Hi,

I often find myself investigating the physical world in comparison to my on going conscience experience being a human like yourself. Mainstream research says our bodies are electrochemical machines where our brain carries out instructions based on stimuli. This can be said for a computer as well. History had proven man is capable then of complex engineering by making best use of the environment however what can be said of subconscious mechanisms of evolution where animals are effectively engineers. An example being that a shark is darker on its back and lighter on the belly so when seen from above and below they blend into the surroundings. What area of research deals with such events? Another example is an octopus or chameleon changing colors.

It would seem nature of all types is capable of complex engineering even if there is no brain or conscious mind to carry out the "thought process".

 

It's called natural selection.

There isn't any engineering going on.

 

Just remember, religion is a taboo subject on AAC. Man has no shame in stealing ideas from Mother Nature, which is how it should be.

I have thought of changing my tag line to:
Man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing animal. Humans often justify their actions after the fact.

 

It's called natural selection.

There isn't any engineering going on.

That's a bit short sighted. I'm talking about the mechanisms that drive these extremely slow changes and how they happen, I don't care about "why" so much because that doesn't seem to be a parameter of nature nor can be answered by man because our scope of thought is limited. However the changes from A to B to C can be investigated.

Just remember, religion is a taboo subject on AAC. Man has no shame in stealing ideas from Mother Nature, which is how it should be.

I have thought of changing my tag line to:
Man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing animal. Humans often justify their actions after the fact.

I read an article about if dairy is cruel to the cow. The author made a point in favor of dairy saying that man would not have survived trying times without the food source and then so was able to further evolve and eventually thrive. Ironically this is also true of human slavery.

The last paragraph is a bit off topic but it comes full circle as a philosophy. Natural selection tends to favor what is logical, and the question is how? What stimulus does "nature" receive that prompts complex processes.

I would like to read on the subject but I'm not sure if this branch is really recognized and so analyzed.

 

https://phys.org/news/2008-08-evolution-law-thermodynamics.html

Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

For every successful mutation, there are hundreds if not thousands of fatal or bad ones. Death is the final arbiter.

 

I think the Blind Watchmaker may be useful here.

 

I read the selfish gene book a few years ago. Very enlightening.

 

I think one of the best thinkers and lecturers in this area is Daniel Dennett. It is well worth the time to watch his lectures. This one is quite lucid and cogent. No matter what your current opinion on evolution, it's likely to teach you something.

 

....subconscious mechanisms of evolution where animals are effectively engineers.

You seem to misunderstand the process of evolutionary change. It is not the directed process your description implies.

 

Natural selection tends to favor what is logical, and the question is how?

I'd argue that 'logical' isn't the right word. If some random mutation conveys some advantage in producing offspring then it will stick and spread in the population.

What stimulus does "nature" receive that prompts complex processes.

The random mutations come first, then the good mutations are selected as I described above. The 'complex' process isn't prompted by nature, the mutations are filtered by nature.

I would like to read on the subject but I'm not sure if this branch is really recognized and so analyzed.

Read one or more of Richard Dawkins' books on evolution. I've read most of them.

 

Repetitive randomization. I suspect that life exists where ever it can, throughout the cosmos.

 

Humans often justify their actions after the fact.

That's a bit like motivated reasoning. I think the world would be a better place if critical thinking was a mandatory subject at all schooling levels.

 

Hi,

I often find myself investigating the physical world in comparison to my on going conscience experience being a human like yourself. Mainstream research says our bodies are electrochemical machines where our brain carries out instructions based on stimuli. This can be said for a computer as well. History had proven man is capable then of complex engineering by making best use of the environment however what can be said of subconscious mechanisms of evolution where animals are effectively engineers. An example being that a shark is darker on its back and lighter on the belly so when seen from above and below they blend into the surroundings. What area of research deals with such events? Another example is an octopus or chameleon changing colors.

It would seem nature of all types is capable of complex engineering even if there is no brain or conscious mind to carry out the "thought process".

These questions are the province of philosophy rather than science IMHO.

The human brain/mind should not be assumed to be algorithmic (as is a digital computer) or even deterministic, there's is evidence that it is not and besides the question may be unanswerable.

 

I think one of the best thinkers and lecturers in this area is Daniel Dennett. It is well worth the time to watch his lectures. This one is quite lucid and cogent. No matter what your current opinion on evolution, it's likely to teach you something.

