The Anthropic principle

Metaphysics and Epistemology
21

Theorizing how human brains came to be so complex (ie: evolved from a more primitive form) is not invalid at all. See wiki’s entry on the human brain or on the evolution of human intelligence. 

 

 

The universe isn’t a conscious entity capable of tuning, or making adjustments wherever necessary. def universe: All existing matter and space considered as a whole

“fine tuning” is an unfortunate phrase.  It implies conscious adjustment.   However adjustment and modification can occur with no consciousness.  A negative feedback  control loop  functions strictly according to physical laws.  Not an ounce of consciousness there.

22

Theorizing how human brains came to be so complex (ie: evolved from a more primitive form) is not invalid at all. See wiki’s entry on the human brain or on the evolution of human intelligence. 

 

 

The universe isn’t a conscious entity capable of tuning, or making adjustments wherever necessary. def universe: All existing matter and space considered as a whole

It was a poor way to argue my point, what I meant to convey is that how questions in this context are legitimate, it’s the why ones that are not.

23

Theorizing how human brains came to be so complex (ie: evolved from a more primitive form) is not invalid at all. See wiki’s entry on the human brain or on the evolution of human intelligence. 

Heard some interesting facts about the brain. There are a about 100,000,000,000 neurons, each connected to 10,000 other neurons, for a total of 1,000,000,000,000,000  (1 quadrillion) connections. This is complexity beyond comprehension.

24

Heard some interesting facts about the brain. There are a about 100,000,000,000 neurons, each connected to 10,000 other neurons, for a total of 1,000,000,000,000,000  (1 quadrillion) connections. This is complexity beyond comprehension.

And there’s the rub, IT is what it IS

25

And there’s the rub, IT is what it IS

…and it’s an absolutely brilliant design.

26

…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.’

27

If anthropomorphic projection were an anthropic principle, someone might be able to write a book and entitle it “Nailing Jelly to a Tree”, only subtitling it “What programmed the programmer?”

28

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

29

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.

30

…except it was not designed:

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

31

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

Yes. Now what? These sentences that you think are arguments aren’t really arguments.

32

Yes. Now what? These sentences that you think are arguments aren’t really arguments.

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.

33

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.

34

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.

 

35

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.

36

I don’t want to speak for Nicky, but I am pretty sure that “we” means “you and I”.

Obviously.

37

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.

38

 

 

 

 

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.

1 Like
39

I don’t want to speak for Nicky,

Then you can use “we”, too. :wink:

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.

40

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.