancy or digestive organ that turned later into a breathing organ). This is all part of the Adaptation and Natural Selection, aka Evolution for Darwin.
So that's OK to Darwin, but they also talked a lot on epigenetic in this video. Epigenetic has been rebranded as Lamarckism, while in fact, it is just another flavor of Darwinism. The true lamarckian concept of evolution is different than the concept of Natural Selection , Adaptation and epigeentic. Lamarck' idea was that Evolution is primarily driven by a mysterious complexyfying force, that he called a vital Force, while other elsewhere, have called Chi (or 'consciousness' at the conference) , so the concept of vital force is not new, only the words have changed. But Why would a 'Force' drive organism's evolution to complexification ? Lamarck never said. Of course, Lamarck assumes that Natural Selection is active, but only as a necessity of life because the new complexified organisms must not only be more complex, but they must also survive, obviously.

Also, when Lamarck suggests an increase of complexity, we should not understand an increase in algorithmic complexity reflected by the length of the source code program aka DNA. This length has long reached its optimum size around 3 billions nucleotides in vertebrates, due to the fact that the nucleus of the cell has a limited volume. For example, in 10 billions years of Evolution from now, providing we are still carbon+ water based life forms, we should not expect to have nuclei containing trillions of nucleotides. That is impractical with the engineering constrains of a carbon based life. So, what Lamarck meant by 'complexity' was actually 'Logical Depth'. This concept involves the run time necessary to compute the output.
Reformulating Lamarck's proposition in algorithms terms becomes :
"From a given size source code (the dna), produce the longest 'deepest' Computation possible"
That is a bit similar to a busy beaver in computational science, which imagine a program capable of producing the largest number possible, from a finite size input. But why would lamarckian evolution behave like a busy beaver for logical depth ? there is no law nor necessity for that.
Enough said, to me, Deepak Chopra was still the most up to date with his 5000 years old concepts.

Ric
08-16-2016, 09:42 PM
So.... who wants to do prospective biology and imagine Mankind, and the Universe, in 100 trillions years from now ?

curiousII
08-17-2016, 07:35 PM
So.... who wants to do prospective biology and imagine Mankind, and the Universe, in 100 trillions years from now ?

There's a couple of lyrics from this song that bear instrospection (or not):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDMBtQjS1bQ

"When ink and pen in hands of men
Inscribe your form, bipedal "P"
They draw an altar on which
God has slaughtered all stability
No eyes could ever soak in all the places you anoint
And yet to see you all at once we only need the point
Flirting with infinity, your geometric progeny
That fit inside you...Your ever-constant homily says flaw is discipline
The patron saint of imperfection frees us from our sin
And if our transcendental lift should find a final floor
Then Man will know the death of God where one pair was before"

"God has slaughtered all stability" and "the patron saint of imperfection...then Man will know the death of God where [I think this is supposed to be "wonder;" got these lyrics off a site] was before."

If you ever get curious about pi you run into a real cult. It appears pi has intrigued Man since the early days of civilization and education. But how this band, with its audience apparently the younger crowd and academia, hit with these lyrics I don't know. Bipedal pi and bipedal Man; patron saint of imperfection; death of God where wonder (?) was before, the song really hits home in a spot or two.

And we're back to time: linear or some kind of circuitous route: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Do we travel along a long road of time, or do we exist in time all at once? Does the subconscious mind play more of a part in evolution than time itself? Or is the subconscious, in fact, time itself? The dreams we have: are they from the area of universal time that we cannot physically enter? Do our dreams dictate, but either entering or being denied entrance, into areas of our brain and mind the state of our evolution and determine what evolutionary changes need to be made? Back to souls: do dogs dream?

I don't agree with everything Cayce says, but my mom used to read him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce#Claims_for_psychic_abilities

Interesting idea about the origins of humanity. Now, would global warming be from the emigration of the different races of Man from their specific points of global origins? An angry god or gods retaliating upon the planet for profaning the original placement of the specific creations? I'm avoiding capitalization here so as to (hopefully) avoid infuriating Christians by referencing the Christian's God.

Some things I'm not finding on the Web, I read some of this before buying a computer. I'm sure you'll have better referencing material, Ric, but here's something: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440575/

When musing about what the human race will look like in the far future, we have a lot of variables to juggle: are we all one race? Are we all Out of Africa? Cayce had an opinion on the ancient giants, one that I've read that Europeans endorced. OOA, the wanderers who did make it off the African continent: do they differ from those who remained? Not just from Neanderthal interbreeding, but was there some kind of genetic mutation that now separates them from the Africans now?

Bipedal pi and bipedal Man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

I'm not a rich American and I tried this before. I found out then that whenever you mention pi you meet mathematicians who can calculate whole campuses full of chalk board equations while you're (me, anyway) still trying to count your toes. But, pi and never-ending, repeating time, pi and the aspect of time that does not enter into our perceived reality. If someone were to try to describe God (or god), would pi be a good approximation? I've found out that in America, at least, the more money a student or whatever club or fraternity he belongs to has, the better chance of getting his views on science and the world accepted and incorporated in academia are.

And does that itself affect evolution? Do we become what we're taught?

curiousII
08-22-2016, 12:37 AM
No, we didn't figure out anything, anything new...

Yes we did, too!

curiousII
09-03-2016, 01:13 PM
So, anyway, since no one seems interested enough to have a go at my last introspection, I will.

Pi's symbol is a good example of how a concept is made understandable in our world. Of course pi itself isn't bipedal, it was merely given the Greek symbol for, well, what reason? And that itself leads me into another speculation, only partially off topic.

If you wish to view pi as a simple number, you see it as a long irrational series of digits. But, if you look at the symbol given for it, you see a gateway or door. Was there a reason for the ancients assigning this letter for the number? A long string of numbers cannot make any kind of exit or entrance way unless they were inscribed on wood or some other type of construction material. Or, the concept of pi as more than a number used in mathematics could be seen.

Pi is not bipedal, but Man is in our dimension. We cannot see pi as it really is other than by writing it's value, 3.14 ad infinitum, or by its Greek representation. We can see ourselves and our contemporaries in their bipedal form easily enough just by looking in the mirror or out the window. Our physical form is tangible, we can see, feel, and touch it. Or, is there a part of our selves that isn't so easily contacted? Would that be our souls? Our subconcious?

