Comments

1
ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. It has been thoroughly and soundly rejected by the scientific community because it is errant nonsense without a shred of evidence in support.

You get some very (very) basic biology wrong. For example, proofreading of DNA is in no way "thoughtful" in as much as life depends entirely upon it continually making blind mistakes - mistakes which happen without regard to their utility. Sort of the *exact* opposite of "thoughtful*. Shapiro is an utter fool if he thinks biology is being "forced to abandon a mechanistic and gradualist concept of evolutionary development and innovation for an informatics one...." Informatics is something we invented - it is entirely *descriptive* and it has no impact whatever on whether or not evolution is "mechanistic" (whatever you mean by that) or gradualistic.

One very odd thing - you used the phrase "respectable branch of philosophy" to refer to panpsychism. Either that was a typo or "respectable" means something altogether different to you.

The article is so full of nonsense and woo, it's so bad it's not even wrong. I wonder if this isn't some kind of Sokal hoax Charles is attempting. If so, kudos. Can't tell it from the real thing. If this isn't a hoax, then all I can say is....wow.

Just...wow.
2
Thanks Charles, I enjoyed this. Again I point you to the Quark and the Jaguar, which was my first introduction to complex adaptive systems.

If those damn aliens actually told us we exist to mine metals we'd probably be better at not tossing them back in landfills.
3
Covered a lot of ground here, Charles. LOL
4
@2, or into the Lansing water supply. Or into the air. Or into trains and trucks and boats. Or into skyscrapers. Or into Tuna fish. Or into paint.

@1, yeah, Charles plays around with the definitions of words a lot...I guess it's "Pot Tuesday."

I too feel like consciousness, attention and intelligence are something very specific and special, but if Charles wants to call it just "purpose" I guess he can do that. It raises my hackles, but it's sort of fun, too. (Charles, you do know that panpsychists think that magnets "think" in the way you're describing?). We do know (scientifically, even) that the human mind plays tricks on itself...sees patterns where there are none...and sees outside influences on naturals processes just because we're built that way. Charles, I love you man, but seriously don't go down this particular rabbit hole.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcas…
5
@4 I wish Charles could focus for a minute and explain more what he means. I believe he's talking about complex adaptive systems: systems that change themselves in response to outcomes, and which seek goals. This includes the human mind, but also how butterflies evolve, how trees interact, how birds migrate, or how the stock market works. Each uses very different mechanisms to change their behavior based on goals and testing the environment, but I might call each of them intelligent in their way. And often more intelligent than a human mind. Bringing in physical phenomena (not just complex adaptive behavior), would I be better at telling a lightning bolt or a running stream the optimal path of least resistance? Not likely.
6
@5, see, you just explained it better than he ever could.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.