Is this a joke?
4 Likes
Not intentionally, but yes.
4 Likes
So what you’re telling me (again) is that you are “right” simply by your own proprietary definitions. This was never about testing ideas - no need to test if the idea begins and ends with just re-defining words beyond all recognition - it’s not even about expressing any. It is rather just about producing ludicrous amounts of word salad for someone else to dig through as you giggle at all of their time you got to waste free of charge. You are not saying anything of substance, you are just shrouding (at best) a meaningless tautology in layers upon layers of jargon until it sounds like you are saying something non-trivial, but really it’s all just you making sciency noises for the sheer fun of it.
Well… Good luck with that.
4 Likes
I believe we have come to the end of this thread.
This is the Argument Clinic thread – there is no ‘end’ or progress (that is part of the humor of the original sketch – “this is futile”), participants simply drop out when the wise up to the fact and refuse to participate any further". 
3 Likes
You don’t know what words mean. You don’t know what sentences mean. You don’t know how to construct an argument. All discussion is futile.
2 Likes
Argument Clinic Sketch:
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
(pause)
O: No it isn’t!
M: Yes it is!
John gets it. 
2 Likes
You see, the thing about an argument is that you not only need to show that it’s valid, you need to show that the premises are true (or at least plausibly true). You have given us no reason to think that Premise 1 is true other than word games. Why do physical constants amount to the same thing as “the universal self-collapsing digital code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms”? What the hell does that word salad mean in the first place? These are the questions you need to answer.
5 Likes
Yes – the ‘constants are constant’ part of this ‘argument’ is largely trivial (and certainly not a novel prediction) – it is the “mean the same thing” in Premise 1 that is what actually needs a valid argument to support it.
1 Like
You have been assimilated.
2 Likes
Only if discussion = resistance.
I would argue that acceding to further discussion is a sign of crumbling resistance. Avoid that, and you can likewise avoid being assimilated into the Meerkatbot Army™.
Given that the topic of this thread is essentially ‘anything you can have an argument about’, why don’t we try to find something less “futile” than @Meerkat_SK5’s claims to argue about?
“Toilet rolls: under or over?” would appear a tad banal.
ChatGPT made the following suggestions for “biggest argument” (after I excluded physical conflicts from the question:
-
The conflict between science and religion – but that has already had an inordinate number of threads on this forum.
-
Political ideologies – but I’m not sure that would be much fun.
Could we perhaps argue about what is the weirdest sport to have a reasonable level of international following? (The restriction is because many communities have their own idiosyncratic sport that few outside their community are probably even aware exists.)
Or can somebody else think of something that we can argue about?
My strategy is the same as that of the old joke:
An anthropologist is visiting a primitive society. One night, he hears drums beating in the distance. Concerned, he asks one of the tribesmen what's up with the drums. The native says "Drums ok, but if drums stop very bad--run away."
The drums beat on for an hour. Still uneasy, the anthropologist asks again if things are ok. Again, the native replies "Drums ok, but if drums stop very bad -- run away."After another hour, the drums stop. The native stops dead in his tracks and looks up and says “Drums stop! Very bad! Run away!!”
Scared now, the anthropologist asks what happens next.
The native replies “Bass solo!”
No prizes for guessing what the “bass solo” is in this analogy.
So please, do your bit to make sure the drums don’t stop. 
I went back and made some more changes to the hypothesis and theory to make sure both are more cohesive.
Universal Common Design theory
All extant species share separate designs that can be traced back to a universal common designer. However, what makes them different is the application of those similar parts and functions that fit better in different environmental niches, which give them their separate uniqueness.
This is the hypothesis:
Analogous phenotypic traits were designed separately in unrelated families and orders in response to similar needs.
Sorry for the confusion, but this is not quite what I was getting at with the first premise. My argument is based upon identity theory NOT tautologies. I was arguing that the two phenomena are identical just like materialists argue that mental states are identical to brain states.
You, @John_Harshman and everybody else can whine and complain all you want but what I am arguing is fully grounded in science. Moreover, Penrose and Stuart Hameroff made the same argument in countless peer-reviewed journals.
Sure, no problem, but I have done this already in other posts.
Quantum mind theory
According to Roger Penrose, the action of consciousness proceeds in a way that algorithmic processes cannot describe [4]. For instance, conscious contemplation can help ascertain the truth of a statement and freely make intellectual and moral judgments. This involves distinguishing between true and false statements or morally “right” and “wrong.”
The sole phenomenon in nature capable of achieving this is a wave function collapse. For instance, at small scales, quantum particles simultaneously exist in the superposition of multiple states or locations, described by a quantum wave function. However, these superpositions are not seen in our everyday world because efforts to measure or observe them seemingly result in their collapse to definite states [5]. This unobservable nature of quantum superpositions is referred to as the measurement problem, which appears to be somewhat associated with consciousness.
