[_ Old Earth _] God Can Count - Can Evolution?

[Adam]

Of course, silly....

I am referring to those interneural cells that do associate with one another;


An interneuron (also called relay neuron, association neuron, connector neuron or local circuit neuron) is a neuron that forms a connection between other neurons. Interneurons are neither motor nor sensory.

Then why did you bring up hearing as part of your evidence if you were talking about a neuron that is not sensory?


This is just an attempt at backpedaling and still does not fit in with your "mitosis/fibonacci sequence" claim.

No one is challenging the idea that neurons are connected. It is your claim that the connections are fixed, boolean in nature and connected in a Fibonacci sequence that is being challenged. Appealing to associative neurons does not put you in any better position regarding those claims. They still are not true.

Since again the discussion with you has turned out to be both irrelevant to the topic and inaccurate, to say the least, I see no need for further discussion.

 

[cupid dave]

I stand by the evidence that what Guilford thought is immaterial and I really don't care about what you imagine the Urim and Thummim to be.

The theory and ideas of researcher JP Guilford seems no less valuable then the others among those seven present ideas available.

Models and Theories
1 Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory
2 Fluid and crystallized intelligence
3 General intelligence factor
4 Intelligence quotient
5 Theory of multiple intelligences
6 Triarchic theory of intelligence
7 Guilford’s Cube


Perhaps you have a preference?

Since the actual explanation for how our mind does think is still a mystery, in spite of these seven modern theories, I am drawn to examine Guilford's idea of a cube as the Model we ought work through at first.

I believe that Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences will also come to define Guilford's idea as more pertinent to the Logical/Mathematical mind.
This would, at first, be to the partial exclusion of the other seven intelligences we may eventually analyze.

What I glean from the bible is that the writers make a case that Truth is our salvation, since it is primarily man's mind that he uses to cope with the life forces that could drive him into extinction as a species.

With that is mind, I see the consistent reference to a Cube running throughout the scriptures AND,... all so impressive for this line of thought,... a geometric Cube which is so ingrained into the rituals and Traditions of Judaism:

What can not be denied is the otherwise strange and repetitious focus of Judaism on this geometry of a Cube, a Cube geometry always concerned with direct communication with the Most High.

For example, the scriptures have commanded the Jewish priests to meet with God once a year in what is called The Most Holy Place, a Cube-shaped room measuring 20 cubits X 20 cubits X 20 cubits.

And, how otherwise weird, that these priests and the whole congregation wear a small Cube tied to their forehead, as if confirming directly what I am telling you here, that this Cube is related to thinking inside their skull of these men, all:

 

[Asyncritus]

It is an incomprehensible phenomenon that I am observing here.

It is the spectacle of what appears to be a rational, reasonable human being appearing to say that intelligence, order, design can appear out of chaos.

Here is chaos, in the form of alleged gazillions of random mutations, producing order out of chaos without the application of intelligence.

Mandelbrot patterns, created in computers by the reiteration of simple equations, appear to give the lie to the concept that chaos cannot create order.

But the supporters of such a concept are shortsighted in the extreme. Why?

Because 1 the equations have to be written by intelligence 2 the equations have to be handled intelligently in the reiteration 3 the calculations are done on computers, which are intelligently designed - extremely intelligently designed - machines 4 the results are displayed on computer screens which are themselves intelligently designed devices, designed to display the resilts of the calculations

Therefore, chaos CANNOT GENERATE INTELLIGENCE.

By analogy, UNLESS NATURAL SELECTION IS AN INTELLIGENT PROCESS -and it is not - then natural selection cannot produce the intelligently designed wonders we see in the biological world around us.

It is absolutely extraordinary to attribute such qualities of intelligent selection and design powers to a chaos.

This is the creation myth of our time.. In the beginning was chaos, and the god natural selection acted upon it, and, without intelligence, extracted order and created intelligently designed complex devices.

That is it in sum. Sanity out of madness. Intelligence out of moronism. Order out of chaos. Something out of nothing.

This is Barbarian's (and evolution's) doctrine - and it verges on the threshold of stupidity and atheism. Natural selection replaces God, and can produce what I would call creation, out of a 'common ancestor'.

