Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Anthropic principle

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

...except it was not designed:

 

"Taken together, these findings paint a picture of the developing brain that contrasts sharply from the genetic providentialism favored by Sperry. Instead of the brain unfolding according to a genetically specified blueprint, we see instead a process of selection by which overly abundant neuronal connections are eliminated through a weeding-out process, leaving only those connections that permit the animal to interact successfully with its environment." -Taken from ch5 of 'Without Miracles.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a thermosat to function no consciousness is necessary? Given the full context of reality , for a thermostat to function no consciousness is necessary?

That was an example of a negative feedback control.  There are plenty of negative feedback systems in nature without a scintilla of consciousness. 

 

It is the -principle- of negative feedback I was getting at.  

 

Here is a climatic negative feed-back loop.  The earth gets warmer,  the oceans evaporate off lots of water vapor,  lots of clouds form.  The clouds reflect the light of the sun back into space and that acts to cool of their earth.  Evaporation and cloud formation moderate temperature increases.  It is a cooling system that works by negative-feedback and there is not a bit of consciousness to it.

 

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was an example of a negative feedback control.  There are plenty of negative feedback systems in nature without a scintilla of consciousness. 

 

It is the -principle- of negative feedback I was getting at.  

 

Here is a climatic negative feed-back loop.  The earth gets warmer,  the oceans evaporate off lots of water vapor,  lots of clouds form.  The clouds reflect the light of the sun back into space and that acts to cool of their earth.  Evaporation and cloud formation moderate temperature increases.  It is a cooling system that works by negative-feedback and there is not a bit of consciousness to it.

 

ruveyn1

agreed, my point is that WAP and SAP must be based on the primacy of consciousness if they supposed to give 'reasons' for existence, or perhaps I don't understand them correctly. If they are intended to give the 'reasons' for existence, I reject them both for the reasons I stated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, It is not an argument.

 

It is a only a statement of his view that a terabyte of connections is designed, while a quadrillion connections is not.

Yes. We've established that. We've also established that you have a problem with that (because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideology), but you're incapable of making a logical argument as to why it would be wrong.

So, instead, you're hoping that if you keep repeating your preconceptions enough times, the rest of us will also abandon reason and accept your arbitrary, irrational premise that complex things must be the product of intelligent design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. We've established that. We've also established that you have a problem with that (because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideology), but you're incapable of making a logical argument as to why it would be wrong.

Who is we? Is there a group for whom you are the elected representative spokesperson? The trait of groupspeak is commonly associated with the left, so it seems uncharacteristically out of place seeing as Ayn Rand was neither a leftist or a statist and even championed the triumph of the individual personal pronoun "I" over the collectivist "we". 

 

I take a different approach than you. Instead of arguing and contending, I choose to simply state my view and describe how it differs from the view of others.

 

In this case, my perfectly logical view is that all computers are designed... and that happens to include the most advanced sophisticated supercomputer on this Earth which is light years ahead of all the other computers in existence...

 

So, instead, you're hoping that if you keep repeating your preconceptions enough times, the rest of us will also abandon reason and accept your arbitrary, irrational premise that complex things must be the product of intelligent design.         

 

 

I believe that you're ascribing your own motivation to others. I operate on the premise that adults have already chosen their view, and short of a genuine lift threatening or life altering experience they will take their choice and all of its just and deserved consequences with them to their grave. So my stating my view does absolutely nothing to interfere your freedom to argue against it all you wish. I'm content knowing that each one of us gets exactly what they deserve as the results of their choice. This knowledge tends to defuse arguing and contending.

 

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to speak for Nicky, but I am pretty sure that "we" means "you and I".  Maybe it includes the people reading the posts. "We" is a pronoun, it isn't collectivist.  Attacking Nicky for the rhetorical use of "we" is sad. 

 

You have basically stated that you don't care what other people think, and that you don't feel that you have to justify your beliefs to anyone else. This all fine and good, as you do not have any obligation to do so. However if you want to participate in a community like ours and be taken seriously when you propose ideas or criticize the ideas others, you really should think about being more persuasive. You are already well on your way to being relegated to "ignore this troll" status by the community.  

 

I also want to explain that a brain-mind is different than a computer in a fundamental way.  There is a difference between knowledge and information. Computers are really good at storing and using information, where as they have no ability to use knowledge. The human brain can forget or corrupt information but it can produce knowledge. This is why we built computers, to compensate for our inability to handle vasts amounts of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. In your view, a Dell computer was designed... while a living biocomputer with a duadrillion connections isn't.  