And, if so, where do our souls or subconscious minds exist? Within our brain? In our physical shell? Does the construction of our brains so intricate it creates all that encounter with our five senses, and maybe more with an extra sense or two that we don't usually discuss? Is time just another one of our senses, like the sixth sense we read about in speculative fiction? Or if something like a soul or subconscious mind are real, do they even have to have what we'd call a space or area to exist in? Perhaps they wouldn't need to be hindered by our primitive perception of space, they just are. They're everywhere and nowhere, they just are.

In that sense Man is no more bipedal than pi. In an unmeasurable amount of time in the future perhaps Man would no longer need to be housed in the three-dimensional physical shell that we're now in. If there is a spiritual self, call it what you will, maybe Man as a species will evolve into a state that allows him to exist in that form solely, without the need of flesh and bone encumbrances. A source of energy for that form?

Maybe the source of energy for that form would be internal, maybe be from the form itself. Bipedal pi shown to us by the ancients as a gateway, our bipedal form that was given to us by evolution, perhaps, as a doorway also. We just need to find the right key to open the door; we live on the wrong side of what might be a vast and beautifully-furnished room, just one room that's in a splendid mansion that stretches on to eternity.

Man has gained intelligence and curiosity. Left on its own, evolution may take hundreds of billions of years to show us how to unlock that door. Perhaps it's our duty to help evolution along by our inquisitive nature. That itself is a good reason to spend a couple of hundred bucks on DNA tests, isn't it?

Ric
09-04-2016, 05:33 PM
So, anyway, since no one seems interested enough to have a go at my last introspection, I will.

Pi's symbol is a good example of how a concept is made understandable in our world. Of course pi itself isn't bipedal, it was merely given the Greek symbol for, well, what reason? And that itself leads me into another speculation, only partially off topic.

If you wish to view pi as a simple number, you see it as a long irrational series of digits. But, if you look at the symbol given for it, you see a gateway or door. Was there a reason for the ancients assigning this letter for the number? A long string of numbers cannot make any kind of exit or entrance way unless they were inscribed on wood or some other type of construction material. Or, the concept of pi as more than a number used in mathematics could be seen.

Pi is not bipedal, but Man is in our dimension. We cannot see pi as it really is other than by writing it's value, 3.14 ad infinitum, or by its Greek representation. We can see ourselves and our contemporaries in their bipedal form easily enough just by looking in the mirror or out the window. Our physical form is tangible, we can see, feel, and touch it. Or, is there a part of our selves that isn't so easily contacted? Would that be our souls? Our subconcious?

And, if so, where do our souls or subconscious minds exist? Within our brain? In our physical shell? Does the construction of our brains so intricate it creates all that encounter with our five senses, and maybe more with an extra sense or two that we don't usually discuss? Is time just another one of our senses, like the sixth sense we read about in speculative fiction? Or if something like a soul or subconscious mind are real, do they even have to have what we'd call a space or area to exist in? Perhaps they wouldn't need to be hindered by our primitive perception of space, they just are. They're everywhere and nowhere, they just are.

In that sense Man is no more bipedal than pi. In an unmeasurable amount of time in the future perhaps Man would no longer need to be housed in the three-dimensional physical shell that we're now in. If there is a spiritual self, call it what you will, maybe Man as a species will evolve into a state that allows him to exist in that form solely, without the need of flesh and bone encumbrances. A source of energy for that form?

Maybe the source of energy for that form would be internal, maybe be from the form itself. Bipedal pi shown to us by the ancients as a gateway, our bipedal form that was given to us by evolution, perhaps, as a doorway also. We just need to find the right key to open the door; we live on the wrong side of what might be a vast and beautifully-furnished room, just one room that's in a splendid mansion that stretches on to eternity.

Man has gained intelligence and curiosity. Left on its own, evolution may take hundreds of billions of years to show us how to unlock that door. Perhaps it's our duty to help evolution along by our inquisitive nature. That itself is a good reason to spend a couple of hundred bucks on DNA tests, isn't it?

DNA sure is about introspection. But I am reading about Max Planck, Curious, I'll come back about this tread latter. If you want to read with me :
https://archive.org/stream/whereissciencego00plan_0#page/86/mode/2up

curiousII
09-07-2016, 06:40 PM
My "quote" feature doesn't seem to work today for some reason, but no matter.

Ric: "DNA sure is about introspection. But I am reading about Max Planck..."

I've read some of that, thanks. Time consuming work putting that on the Web; thanks again if that was you.

But back to time: We apparently are hampered in our failure to see time as it really might be. Linear, circular, we view it in two-dimensional values as if it were a flat line. We can see where it starts, we see its direction whether it lies in a flat, straight line or a flat, circular line whose ending curves back to where it began. Perhaps it's necessary for us to draw time in a manner that is easy for us to understand, or we're just used to the limitations scientists of old had because they didn't have computer graphics back then.

Maybe we could begin to see time as a malleable substance, a material that could be bent and molded, putty that could be smeared, pasted, or wrapped about an object in differing thicknesses and strengths. Time as tangible, time as something that could be felt in a manner other than the way we feel it as we age. "The weight of time" could be heavy in a fashion we wouldn't really immediately guess at.

With artificial time a new time continuum was created, and, though it doesn't last long in our concept of time, does remain for eternity in its. In that eternity life could begin, progress, and die and that the way that supposition is phrased shows again how limited our understanding of time is. Creation could have began, ended, and began again countless times in the (to us) very brief time that the artificial time existed. It is only artificial to ourselves, it is very real to anything that might be created within it, or swept into it during its existence.

Anyway, I wonder why my "quote" function isn't working? I just noticed I can't use bold or underline, either. I just read about vBulletin getting hacked a number of years ago and the site's vitals on all its members getting leaked out. Hope that isn't being repeated here.

curiousII
09-07-2016, 08:26 PM
Just found out I can't edit posts, either. So, here's something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCClO1AtibE

I can really find them videos. You're French, Ric? Here, we be extraterrestrial now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ootxz2UpALk

curiousII
09-07-2016, 08:27 PM
edited, thanks.

curiousII
09-07-2016, 08:29 PM
edited

Ric
09-07-2016, 09:16 PM
I have no problems posting. Perhaps it has something to do with the new features reserved to the Gold Members Class. Sometimes they do some maintenance on the site.