Isn't this incredible? That a blind force, acting upon a chaotic mass of random mutations in the 'common ancestor' can create the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom - all the life forms we now see, and those that are now extinct. Gazillions of them.

Is not this the new god? Capable of creating all things?

What is almost criminal about the whole thing is that the physicists, astronomers and cosmologists are headed in the diametrically opposite direction.

They see monumental evidence of the existence of a single mind behind it all. Reading any of the standard works on the cosmological anthropic principle creates the distinct impression that they are being forced, no, have been forced, into accepting that there IS a god, and his name is emphatically NOT natural selection.

Fred Hoyle said that he thought that there were no blind forces in the universe worth talking about. Yet here, in biology, we have a blind force, with the powers of designing intelligently - no, brilliantly.

You often hear the foolish statement that evolution is as well established as the law of gravity. You never hear a physicist saying that the law of gravity is as well established as the theory of evolution. They're not stupid, and they know the facts.

2 Of course, in evolution theory, random, chance, fortuitous, don't mean what they mean in English.

They are used in a stricter sense, most of them, but as you learned, natural selection is not random.

You're lying again. You are using 'stricter' to mean 'intelligent', 'purposive' and all those other words. Which is downright dishonest, and unscientific to say the least.

You are saying that 'not random' means 'intelligent', 'purposive', 'directed' - all those words which endow evolution with creative ability.

But you have to do this. You have to build your house on shifting sands - otherwise, as you recognise quite clearly, it will fall over.
3 Dawkins admits that the production of mutations is random, by chance.

Barbarian says: Yes random mutations are randomly distributed, and without natural selection, would never have produced much of anything.

You've shifted your stance again. Just a couple of posts back you were strenuously denying that Dawkins said any such thing. Daylight has dawned, and honesty has crept in.

But a major problem remains. You are still unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Dawkins admitted, grudgingly, that the mutation part of the equation is a chance procedure. That much is fact.

The quotation from TO, showed that despite that, he still maintains that evolution is not a chance procedure. That much is opinion.

Can you distinguish between the two things? Clearly not

And of course, all you need do, is substitute the word 'intelligent' for the 'natural' and you're laughing. Which, of course,is exactly what Barbarian and his colleague Dawkins are very adept at doing. But it won't wash - because 'natural' and 'intelligent' are not synonyms.

As you know, I told you that a random process, like mutation, with a non-random process, like natural selection produces a non-random result.

Shame on you for pretending otherwise.

If you went to a garbage heap, and picked up all the pepsi-cola cans, intending to use them for a decorative or other such purpose, then you have 2 consequences to account for.

1 You are presumably intelligent, and can exercise the power of selection. 'Natural' selection is not intelligent, and cannot act like this.

2 You have a purpose in mind. Teleology is not acceptable to evolution theory. The question 'why' is not admissible.

So supposing a reptile's scales turned into feathers, NS could not select for possible future flight purposes. THE REPTILE WOULD BE WIPED OUT BY THE VERY SAME NATURAL SELECTIVE FORCES YOU CONTINUALLY INVOKE because it could not escape as fast as its fellows.

The evolution usually starts from a population of randomly generated individuals and happens in generations.

Sounds good. QED.

In each generation, the fitness of every individual in the population is evaluated, multiple individuals are stochastically [meaning randomly] selected from the current population (based on their fitness), and modified (recombined and possibly randomly mutated) to form a new population.

So the already randomised genes are randomised randomly again!More chaos.

The new [randomised] population is then used in the next iteration of the algorithm [further randomisation].

Commonly, the algorithm terminates when either a maximum number of generations has been produced, or a satisfactory fitness level has been reached for the population. [Or of course, it's been wiped out because of the stupidity of the whole process! Which is the most likely outcome, given the garbage that has been generated again and again!]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
Yet, this is what they have to invoke, in order to salvage this rubbish theory.

Surprise.

No, just stupid.

As Dawkins said, it is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if evolution is a chance process, it wouldn't work.
Yep. The opposite of what you claim he said.

Your inability to distinguish fact from opinion is again distressingly obvious to all who read this.