 

So you reject the theory of evolution? :huh: As Stephen J Gould said, evolution has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

 

I believe that you're ascribing your own motivation to others. I operate on the premise that adults have already chosen their view, and short of a genuine lift threatening or life altering experience they will take their choice and all of its just and deserved consequences with them to their grave. So my stating my view does absolutely nothing to interfere your freedom to argue against it all you wish. I'm content knowing that each one of us gets exactly what they deserve as the results of their choice. This knowledge tends to defuse arguing and contending.

 

That is a terrible premise to hold, and hope to heyzeus that it isn't true of too many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I believe that you're ascribing your own motivation to others. I operate on the premise that adults have already chosen their view, and short of a genuine lift threatening or life altering experience they will take their choice and all of its just and deserved consequences with them to their grave. So my stating my view does absolutely nothing to interfere your freedom to argue against it all you wish. I'm content knowing that each one of us gets exactly what they deserve as the results of their choice. This knowledge tends to defuse arguing and contending.

 

I am pushing 80 and I have had to change many of my views and assumptions during my life,  hundreds and perhaps thousands.  My views and beliefs are governed largely by the facts I learn and by the consequences of my heretofore held views and beliefs.   Time and the Facts are stern teachers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to speak for Nicky,

Then you can use "we", too. ;)

but I am pretty sure that "we" means "you and I".  Maybe it includes the people reading the posts. "We" is a pronoun, it isn't collectivist.  Attacking Nicky for the rhetorical use of "we" is sad. 

Fair enough. Your point is taken.

You have basically stated that you don't care what other people think,

This is incorrect.

 

I have stated that adults have already freely made their choice of their view, and only the real life consequences of their own actions has the power to change their chosen view.

and that you don't feel that you have to justify your beliefs to anyone else.

I have offered ample logical reasons for my view. I'd just choose not to argue about it, and instead to let whatever contrast to the views of others stand as it is.

This all fine and good, as you do not have any obligation to do so. However if you want to participate in a community like ours and be taken seriously when you propose ideas or criticize the ideas others, you really should think about being more persuasive.

Whether or not I'm taken seriously is everyone else's free choice, so it's not my place to try to tamper with the volition of others. My approach is to take the ideas of Ayn Rand seriously enough to make them real by using them in business.

You are already well on your way to being relegated to "ignore this troll" status by the community.  

That is your free choice. I fully understand that not conforming to the doctrine of Objectivism opens the potential of being labled a heretic just as it would happen in a religion... and I'm ok with that. There is a difference because I came to the writings of Ayn Rand from a completely different direction. Not as virtual theoretical intellectual exercises... but as a literal practical actions which can be put to use in the real world. And I found that in that particular regard, Ayn Ran held all of the trump cards because her methods work as if they were charmed.

 

I also want to explain that a brain-mind is different than a computer in a fundamental way. There is a difference between knowledge and information. Computers are really good at storing and using information, where as they have no ability to use knowledge. The human brain can forget or corrupt information but it can produce knowledge. This is why we built computers, to compensate for our inability to handle vasts amounts of information.

 

In my view, you are making my point that the design of the thousand trillion neural connections in the brain is far superior to the computers it designs. And this relationship is born out in reality... for it is the brain which designed the computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you reject the theory of evolution? :huh:

No. Evolution operates entirely within the parameters of physical laws.

As Stephen J Gould said, evolution has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

Why are you trying to argue a point of agreement?

That is a terrible premise to hold, and hope to heyzeus that it isn't true of too many people.

It's only terrible for those who disregard the real world consequences of their own actions as being their teacher. For them, it can be downright catastrophic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand your point then. We argree that evolution explains the complexities of our bodies, such as our brains and eyes. From there, are you claiming that some being created evolution with specific goals in mind (ie: "after 4ga my process of evolution will make the most perfect eyes imaginable")?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you can use "we", too. ;)

Fair enough. Your point is taken.

This is incorrect.

 

I have stated that adults have already freely made their choice of their view, and only the real life consequences of their own actions has the power to change their chosen view.

  

   Then why discuss these issues at all? If you believe that only the life course can show which ideas are true and false, and not discussion, why participate in discussion? 

I have offered ample logical reasons for my view. I'd just choose not to argue about it, and instead to let whatever contrast to the views of others stand as it is.