Anyways, the lecture of Max Planck was interesting. He was also very concerned with the notions of Free Will, Volition and Awareness, all more or less synonymous. He admitted that Free Will could not have a first cause otherwise it would not be free, but then this did not fit very well in with his belief that all physical events in the Universe are the results of other causal events, including quantum events. Awareness/Consciousness was clearly a singularity point for him, but with no explanation why it didn't follow the rest of the Universe.
He also admitted that there was no rules for new scientific breakouts and that new theories could not be inferred from old ones. That's pretty much equivalent to Gdel's incompleteness Theorem. He had a very good Classical education, much better than mine (ahem since I don't have any) and I bet of many people, but almost as a consequence of his time he was not too aware of the Eastern Philosophies. That may have been a Pandora box for him. The other Quantum guy, Schrodinger, was on the other end very interested in the Eastern point of view. Here is the biggest difference : for Planck, Quantum Indetermination was not a break away from the rules of Causality, unless I misunderstood.

curiousII
09-08-2016, 12:35 AM
I have no problems posting. Perhaps it has something to do with the new features reserved to the Gold Members Class.

Things seem fine again.

Anyways, the lecture of Max Planck was interesting. He was also very concerned with the notions of Free Will, Volition and Awareness, all more or less synonymous. He admitted that Free Will could not have a first cause otherwise it would not be free, but then this did not fit very well in with his belief that all physical events in the Universe are the results of other causal events, including quantum events. Awareness/Consciousness was clearly a singularity point for him, but with no explanation why it didn't follow the rest of the Universe.
I've read some classics, mostly before the Web came to be. Some Greek though not in the original, a couple of Nietzsche's, but I have to admit many of these thinkers I find on the Web I never had contact with before. Access to all of this is a gift.

So, in my limited sense, I've been finding singularities in the songs from the American 1950's, a period of the nation's history that's interesting for a few reasons other than bobby socks and poodle skirts. It was the beginning of the Cold War; everyone on this side of the Atlantic worried about Khrushchev tossing nukes down from space, and I guess on the flip side the Russians worried about America's use of color TV. A time of total fear, maybe unparalleled in world history.

So, if there is a duality in time, if thought, emotion, and feelings can be substantial more than abstract and ethereal in nature, and in their intensity be felt at not only a distance but in linear time, time separate than physical distance but viewed as a constant or palpable form that travels forwards and back, it can be heard in some song's lyrics just as much as in the great thinker's writings. I know, doo wop rivals in no manner with Aristotle, but fear is a great driving force for living beings, be that organism's intelligence or mere instinct.

Again you're right, nothing new here. Drosnin did address this somewhat recently to mixed reception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Code_(book)

That bible was written in an age pre-dating antibiotics, when daily life included the kind of pain and fear we're free from today. Painful death by infection and abscessed teeth, wounds that refused to heal and led to a slow, lingering death. Plague and germs not only rampant in Europe, that were so mysterious to Man that he believed that they were aids given to explorers and colonists by the grace of God to rid their newly-discovered lands from their heathen inhabitants. And, of course, slavery with the brutal environment that came with it, slaves that were never, if at all, supplied with medical treatment other than their own poultices and hoodoo. The fear and superstition that went into the Code's writing is evident, and the incredible effort to insert the Code within that bible shows just how much pain and fear drives the human existence. Did the writers even know the Code was present as they were writing, or is it the product of deliberate literary manipulation, maybe like automatic writing? Either, it's an fantastic presence.The couple of Cayce's books of my mother's I read mentioned the Universal Mentality, a term I haven't found on the Web.


The music from the '50s America is worthy of comment for a few reasons.

He also admitted that there was no rules for new scientific breakouts and that new theories could not be inferred from old ones. That's pretty much equivalent to Gdel's incompleteness Theorem. He had a very good Classical education, much better than mine (ahem since I don't have any) and I bet of many people, but almost as a consequence of his time he was not too aware of the Eastern Philosophies. That may have been a Pandora box for him. The other Quantum guy, Schrodinger, was on the other end very interested in the Eastern point of view.
More new names. Give me time (ha ha! I make funny jokes) to catch up on some of these.

CERN and SLAC, Ric. We can skip their hiring practices and build our own.

Ric
09-08-2016, 01:25 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Code_(book)

That bible was written in an age pre-dating antibiotics, when daily life included the kind of pain and fear we're free from today. Painful death by infection and abscessed teeth, wounds that refused to heal and led to a slow, lingering death. Plague and germs not only rampant in Europe, that were so mysterious to Man that he believed that they were aids given to explorers and colonists by the grace of God to rid their newly-discovered lands from their heathen inhabitants. And, of course, slavery with the brutal environment that came with it, slaves that were never, if at all, supplied with medical treatment other than their own poultices and hoodoo. The fear and superstition that went into the Code's writing is evident, and the incredible effort to insert the Code within that bible shows just how much pain and fear drives the human existence. Did the writers even know the Code was present as they were writing, or is it the product of deliberate literary manipulation, maybe like automatic writing? Either, it's an fantastic presence.The couple of Cayce's books of my mother's I read mentioned the Universal Mentality, a term I haven't found on the Web.

Planck talks about the attraction for the supernatural in his time and try to discredit it. He tries a little too hard in my opinion...
Regarding the bible of the Hebrew and its secret code, I leave it to the Hebrew. I don't know what to think about it and I already have more than enough trouble with the new testament, I don't want to worry about the old. Like Planck, I try to stay on the objective side, but this is difficult.
Regarding UFOs and Extra Terrestrial Life, I don't believe in it anymore. The reason :
If Evolution is entirely described within the Darwinism conceptual framework, then Evolution is nothing else than self-organization of dissipative systems when they are far from the thermodynamic equilibrium. We could basically say it is a chemical reaction with initial reactives (C, H, N, O mostly), a very slow progression towards a final state that we haven't reach yet (3.8 billions tears and counting) and many Intermediates products (us and other species) that are stable as long as a source of energy discard their excess content of entropy. If this concept is right, a chemical reaction is a chemical reaction, it must happen wherever it can happen. There is absolutely nothing in the Darwinian conceptual framework that could explain the absence of other instances of this 'chemical reaction' in the vastness of the Universe. So ET-Life is a total and absolute requirement of Darwinism, it is not just a 'possibility' as many think.
Indeed there are many Darwinian who say that our inability to find Life elsewhere would prove nothing. Absolutely not, in ~ 50 years there will be telescopes in space and on earth capable to probe exoplanets for biomarkers. If no unequivocal biomarkers are found in the next 50 years after that, it will be the death sentence of Darwinism.
On the other hand, IF Evolution shifts conceptually from Darwinism and considerations such as non-computability and retro-causation enter the picture, the theory that will do that will NOT take its source from Thermodynamic. This will remove the necessity to find other similar 'thermodynamic conditions' elsewhere, at the very least. If this Theory doesn't explicitly demand several occurrences of ET-Life, because the concept doesn't make any sense anymore, then it is pretty much the same as to say that the Theory demands NO ET-Life.