Experiments from the early 20th century indicated that conscious observation causes superposition wave functions to collapse to definite states, choosing a particular reality. Consciousness is believed to collapse the wave function under this view because only the conscious observer can choose the aspect of nature that his knowledge will probe, which is what the results of the “quantum interaction-free” experiment seem to indicate [6]. In other words, the non-algorithmic mind is the only true measurement apparatus.
For example, the observer must first specify or think of which particular wave function he intends to measure and then put in place a measuring device that will probe that aspect. Subsequently, only the observer can recognize the answer and understand the results after he or she chooses among the many possible outcomes.
Aerts and Arguëlles [7] demonstrated how these two phenomena appear to be identical by applying the quantum theory to model cognitive processes, such as information processing by the human brain, language, decision-making, human memory, concepts and conceptual reasoning, human judgment, and perception. Owing to its increasing empirical success, the quantum cognition theory has been shown to imply that we have quantum minds.[8]
Other empirical data have shown that the identical nature of the phenomena is not just apparent but real. For instance, experiments suggest that the brain is a quantum computer that uses quantum-mechanical processes, such as quantum tunneling and superposition [9, 10], explicitly suggesting that we have quantum minds, as the Orch-OR theory predicted (see Section 4.5 OR and Orch-OR of “Consciousness in the Universe” by Hammeroff and Penrose for more details) [11].
Finally, observations on the fine-tuning constants further support the idea that both phenomena are identical. For instance, we know through math that most of the values in the parameters will not allow life to exist if the fine-tuning values are smaller or larger. However, the fact that the actual values of these constants permit life to exist suggests the existence of some reason or purpose behind this.
Penrose suggested that this is evidence of a deeper underlying structure or intelligence in the universe, which he referred to as the universal proto-consciousness field theory. This field theory has also been referred to by Penrose as objective reduction (OR) and incorporated in his Orch-OR model to explain why humans have consciousness and these fine-tuning constants [11]. Overall, the identical nature of these two phenomena is the reason Penrose defines consciousness as self-collapse of the wave function.
For the sake of clarity, the quantum mind theory does not advocate for dualism or an additional supernatural force/substance that would operate outside the rules of science. Instead, it advocates for consciousness as an essential ingredient of physical laws that science has not yet fully understood. For more details, please refer to the introduction of “Consciousness in the Universe” by Hammeroff and Penrose [11].
The next section highlights observations further supporting the identical nature of both the phenomena.
Universal common designer theory
The authors of the article “Natural engineering principles of electron tunnelling in biological oxidation-reduction” discussed the mechanism of electron transfer in biological systems, which is a key process involved in energy production and metabolism [12]. They suggested that biological electron transfer systems exhibit certain “engineering principles” similar to those used in artificial electronic devices, such as transistors and diodes. Specifically, they proposed that the process of electron transfer in biological systems relies on a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling, which allows electrons to pass through barriers that would be classically impossible [12].
The article goes on to describe how the observed principles of electron tunneling in biological systems are highly optimized, with electron transfer rates that are faster than expected based on classical tunneling theory. Moreover, the observed principles of electron tunneling are highly conserved across different organisms and have likely evolved independently in multiple lineages.
Other observations seem to mimic similar engineering principles. For instance, almost every living creature on Earth uses the same code: DNA stores information using four nucleotide bases. The sequences of nucleotides encode information for constructing proteins from an alphabet of 20 amino acids. Why were these specific numbers chosen rather than some other numbers?
Patel showed how quantum search algorithms explain why these numbers were chosen [13]. He argues that striking similarities exist between the genetic code and the mathematical framework used in quantum algorithms. For example, the genetic code consists of 64 codons (triplets of nucleotides) that encode 20 amino acids, with some redundancy. This coding scheme allows for some tolerance to errors in DNA replication while still maintaining the ability to accurately specify the correct amino acid sequence for protein synthesis. Similarly, quantum algorithms use quantum states to encode information in a way that allows for efficient computation with some tolerance to errors.
Patel proposed that the genetic code evolved to exploit quantum coherence effects in DNA replication and transcription, which could enhance the accuracy and efficiency of protein synthesis. He suggests that the genetic code emerged as a result of natural selection acting on quantum-mechanical properties of DNA and RNA molecules. An experiment revealed that this quantum search algorithm is itself a fundamental property of nature [14].
Overall, the identical nature of these two phenomena in biological and non-biological settings allows us to define this universal common designer as a universal self-collapsing digital code. If this theory is true, we would expect all extant organisms to have a common design that can be traced back to this universal common designer.
[5] Hameroff, S., 2017. The quantum origin of life: How the brain evolved to feel good. In On Human Nature (pp. 333-353). Academic Press.