Whether or not I'm taken seriously is everyone else's free choice, so it's not my place to try to tamper with the volition of others. My approach is to take the ideas of Ayn Rand seriously enough to make them real by using them in business.

 

    How is it that making an argument or attempting to persuade someone is an attempt to violate the volition of others? What makes you think that others here aren't using Ayn Rand's ideas in their life? 

 

 

 

  There are plenty of people who do not believe in Ayn Rand's ideas who post here. 

   

In my view, you are making my point that the design of the thousand trillion neural connections in the brain is far superior to the computers it designs. And this relationship is born out in reality... for it is the brain which designed the computer.

 

 Okay? The computer is a tool. The brain is an adaptation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Then why discuss these issues at all? If you believe that only the life course can show which ideas are true and false, and not discussion, why participate in discussion? 

Entertainment.

 

I don't watch television as it's inane, inert, and passive. The virtual world of interactive public television is much more interesting place to visit.

 

   

 The computer is a tool. The brain is an adaptation.

 

If the brain is an adaptation... then a computer is a also an adaptation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I love to argue against evolution this is hardly the right topic to do so.

 

The brain is complex. Evolution explains complexity. Evolution explains the existence of the brain.

That's pretty much as far as this will go...

I wholly agree... and evolution follows physical laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand your point then. We argree that evolution explains the complexities of our bodies, such as our brains and eyes. From there, are you claiming that some being created evolution with specific goals in mind (ie: "after 4ga my process of evolution will make the most perfect eyes imaginable")?

I wouldn't bother. He already made it clear that he rejects reason as the means of acquiring knowledge. Whatever evidence you provide, he'll just reply with the arbitrary assertion that God's behind it.

If you prove to him that evolution is a natural phenomenon, he'll just arbitrarily state that God engineered it to be that way. If you challenge that, he'll just conflate rights with reason and reply that his arbitrary opinions are just as valid as your logic, because he has a right to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

If I understand it correctly the anthropic principle states that the Universe is fine tuned for life because otherwise we would not be here asking why the Universe is finely tuned.

 

It is true that we would not be here if fine tuning was out of sync with life, but that doesn't mean that that is the cause of the fine tuning.

 

If the Universe conisted of many 'smaller universe' it would makes sense that life would only exist in a universe where the laws and constants are finely tuned, that however does not prove that there are more than one universe, therefore (if no evidence for a Multiverse exists) the anthropic principle is wrong.

 

Also there is no need to explain any supposed fine tuning of the Universe. It is what it is and that's all we need to know.

 

Or am I wrong?

The weak anthropic principle  states the obvious that later states of the cosmos logically constrain what the initial states might be given the laws of physics which are really the time evolution or unfolding of the cosmos.  On the other hand the Strong Anthropic Principle introduces purpose to the unfolding of the cosmos which makes it very unpopular with physicists. The weak principle is almost a tautology  and the strong principle is rejected out of hand because it postulates cause other than formal, material and efficient cause.  A physicist while he has his physicist hat one simply rejects teleology as a physical condition or factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that if the 'red shift' is evidence of expansion and given the rate, that at some point sentient beings would not be aware or have any means to determine the expanse of the universe. They would be 'cut off' from the 'rest' of the universe due to the event horizon umm thingy(sorry layman here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you prove to him that evolution is a natural phenomenon...

There's no need for that, Nicky.

 

Evolution is a completely natural phenomenon because it conforms to physical laws.There are two choices regarding the order of specific physical laws which govern the behavior of quarks, and galaxies, and life. They were either designed or they came from random chaos. That choice is a completely open one, and everyone freely chooses for themselves.

 

In the view I chose, the only logical way order can come come out of chaos is for it to follow prexisting laws. There are specific laws which govern the orbit of every electron around the nucleus of every hydrogen atom.

 

For example, from the OP:

 

 

 we see instead a process of selection by which overly abundant neuronal connections are eliminated through a weeding-out process, leaving only those connections that permit the animal to interact successfully with its environment."

 

Even the "weeding out" selection of what works over what does not work is governed by preexisting physical law. There is also another set of well ordered laws that govern human behavior.  And those laws also favor the selection of what works over what does not work by consequences of actions.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In the view I chose, the only logical way order can come come out of chaos is for it to follow prexisting laws. There are specific laws which govern the orbit of every electron around the nucleus of every hydrogen atom.

You posit only two choices for explanation of physical laws, based on a 'coming out of chaos'(~), could you define chaos? And provide an example of 'when' it was?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...