curiousII
09-08-2016, 06:06 PM
I meant Universal Mind, not Mentality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_mind#Introduction

That was interesting as I remember it, but I read it long ago. Give me a little time, I'd like to familiarize myself a little with your references. Hegel, I know I've read a little of him, and read some Schopenhauer, too, but not all of either's.

curiousII
09-11-2016, 01:36 AM
See, Ric, it's not just me: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3206702/Holocaust-survivors-pass-genetic-damage-trauma-children-researchers-find.html These people have become genetically altered, they have experienced extreme trauma so horrible it has affected them genetically. I was wondering how I could bring up the Germans use of torture for medical experiments, but couldn't figure out how to work it in to all this without becoming offensive.

Is this evolution? Is this really how species evolve? The asteroid that killed of the dinosaurs; was that so traumatic to the creatures who populated the planet then that mammals and human intelligence came out of it? I'm sure I can find an article about how animals sense catastrophes before they happen, but I don't know. I was in a pet store here a few years ago when they had a pretty bad earth quake. I was one of the last ones to leave the store, and I looked around pretty good on the way out. None of the animals were acting oddly or out of the norm, even the fish in the tank as I passed it. The floor was rocking so badly water sloshed out of the fish tank like a mini-tsunami. But the fish didn't try to jump out with it, nor did the animals try to claw their way out of their cages.

Were these domesticated so much they'd lost their animal instinct to escape fires, floods, and land upheavals? Do humans have this instinct at all? Maybe this article proves that something is passed along genetically after a terrible life-changing experience.

And does that genetic change affect how one race or group of people interacts with another? When someone says he or she becomes nauseous when he encounters someone from another race? Is it instinctive now, the specific person simply cannot be comfortable in the presence of another? Now, did something happen to the white Europeans in the distant past to make them have this type of reaction around the Semites? Not trying to say that the Europeans had any excuse for what they did during the 20th Century, but could it have been genetic?

Genetically altered, manipulated by an external force to change what and who you are, so much so that your progeny are not the same off-spring as they would've been had not that parent been subjected to whatever kind of traumatic (or very entertaining, too?) experience he or she had?

We read about ancient civilizations and their type of torture. The South Americans were notoriously barbaric in their practice of human sacrifice; the Aztecs and the Mayans made human sacrifice part of their religion even though they had an advanced grasp of mathematics. They weren't a stupid people, so why would they use such a primitive and brutal practice in a religious ritual? Perhaps they had an idea of altering their environment with their human offerings. I guess they were expecting to be rewarded by their god(s), Quetzalcoatl one of them. I bring this up as I noticed your signature includes a comment on Native Americans. Have you studied the South American Indians? Have you reached any conclusion on why and how they could combine such intelligence and civilization with primitive barbarity like that? They were far worse than the Germans or Christians in their hunt for Jews, and their civilizations thrived far longer than the Third Reich.

There's an answer in all of this, Ric, and apparently it plays a great part in making us who we are. Can evolution be controlled and guided by Man? If so, can it be done without force, fear, and torture? Of course the answer is yes, science can clone and alter living creatures in laboratory experiments. But that's like the animals I saw in the pet store; it's an artificial environment. In the wild, in nature, in everyday living, can experiences genetically alter a person's progeny? And, if it works like that, how many thousands of years of having that natural experience have to go by before that genetic alteration (evolution) takes place? Rock and roll concerts with all the loud music, girls, drugs, and an extreme sense of communal happiness and safety: what's really going on? I say that only half-jokingly.

The Holocaust and WW II brought great changes to Man's science, though we're not supposed to talk about it. The German's use of the Jews in medical experiments are kept from us due to the inhuman methods the Germans used to gain them. But what are persons looking for when they do atrocities like this? Did they expect to see immediate changes or alterations? I'm sorry, I don't mean to be crude and I'm not in Europe or I'm sure I'd be censored for speaking about a race in such a defamatory manner, but we read that when the Romans sacrificed the Christians to the beasts they'd ask "Where's your Christ now?" Just how did the Romans believe that Christ would save the Christian martyrs? By making the lions drop down dead? Or by transporting the martyrs out of the arena somehow? As simplistic as this sounds, you Europeans have had civilization for thousands of years longer than us Americans, Americans who never practiced any type of pagan Indian rituals other than wearing moccasins and beating on an occasional tom-tom.

Pain and fear, two features of evolution and change? Are we who we are because of an incredibly horrible experience our ancestors had in the past, maybe 100,000 years ago? Cro-Magnon wars with the Neanderthals? You're much more versed on this than I am, Ric, and now that I've got a computer I've realized others have had the same idea. What's right?

Sorry, I have to do this. Don't get mad, but you left yourself open for it:
Un journaliste am駻icain lui demande, "Mais Mr le pen, l'immigration n'est pas une mauvaise chose, regardez l'Amerique !!!"
Et Lepen de r駱ondre, "vous n'avez rien compris. Moi je suis le chef des indiens!!!"
Et le journaliste a cri: "Mais Mr. Lepen, les Indiens sont vraiment de la Chine!"

Ric
09-12-2016, 10:59 PM
Sorry, I have to do this. Don't get mad, but you left yourself open for it:
Un journaliste am駻icain lui demande, "Mais Mr le pen, l'immigration n'est pas une mauvaise chose, regardez l'Amerique !!!"
Et Lepen de r駱ondre, "vous n'avez rien compris. Moi je suis le chef des indiens!!!"
Et le journaliste a cri: "Mais Mr. Lepen, les Indiens sont vraiment de la Chine!"