[8] Penrose, R., 1989. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[9] Aerts, D. and Arguëlles, J.A., 2022. Human perception as a phenomenon of quantization. Entropy, 24(9), p. 1207.
[10] Li, N., Lu, D., Yang, L., Tao, H., Xu, Y., Wang, C., Fu, L., Liu, H., Chummum, Y. and Zhang, S., 2018. Nuclear spin attenuates the anesthetic potency of xenon isotopes in mice: implications for the mechanisms of anesthesia and consciousness. Anesthesiology, 129(2), pp. 271-277.
[11] Sahu, S., Ghosh, S., Fujita, D. and Bandyopadhyay, A., 2014. Live visualizations of single isolated tubulin protein self-assembly via tunneling current: effect of electromagnetic pumping during spontaneous growth of microtubule. Scientific Reports, 4(1), pp. 1-9.
[12] Hameroff, S. and Penrose, R., 2014. Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’theory. Physics of life reviews, 11(1), pp. 39-78.
[21] Natural engineering principles of electron tunnelling in biological oxidation–reduction | Nature
[22] [quant-ph/0002037] Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code
[23] [1908.11213] The Grover search as a naturally occurring phenomenon
It didn’t help. You only underline the futility of trying to talk to you.
1 Like
Yes, the feeling is mutual.
Again, I think @AJRoberts said it best when she came on this forum for the same reasons:
"As part of my work for RTB, I occasionally venture onto science-faith and apologetics online discussion sites. One site, called Peaceful Science, seeks to bring scientists from all faith persuasions into discussions about various origins models, including RTB’s progressive (old-earth) creationism model and evolutionary mainstream models. Needless to say, we don’t interpret some scientific data the same way, especially when it concerns origins. Discussions can be challenging!
One complicating factor is that it is often difficult to understand someone’s model from their vantage point when it seems incongruent with one’s own worldview model. Consider evolution, which says all life, extinct and extant, has developed through neutral and adaptive mutations and eons of common descent (with or without God’s preprogramming or tweaking the system along the way).
And then consider the progressive creation model, which says God created distinct “kinds”—introducing them, in due course, over long epochs of creation. Now, add 280 years of observations by scientists and naturalists who have classified organisms into various taxa according to the Linnaeus system of naming and classification (i.e., taxonomy). How does one begin to talk coherently across these two origin models? Where do we find grounds for clear communication?"
From the paper you cited:
The 14 Å or less spacing of redox centres provides highly robust engineering for electron transfer, and may reflect selection against designs that have proved more vulnerable to mutations during the course of evolution.
Did you really read this article?
Rubbish. DNA is not a code. It is a double-stranded nucleic acid.
1 Like
You don’t understand even that. Roberts offers a common creationist trope as an excuse, nothing more.
3 Likes
So your argument depends on the existence of libertarian free will, and that this is somehow tied to quantum mechanics. Sorry, but even if I could understand your whole argument, we would fundamentally disagree on the first premise (that libertarian free will exists).
1 Like
I would note that @Meerkat_SK5’s uncited (bad Meekkat!) quotation comes from this piece by Roberts:
Meerkat highlights the following passage:
Needless to say, we don’t interpret some scientific data the same way, especially when it concerns origins. Discussions can be challenging!
I think this is perhaps a tad disingenuous. A more accurate description might be:
Needless to say, we cherry-pick and massage the data to fit our predetermined interpretations, especially when it concerns origins. Being called out for our mendaciousness can be challenging!
Meerkat of course doesn’t even bother with the data – they cherry-pick and massage others’ descriptions of the data.
Roberts goes on to say:
In my engagements with evolutionary proponents on Peaceful Science, some have insisted that I define created kinds and first principles in order to support a progressive (old-earth) creationist model for life on Earth. I’ve responded that created kinds cannot be defined a priori but must be determined through observations and comparisons.
In academia, there is a label for such reasoning: ad hoc.
What Roberts is essentially saying is “we want to decide in advance what populations we want to put into separate kinds (to fit our religious preconceptions) and make up excuses for why afterwards.”
This is particularly blatant given:
Perhaps other “kinds” would even fall at the level of species or subspecies (e.g., Homo sapiens sapiens).
This lack of rigor means an argument could be made that “RTB” could better be described as “Reasons to Bloviate” than “Reasons to Believe”.
It also is further support for the conclusion that:
Apologetics will always, eventually, lead to bad science
… as the apologist will always, at some stage, yield to the temptation to attempt to drag the evidence to fit their preconceptions, rather than follow the evidence wherever it leads (including to uncomfortable conclusions).
That’s not at all what Roberts is saying; in fact it’s the opposite of what she’s saying. And she’s right about that. If in fact there are created kinds, there ought to be some method of delimiting them empirically. Of course there aren’t, and there isn’t, and if she actually evaluated the data empirically this would become clear. But what she says in that quote is unobjectionable.