Barbarian next demonstrates his fine qualities as a begger of questions. I am stating that evolution, a chance process, based entirely on the random, fortuitous occurrence of mutations is completely incapable of producing the highly intelligent structures and processes we see everywhere in nature today.
If it were only random mutations, you'd be right. But natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. But you already knew that.

No, you asserted that - which is a different thing altogether.

So we're back to the assertion that NS is a god of some sort - able to take junk and create wonders. To take chaos and turn it into order. To take unintelligence and create intelligence.

Thank God it's only assertion, without a shred of proof.

 

[Adam]

By analogy, UNLESS NATURAL SELECTION IS AN INTELLIGENT PROCESS -and it is not ...-




Something out of nothing.

This is ...(...evolution's) doctrine -

By what evidence do you conclude that natural selection is not an intelligent process?


Also, the theory of evolution does not purport any premise regarding the origin of life or the origin of the universe.

Those are different theories. If you would like to address them, please make sure that you are not confusing them with evolution.


I know people who make no distinction and often crossover between a discussion of evolution to abiogenesis or even the big bang as if they are all the same subject and have the same premises, but they do not.


Evolution does not have a doctrine, but if it did, it would not be that "something came from nothing."

 

[cupid dave]

ted by cupid dave
Of course, silly....

I am referring to those interneural cells that do associate with one another;


An interneuron (also called relay neuron, association neuron, connector neuron or local circuit neuron) is a neuron that forms a connection between other neurons. Interneurons are neither motor nor sensory.




////

Adam:
Then why did you bring up hearing as part of your evidence if you were talking about a neuron that is not sensory?


This is just an attempt at backpedaling and still does not fit in with your "mitosis/fibonacci sequence" claim.

No one is challenging the idea that neurons are connected. It is your claim that the connections are fixed, boolean in nature and connected in a Fibonacci sequence that is being challenged. Appealing to associative neurons does not put you in any better position regarding those claims. They still are not true.

Since again the discussion with you has turned out to be both irrelevant to the topic and inaccurate, to say the least, I see no need for further discussion.

You need be educated on the point that neurons come in thre generale types.

The Interneural Neurons form the networks which you said do not exist.
It is these interneural neurons which develop into the Pascal Arrays which are a consequence of the Fibonacci mitosis/splitting.

The other two types of neurons (or nerve cells) are Motor Nerves, which carry the out puts of the thinking that orinates from those interneural neuron networks.
The third type are the sensory nerves which bring Data into the interneuronal networks where thinkiing about that data then takes place.

Got it?

 

[Adam]

I already told you that there is no point in continuing this discussion with you since you do not know the subject matter. You cannot educate me on things that you are uninformed about.

I never said that networks do not exist. In fact, I said that neurons act as computers which communicate via network. Those are my exact words. What I countered is your claim that these networks are fixed, communicate by boolean logic and are set in a Fibonacci sequence. Then you backpedaled some and still had nothing to offer.


Since you are still hung up on those non-facts, please do not bother me with asides that do not validate those claims or attempts at misrepresenting my argument. This is no longer debatable.

 

[cupid dave]

It is an incomprehensible phenomenon that I am observing here.

It is the spectacle of what appears to be a rational, reasonable human being appearing to say that intelligence, order, design can appear out of chaos.

Stop right here and define terms and concepts as any scientific discussion needs do.

First, Intelligence in the concept that measures how well thinkers can model Reality.
In that definition we can exclude the idea of measuring the intelligence the of Reality, since we recognize intelligence as the ability to understand what is real.


My argument here is that IQ Tests measure Intelligence by counting the correct response to questions concerning what is True or False.
What is True is those facts that correponnd directly with what is real and does actually exist.

Intelligence seems to be an exclusive ability of living things which try to understand the creation so as to properly be able to respond to that environment.

We can not logically insist that what is intelligently observed by us about the world proves that some force which created the world has intelligence.
Such as force would have no reason to make a mental model of the world, that is to, conceive an image of the world in order to understand the world which it created.

DO you follow me here?

It does not follow to assert that some force has intelligence simply because we can intelligently understand the world.
All we can say logically is that we have intelligence because we can show we understand things about the real world within which we are both trapped and nurtured.