Ah ! since you mention it. There is a documentary of Dr Spencer Wells about Human journey, I believe part of a National Geographic series. There was that funny moment when Wells explained their DNA results to the American Natives of the great Plains. The DNA trail obviously goes back to Eurasia but Wells also showed pictures of Asian people to the Amerindians, insisting heavily : "See see ! you come for Asia, your DNA says it, your facial features says it !" and the Amerindian man answered, a bit annoyed : 'No, we are from Here". Two or three times he said it 'we are from Here'.
That makes sense. The matter, flesh and DNA comes from Asia, but the Spirit was born in the Great Plains.

curiousII
09-13-2016, 04:32 PM
"Ah, since you mention it..." Yes, true. But I, whose family on both sides, was American birthed. I, too, can reply to Wells: "We are from here!" But the Native American who overheard my statement would say "No! You are from elsewhere! Go home!"

Anyway, a short search doesn't give me any Lamarck in English, but I'll try a little harder. Seems Gutenberg Library should have done that by now. But I did get some Hegel and I didn't get too far into it when I found:

"Religious feeling is, in short, here no longer present in its naive and experimental character. On the contrary, it proceeds from the universal thought of an end, of a good, and makes inferences, inasmuch as it subsumes present things under these universal thoughts."

"Universal thought," is that the same as Cayce's "universal mind?" It would appear that the concept of a universal intelligence or symbiotic infection of the mind might arise in a few of the old writer's works. I'm sure I haven't delved as deeply into the great writings of old as thoroughly as you, but with the limited information that I have gotten so far, it appears they're on a similar course. You think?

Is there is such a guidance or awareness that does show interest in the Earth's life, exactly what would that be? A sentient form of some type, the as yet undiscovered universal radio-wave type frequency that permeates and affects everything without having intelligence or life as we presently understand it, or just something we simply don't and can't understand at the present? Just the "something or other" that piqued the interest of Man as soon as he learned of it, which is apparently as soon as he gained intelligence and wonder.

Away with all that, back to the really incredible burst of evolution the Jews had after surviving the Holocaust. First, does this prove they are God's children? Did the Lord provide His chosen ones with further tools to survive in an inimical environment? Or is this just a natural evolutionary tool that all animals, all life, all humans have on the planet to change to meet the present needs? Genetic change that swift that in only one or two generations of that particular species they gain new tools to give them that much more protection in the wild? That really is quite fast.

It'd be interesting if those persons in the study were given DNA tests to find their haplogroups. Would they have the Cohanim haplotype, or another haplogroup that is said to be Semitic? If so, the question arises if a group of survivors who weren't members of a Jewish haplotype, who were some R, G, or I subclade and were in the death camps, too (in wasn't only Jews in those camps; we have to remember that) and also got that genetic boost, that could serve to prove that the change was for Man in his species and not, per say, a miracle given by God to his favorites.

And we're back in DNA testing and how much it advances science. Universal Mind and Universal Thought, just two references to, maybe, the same thing. I read Nietzsche so long ago I've forgotten much of it, but a quick search got his "monism and Value Dualism" might go along the same lines. A controlling force that might or might not be sentience or God.

But have you ever read anywhere that this Universal Mind is time itself? We always refer to time as something describing how we age, how the seasons pass. it's just a natural force or occurrence. But what if we've missed it all along, what if Time is sentient? Time seen as our subconscious, our intelligence, our very life? Time giving the Jews in the article an extra burst of genetic change, Time allowing them to protect themselves just a little better than their grandparents?

I won't go into the "Pi is God" concept, but there was a movie a couple of years ago, "Pi." Had some interesting concepts.

Thanks again for a response, Ric. I know you must be busy and I appreciate your time (funny again).

Ric
09-14-2016, 08:40 PM
Yes trauma has an impact on the epigenetic, it is well accepted now even if the precise mechanisms are still not very clear.
http://www.nature.com/news/sperm-rna-carries-marks-of-trauma-1.15049
So trauma applied to Jews is no exception, I guess.

Regarding Lamarck, this video gives him some good credit beside the caricatured 'transmittance of acquired characters'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l-l_zA0Ugs

Your other thought about Time as the Universal Mind, well again, that reminds me of the philosophies of Hinduisms and Buddhism. But this is way to high over my own knowledge of these philosophies for me to be able to give a valuable opinion. I wish i had these revelative experiences that many meditators claim they had, but nope, maybe my own intuition has to be directed somewhere else. So I am not going to be of any help. The Computable vs non-Computable is an 'easier' issue to deal with. And I am going to give you something to meditate about. This is from Roger Penrose :


... There is, however, a somewhat related issue that has also been raised with me by other people: how could one actually tell, by observational means alone, whether or not the physical world behaves non-computably? (Here, I am leaving aside the question of the behaviour of extremely highly sophisticated physical objects like human beings; I am concerned with direct physical experiments and the like.) It seems to me that this issue is quite comparable to a somewhat related one, namely that of determinism. How could one tell by direct physical experiment whether or not the physical world is deterministic? Of course, one cannot tell - not just like that. Yet there is the common assertion that the classical behaviour of physical objects is indeed deterministic. What this means is that Newtonian theory (or Maxwell's theory or Einstein's theory) is deterministic; that can be shown mathematically. What one does is to design sophisticated experiments or observations to test the theory in other respects, and if the expectations of the theory are borne out, we conclude that various other things about that theory, such as the fact that it is indeed deterministic, ought also to hold for the behaviour of the universe (to the appropriate degree of approximation as is implied by the limits within which the theory has been shown to be valid). And so it will be with the new theory of physics that unites the classical and quantum levels and which, I maintain, will turn out to be a non-computable theory. Of course, I am at a disadvantage here, since this theory has yet to be discovered! But the general point is the same.

curiousII
11-18-2016, 11:10 PM
They just had a really large neuroscience convention in town, somewhere around 30,000+ scientists chock full of gene and chromosome news: https://www.sfn.org/annual-meeting/neuroscience-2016

Job I have now gave me the opportunity to talk to some of these people, all pretty much fascinating in their own right. One or two have been to the Max Planck institute, in another time they'd probably been Noble laureates.

Found out that mitochondrial DNA began as a symbiotic bacteria, an invasive life form that became assimilated into the chromosome. I asked a couple of the scientists the same question, I'm sure I got this right and Wikipedia seems to back it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA

But none of them came up with "eukaryotic cell" when I asked them what life was prior to the bacterial invasion: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/Endosymbiosis.htm#eukaryoticorigins

If I understand this, mtDNA's symbiotic assimilation into the cell radically changed lifeforms, perchance that began evolution itself? What kind of life could've preceded what we have on the planet now: vertebrates with y-and mtDNA? What alien creatures they must've been.