This was an illuminating video, thanks for sharing! I especially liked the points on the hand axe and boat as well as information not necessarily having to exist on a physical substrate. Cultural vs Darwin evolution is an excellent analysis regarding to this topic in my opinion. To that end, I would like to know the extremes scientists have investigated: I always hear the theory that abiotic material must have transitioned to life at some point however gradual. I have long suspected ALL energy is "alive" where the word alive becomes ambiguous. Consider: what makes water change into ice? Clearly its not alive in the classical sense but its equally clear that the same group of forces acting on the water is acting on you and me. Mind blowing stuff to say the least!

Perhaps you could suggest more like minded lectures...

These questions are the province of philosophy rather than science IMHO.

The human brain/mind should not be assumed to be algorithmic (as is a digital computer) or even deterministic, there's is evidence that it is not and besides the question may be unanswerable.

"These questions are the province of philosophy rather than science"

I very much agree. I have said for years: trying to understand "god" and the universe in its entirety is like trying to teach a gold fish to sing. Sure maybe one day it could be done but massive obstacles for both the teacher and the fish would have to be overcame and surely they both would die before that can happen.

I am of the opinion the universe in infinite in time and possibly scope as well. Even if "god" was to make contact with me, how could I verify that he is actually god and not just another "level". While I often choose not to resolve on any one opinion of these questions I find myself contemplating them. Some seek money, some seek adventure, I seek enlightenment.

 

The problem with public discussions of abiogenesis is they almost always take the form of repudiation of either Christianity or atheism. People actually studying abiogensis have theories and ideas, of course, but the question is certainly not answered.

Talking about it draws a great deal of anger and heat from people who feel their entire life’s trajectory is threatened by it, and so not many researchers will wade into public lectures or published videos intended to be accessible.

However, those people who support the idea of abiogenesis being the way life formed certainly do so based on the weight of evidence in other areas, and the fact that is the most likely (and that’s quite a mild way to put it) way that life came to be.

You can find academic papers on the subject, but they will generally be on singular mechanisms that are candidates for part of the answer rather than unified theories. If you search YouTube, you will find many debates on the subject, and there is going to be some useful information on it in those debates along with some not-so-useful apologetics and rhetoric.

Sorry I can’t help more with this.

 

alive becomes ambiguous

The definition of "Live" is fairly well established. " Living things have the following six characteristics that define life: they are made of cells, they use energy, they grow, they reproduce, they respond to their environment and they self-regulate. A seventh characteristic is often added to the list, which is that living things have biological organization."

The biological organization is from simple single cell organisms to those whale sized ones. They all start from a single cell. In fact the "Largest living organism" is a mushroom which occupies over 2000 acres in Oregon. Largest living organism | Guinness World Records

 

The definition of "Live" is fairly well established. " Living things have the following six characteristics that define life: they are made of cells, they use energy, they grow, they reproduce, they respond to their environment and they self-regulate. A seventh characteristic is often added to the list, which is that living things have biological organization."

The biological organization is from simple single cell organisms to those whale sized ones. They all start from a single cell. In fact the "Largest living organism" is a mushroom which occupies over 2000 acres in Oregon. Largest living organism | Guinness World Records

There are some grey areas, like viruses.

 

Which is why I prevaricated with "fairly well". There are always gray areas in such a comprehensive concept

 

The problem with public discussions of abiogenesis is they almost always take the form of repudiation of either Christianity or atheism. People actually studying abiogensis have theories and ideas, of course, but the question is certainly not answered.

Talking about it draws a great deal of anger and heat from people who feel their entire life’s trajectory is threatened by it, and so not many researchers will wade into public lectures or published videos intended to be accessible.

However, those people who support the idea of abiogenesis being the way life formed certainly do so based on the weight of evidence in other areas, and the fact that is the most likely (and that’s quite a mild way to put it) way that life came to be.

You can find academic papers on the subject, but they will generally be on singular mechanisms that are candidates for part of the answer rather than unified theories. If you search YouTube, you will find many debates on the subject, and there is going to be some useful information on it in those debates along with some not-so-useful apologetics and rhetoric.

Sorry I can’t help more with this.

Speaking of abiogenesis, I only recently stumbled upon Prof. James Tour, the man has serious credentials and a track record of innovation and wealth generation from nanotechnology, chemistry and biochemistry, definitely worth listening to, some of his team's research has directly contributed to electronics even.