 

[cupid dave]

When cells go through mitosis, they do not form relationships with each other.

....you claim that all the neurons in the brain are the result of one neuron splitting over and over. You don't realize that there are many kinds of neurons.

There is not a fixed neural network.

Oh, perhaps I misunderstood you to say "There is not a fixed neural network."


What I said was that thinking is a process carried on by nerves which are associated with only similar nerves, called Interneural Nerves, meaning they are:

An interneuron, also known as an associated neuron, is a neuron located entirely within the central nervous system that conducts signals between neurons.

The central nervous system consists of nerve cells within the brain and spinal cord, as opposed to the peripheral nervous system, which is completely composed of nerve cells outside the spinal cord and brain.
An interneuron acts as a middle-man between neurons, allowing other interneurons to communicate with one another.




We do not have a theory about how or why these interneural networks of nerves come to grow together, other than the one I suggested as forming naturally by mitosis in accord with the mathematics of Fibonacci and creating thereby a Pascal Binary Encoding inherent to that process.

But this either goes over your head or will not register because you refuse to entertain the hypothesis.
That matters little, except that this idea suppprts Guilford's Model of Intelligence and also compares the transistor-like neurons in the brain to what our computers do today.

My other post which gave an explanation concerning hearing (also presently not understood) and related that ability to this same theory based unpon Pascal and Fibonacci mathematics.

This theory is supported by the best hypothesis offered by science at this time, which is known as the Volley Theory of Hearing.


Whether God can count and if so, how did his number system evolves seems to be answered here in the absence of anyother explanations or ideas offered in this thread.

 

[cupid dave]

Oh, perhaps I misunderstood you to say "There is not a fixed neural network."


What I said was that thinking is a process carried on by nerves which are associated with only similar nerves, called Interneural Nerves, meaning they are:

An interneuron, also known as an associated neuron, is a neuron located entirely within the central nervous system that conducts signals between neurons.

The central nervous system consists of nerve cells within the brain and spinal cord, as opposed to the peripheral nervous system, which is completely composed of nerve cells outside the spinal cord and brain.
An interneuron acts as a middle-man between neurons, allowing other interneurons to communicate with one another.




We do not have a theory about how or why these interneural networks of nerves come to grow together, other than the one I suggested as forming naturally by mitosis in accord with the mathematics of Fibonacci and creating thereby a Pascal Binary Encoding inherent to that process.

But this either goes over your head or will not register because you refuse to entertain the hypothesis.
That matters little, except that this idea suppprts Guilford's Model of Intelligence and also compares the transistor-like neurons in the brain to what our computers do today.

My other post which gave an explanation concerning hearing (also presently not understood) and related that ability to this same theory based unpon Pascal and Fibonacci mathematics.

This theory is supported by the best hypothesis offered by science at this time, which is known as the Volley Theory of Hearing.


Whether God can count and if so, how did his number system evolves seems to be answered here in the absence of anyother explanations or ideas offered in this thread.

I do not know if God counts, but we read that he has even numbered the hairs on our head.

It seems then that god has made man capable of imaging the Creation, and by knowing the Creation, the Creator is revealed.

It further seems that man has the mathematical facility to build a model of what exists beyond his own mind.
His brain performs very much the same way as our computers can "see" and "hear" and even "speak," plus all the other things we do, all based upon the two numbers 0,1.

Fibonacci cellular division in the brain has inherent in its process the capability of forming Pascal Triangular ordered interneural connections between neurons that form sets of transistor-like networks.

These neuron transistors operate by allowing a chnage in voltage to pass short bursts of electric current down the discharge nerve, similar to what happens in the comouter transistors networks.

Each sense of the Sensory System works in accord with this digital organization as if an independent Software System.
Those systems of Software feed information through the twelve sets of Cranial Sensory Nerves in order to be processed by the Interneural Nerve networks centers inside the brain.

These 12 Cranial Sensory Nerves feed into 12 Cortex Functional Processing Areas.

The response to this incoming information is Output through the Motor Nerves which leave the Brain through the Spinal Cord.



What I draw attention to here is the numbers of 3, 7, and 12 which are repeatedly present in the computer-like process of thinking.