Now, I read around here somewhere that "haplogroups are from Africa." When I mentioned a couple of things that I've read here to these conventioneers, they became fairly amused. I suppose that amusement translated to hysterical laughter from a regular person, and one of the beliefs I mentioned was that, perhaps, humans have haplogroups and animals don't. No, I was told I was wrong and that all creatures have two, y-and mtDNA. So out-of-Africa immigrants, those that preceded Cro-Magnon, had haplogroups just like Cro. I asked about Neanderthals, and was told that they must have had haplogroups even though, as I furthered, none have been identified as yet. Or, the haplotypes that've been found in the Neanderthal and human genome haven't been assigned the same grouping like humans (R1b, I, the rest)? Here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7492/abs/nature12961.html

Finding the loci in the human genome isn't the same as designating an entire haplogroup, is it? I've read that if the Neanderthal had a y-DNA haplogroup, it hasn't been discovered, anyway.

But this question gave these persons pause for a moment or two before they regained their momentum. Of course, haplogroups aren't the sole property of humans, all creatures have them and having y-and mtDNA does not distinguish an organism as human. But, if there was an out-of-Africa movement that pre-dated Neanderthal and Heidelberg Man, and if those immigrants didn't have haplogroups as we understand them, what were they?

A lot of fun with these people, and another new concept they gave me was that it isn't bacteria that causes chromosome mutations, it's enzymes that cut through the DNA. But either or, it's infestation that's either antagonistic or symbiotic that makes us who we are now, and ensures our distant progeny aren't like us any more.

Instant evolution, change that happens in just one or two generations. The event that triggers such a reaction: extreme emotion or pain, or just infections? So does all that mean that evolution is the result of invasive mitochondrial bacteria? Where did that come from, anyway? And, if a person really wanted to get extreme and tack a religious concept to this, is mtDNA really Eve? Mitochondria's symbiotic assimilation into the human chromosome is really Adam tossing a rib her way?

I really got a reaction with that one.

Bonacci
12-06-2016, 01:47 PM
In my opinion the human knowledge is too limited to understand the "evolution" and it's process. We might be just an experiment in our lives and possibly live in a Matrix which we perceive as ultimate reality, because our senses, intelligence and creativity which contains spirituality are way too limited and primitive to understand the World as a more complexity than what our simple mind allow us to let in as "knowledge". There are several alternative explanations which has more value in my opinion than the mainstream concept of evolution which tries to explain the development from primitive to more complex, and disregard anything which against this method.
From an objective view humanity has reached the highest knowledge in terms of self awareness, but from an other view the ability to see and feel other substances than pure materiality has failed in the process of human evolution.

Charles Darwin was one man with a personal opinion, but opinions can't be regarded as facts, i do find the possibility quite hard to evolve from a simple cell to something as a Human without intelligence behind this process. If Darwin knew chemical science he'd been more careful to even consider the possibility of evolution, at least what himself considered as the way of evaluational thoughts. I completely agree back time the Catholic church had power and the science was considered some sort of evil, because it had the ability to make the masses rational and question the power of the Church and it's morality against human lives and freedom of speech, but what has changed? We have still the same dogmatic egomaniacs trying to explain us what we can think and consider as "scientifically" and anything which doesn't suit in their way of agenda is considered unscientific and just an alternative way against the mainstream science.
It's irrational to explain how anything can evolve from simple to complex, except if the simple substance already had the knowledge to evolve to something more complex. There's certainly a rule in the nature just like the Fibonacci numbers and it's ratio can be seen in several parts of the nature from molecular substances to human body. We're in the evolving process plurality to singularity, from energy to molecules from molecules from mammals to humans from humans to something more complex with consciousness maybe more egoistical individuals who thinks can understand everything around the world and explain it better than anyone before. Human process is definitely one of the most interesting and easily understandable.

There's a lot truth in Darwin's dogmatic views just like there's a lot good statements in other Scientific, philosophic aspects about this subject. Darwinism has failed to explain many things and there will be better explanations which clears the process of evolution. What's certain to me and many others that we're again the same boat when the Church tried to disregard and break the possibility of any other explanations about life. How do i know it? Because the same people who once were Priests became Scientists and human nature barely changes. The same individuals with more personal consciousness or let's call it "Ego" take the same seats after each. The ones who were Religious turned Atheists the ones who were Communists turned Capitalists, how ironic, isn't it?
Some what i wrote turned strongly off topic but this subject can't be understood without discussion and we need different views to get deeper in the process of evolution.

Ric
12-06-2016, 03:07 PM
The 'going wrong' is all relative. Developmental mechanisms during embryogenesis and later childhood are flexible and can adapt to some severe changes. A mild example is how our faces are formed. We all have differences in faces that vary from individuals to individuals and from populations to populations yet despite differences in angles and proportions, all human faces end up functional. These differences cannot be all hard coded at the DNA level, otherwise variants genes, for example in the length of development of one bone of the face, would require a chain of compensatory modifications in the genes of the associated organs, skin, muscle, connective tissue, innervation and so on.
No, the way it works is that most of the time, we inherit one variant gene and the others genes adapt to this variation without the need for a chain of compensatory modifications. So flexibility is 'build in' the developmental process. There are two levels where this flexibility plays : the transcriptome at the transition from DNA information to RNA, proteome when the RNA information is transferred to proteins. Usually that's enough to give enough flexibility to turn a 'going wrong' process into a 'variant' process.
Stuart Kauffman, a bio-mathematician, was the first, or one of the first, to propose that the genetic states involved on different biological processes could be modeled by networks of interacting genes, initially with Boolean interaction between genes in two states, either activated or inactivated. Then there was a system of particular Boolean rules between genes, like : IF gene A = activated (1, true) then gene B = inactivated (0, false). This would be what we expect from a transcriptional repressor A for instance.
This model quickly leads to the idea of Attractor state of the entire network. That is, starting from any random state of the network of genes, the network will evolve towards a stable state from which it will not move anymore, and further, even if you introduce a 'going wrong' X gene that disturb a little bit the network, the Attractor State comes back quickly like an elastic. So you have here a genetic model with built in flexibility that can tolerate change.
This is something that is definitively new conceptually because, sure, we can observe that our faces are all different but still functional, and we therefore assume that the encoding information has to be flexible to support that, but here we have a mechanism to conceptualize this flexibility and a base for Homeostasis in an interacting network of genes.
Kauffman also linked the State of a Network of genes to a specific cell phenotype, that could explain the many cell types in our body. In this view each cell type is just one possible attractor of the network. Amazingly, his Boolean models predicted that with a network of thousands of genes, the number of Attractors is the square root of that number of genes. We have for example only a few thousands genes that turn into proteins (more if we count the variants) , and if I take 20,000 as a base (20 000)^1/2 = 141 Attractors. Sure enough, we have between 200 and 300 cell types in our body so the magnitude is correct at least.
Since then, Kauffman has added layers after layers of mathematical complexity to his original idea, but the basis is here: homeostasis can spring out of a mathematical pure form, like a platonician concept.
At the molecular level of a chemical reaction, there are other possible homeostatic mechanisms, like when the rate of a reaction is proportional to its product, feed back loops and so on.

So, taking your example of asymmetric division, we could speculate that the evolution of the state of the embryo will be brought back to normal quickly or, maybe instead evolve towards another stable state or Attractor of the entire gene network.
From a pure reductionist materialist point of view, we will say that if a second attractor has any adaptive advantage, or is even neutral, it can be preserved during evolution and evolve into a new, different, cell type. This is perhaps how single cells evolved into multicellular aggregate of 1 or two cell types, and then the 2-types multicellular Diblastic (Endoderm and Ectoderm) evolved into Triblastic animals (Endoderm, Ectoderm and Mesoderm) like us. All the different possible attractor states of the network will be eventually explored during evolution and lead, according to the Boolean model, to potentially square root of N interacting genes, or cell types.
But you can explain everything a posteriori. Cicadas reproduction patterns follow a pattern of prime number of years, in order to avoid the occurrence of predator feeding on them up to extinction :
Wikipedia : "Most cicadas go through a life cycle that lasts from two to five years. Some species have much longer life cycles, such as the North American genus, Magicicada, which has a number of distinct "broods" that go through either a 17-year or, in some parts of the world, a 13-year life cycle. The long life cycles may have developed as a response to predators, such as the cicada killer wasp and praying mantis..."
So unless Cicadas know about prime numbers, this has to come from a built in mathematical layer like an interspecies interacting network. The genome of the Cicada contains information about the genome of the Wasp and you can't make sense of one genome only, you need both and probably, as a chain reaction, all the genomes of the entire biosphere are needed to make (total) sense of a single one.
Basically however, even when considering a global Gaia-genome ruled by mathematical laws on a huge scale, Evolution is still about finding numbers, and nothing else.
Then the entire Evolutionary process of the biosphere can certainly be reduced to a gigantic Turing-like computation about finding those numbers. Finding numbers can be formulated into 'decision problems', and as such, even a Computation of astronomical proportion, whose product is the global Gaia genome of all life forms that have ever existed, exist and will exist, must still bow before Gdel Incompleteness theorem.
This is fine and totally compatible with Darwinism and other Reductionisms, as long as we avoid two singularity points : the Origin and Consciousness ~ 4 billions years later in Humankind. That is if you follow Roger Penrose. Indo-Asian philosophies will argue that there is only one point, but anyways, for those who ever had an Amiga, I am afraid that this model will freeze the computation into a 'Guru Meditation'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Guru_meditation.gif

curiousII
12-07-2016, 01:11 AM
They just had another one here: http://www.hematology.org/Annual-Meeting/

These people really have some conversation. Cancer isn't exactly like mitorchondria invading a cell, but I know it has to have some kind of similarities. How a cell operates, what's symbiotic and what's malign; I didn't get too far with this hypothesis but I got some good answers.

I get autographs, too. I got one today from a German lady who'd been to a Max Planck. She said there's numerous Planck's there, which is something else I didn't know. But these people just toss things like this out there off-the-cuff like it's casual conversation.

In the old days someone doing research spent decades bent over a microscope, and when he passed on his students had to wade through boxes of his papers to find out what he'd done. Now, with modern technology, a scientist can condense 20 lifetimes worth of research into a decade or two and leave a clear trail for anyone who's interested after he or she is done. I know that many of these persons I spoke with would have been Nobel material in another day; now, they're not exactly common but there's thousands of persons who have the skills to match theirs.

When they hold these conventions here it's like someone dumped a vast box of puppies or hamsters out on the town, they really scatter everywhere.

curiousII
12-13-2016, 08:43 PM
Had another customer yesterday, fellow worked for a "contract research organization:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_research_organization

Interesting job, as he described it. A CRO acts as an impartial overseer to a pharmaceutical company's experimentation with a medicine during and after its findings are presented to the FDA. A lot of responsibility there, obviously.

I got to have a brief discussion with him about mitochondria and my newly-found information that mitochondria isn't native to the cell structure. He feigned interest for a time, he'd obviously heard ravings before. But he did acknowledge that mitochondria isn't native to the cell.

So, if cancer attacks the cell as it does, and if mitochondria acts as such a powerhouse in both the cell's and the cancer's activities, would it seem that cellular life had been much different before the invasive mitochondrial bacteria found its way there? I mean, it's in both the cell and the cancer. I won't clutter this post up with various links I've found on the Web, it's easy to find. But prior to the mitochondrial invasion, was there cancer at all? And, would cancer be a defense of the primitive cell attempting to expel the mitochondria, a bacteria that might not have been as symbiotic as science teaches us today? As defined by Wikipedia, the Eukaryote cell had proto-mitochondria, a term I take to mean primitive, pre-mitochondria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote (I infer that as I'm termed as being "proto-Celtic," a type of life form that existed prior to the Celts or something).

Without turning this into a long-winded post, has science discovered when cancer began? Before or after mitochondria? Are there other antagonisitic diseases and contagions that attack a cell that could be attributed to being mitochondria-aimed? The life that evolved on the planet after the cell's assimilation with the invasive bacteria: could it have formed in another fashion that excluded mitochondria entirely?

A cure for cancer=the eradication of mitochondria from a life form and the construction of a new species that doesn't need that energy source? Well, that wasn't so much, done deal now, right? Wonder when they can get that done, and I wonder what kind of DNA tests FTDNA'll sell then? There's a market for everything.

Hi, Ric! Had a couple of French women here on the last convention, really intelligent. Viva le Credit Lyonnais!

Ric
12-13-2016, 11:26 PM
Had another customer yesterday, fellow worked for a "contract research organization:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_research_organization

He feigned interest for a time, he'd obviously heard ravings before. But he did acknowledge that mitochondria isn't native to the cell.

The mitochondria is an organelle that was acquired by the proto-eukaryotic cells, perhaps at a time when Earth started to accumulate Oxygen in its atmosphere and the environment started to become oxidizing and therefore, when it made sense to breath. So this organelle is thought to have been an independent prokaryote of its own, once, more or less inside our cells like a tolerable parasite before it became totally symbiotic. Now inside our cells, Mitochondria drive respiration which produce many oxidized intermediaries and byproducts.
To do this, the Mitochondria contains many extremely reactive chemicals in the chain of 'respiration', so reactive that if they were going to be released and get out the Mitochondria , they would kill the cell.

Well, this is the link with cancer :
You understand that the Mitochondria contains reactive entities like free radicals that are toxic for the cell. But the Mitochondria is a cell of its own, with membrane and DNA inside, so these toxic reactive are locked inside normally. However, beside a role in the respiration and oxidization process, the Mitochondria is linked to the 'Apoptosis', a mechanisms in which the Cell sort of suicide itself by opening the Mitochondria's membrane, releasing these reactives that in turns destroy the cell. Apoptosis is a regulation strategy with many mechanisms and enzymatic actors. Regulation for what ? well, one is a regulation against the many changes that are involved in cancer. Uncontrolled proliferation being the most dreaded. So, normally a cell what would undergo uncontrolled proliferation, because of a mutation in a gene involved in the control of the cell cycle for example, would also release signals that trigger the Apoptotic pathways, signals which in turn tell the Mitochondria in this particular cell to release their toxins and doing so, it kills the cell. But what happen if the mitochondria is not triggered ? the cells just keep proliferating and you have the potential for a growing tumor. Some anti-tumor drugs actually don't kill the cell at all, instead these drugs tell the Mitochondria to 'suicide' the cell.

We may wonder about the appearance of 'death on command', or 'cell suicide' among Eukaryotic multicellular organisms, but we can only say a posteriori that it was an adaptive mechanism preserved because it gave an slight advantage to its eukaryotic owner regarding uncontrolled proliferation. Anyways, you can't create a Mitochondria-free eukaryote, because beside apoptosis we also need Respiration.

curiousII
12-14-2016, 06:01 AM
Anyways, you can't create a Mitochondria-free eukaryote, because beside apoptosis we also need Respiration.

Found a site, fairly simple terms: https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/mitochondria/mitochondria.html

Which brings us back to your earlier question: What's life going to be like in the far-distant future? Here that future will probably consist of pollution so vast oxygen will be near unattainable anyway, depending on whose report you read: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/29162/20160925/are-we-running-out-of-oxygen-scientists-found-baffling-drop-in-earths-athmospheric-oxygen-level.htm or https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-world-run-breathable-air-unless-carbon-cut-210604512.html?ref=gs

This multi-cellular creature might not be a higher-life form that needs oxygen to exist, but it does so entirely without it: http://phys.org/news/2010-04-scientists-multicellular-life-doesnt-oxygen.htmlIt's possible for an organism to live in an oxygen-free environment; that does or does not prove that a life form can evolve to a higher state that includes intelligence?

So back to the religious aspect of all this, a viewpoint that's certain to arise whenever someone talks about genetic engineering. Mitochondria is Eve, the mitochondria-less cell is Adam, and the primordial stew that the oceans used to be is Eden. Eve gets a rib when she enters Adam, but their new relationship isn't symbiotic as much as they could have hoped for. Eve eats her apple when evolution begins to take place in Adam (the cell) and thereby cancer begins its rampage through the cell, being the Expulsion from The Garden. And that's not just Christianity, that's also Islam and the original blood clot.

Well, we did it again, Ric. I say it's all about DF27 now, we've left U106 in the dust.

Ric
01-23-2017, 08:51 PM
Found a site, fairly simple terms: https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/mitochondria/mitochondria.html

Which brings us back to your earlier question: What's life going to be like in the far-distant future? Here that future will probably consist of pollution so vast oxygen will be near unattainable anyway, depending on whose report you read: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/29162/20160925/are-we-running-out-of-oxygen-scientists-found-baffling-drop-in-earths-athmospheric-oxygen-level.htm or https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-world-run-breathable-air-unless-carbon-cut-210604512.html?ref=gs

This multi-cellular creature might not be a higher-life form that needs oxygen to exist, but it does so entirely without it: http://phys.org/news/2010-04-scientists-multicellular-life-doesnt-oxygen.htmlIt's possible for an organism to live in an oxygen-free environment; that does or does not prove that a life form can evolve to a higher state that includes intelligence?

So back to the religious aspect of all this, a viewpoint that's certain to arise whenever someone talks about genetic engineering. Mitochondria is Eve, the mitochondria-less cell is Adam, and the primordial stew that the oceans used to be is Eden. Eve gets a rib when she enters Adam, but their new relationship isn't symbiotic as much as they could have hoped for. Eve eats her apple when evolution begins to take place in Adam (the cell) and thereby cancer begins its rampage through the cell, being the Expulsion from The Garden. And that's not just Christianity, that's also Islam and the original blood clot.

Well, we did it again, Ric. I say it's all about DF27 now, we've left U106 in the dust.

The thread has been moved to the anthropology sub-forum without my knowledge.

Ric
01-23-2017, 09:02 PM
About Mitochondria, there is a book from Nick Lane 'The Vital Question' which explores the consequences of the early symbiosis of a Mitochondrion + Archeon. In short, it boosted Evolution.

curiousII
01-25-2017, 05:14 AM
In short, it boosted Evolution.

And check this out, Ric: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/23/organisms-created-with-synthetic-dna-pave-way-for-new-entirely-new-life-forms

There's a few articles about this on the Web, I'm sure you can find one more definitive. But you probably already know about this anyway, this is exactly what you were talking about.

Entirely new life, entirely eradicate cancer and other disastrous hindrances and diseases to life and evolution. Life in the old sense, anyway, as this really does open up a new world. Would this eliminate the need for mitochondria? No need to worry about symbiosis any longer, just create new life that's entirely compatible with anything you want it to be.

Glad you found where they moved your thread to. You have excellent ideas and thanks for sharing them. And, you'll see this was done in a Scripps lab in California. Hopefully they'll have a convention about it here sometime soon.

curiousII
06-22-2017, 03:34 PM
Another convention in town: http://convention.bio.org/Home.aspx

Thousands of Nobel laureates, running all around town like a box of hamsters dumped out in your living room. I get some conversation.