@Meerkat_SK5 has gone back to lying about his sources again.
His actual source was Fuz Rana’s article here, from which he has plagiarised ‘his’ comments.[1] The ‘result’ he describes is an invention of Fuz Rana’s, and does not appear in the cited article, which doesn’t say anything at all about protein concentrations being “regulated”, but that they can evolve, and is in any case about computer simulated cells.
Unless @Meerkat explicitly states he has read the cited paper, the only sensible approach is to assume he hasn’t and disregard anything he says about this paper, or indeed any of the others he has ‘cited’.
Spot the similarity:
Fuz Rana: The most recent work by the Harvard scientists indicates that the concentration of PPI-participating proteins in the cell is also carefully designed. @Meerkat_SK5: ___In fact, a study by Harvard scientists indicated that the concentration of PPI-participating proteins in the cell is also carefully designed. ↩︎
No, you aren’t. You never cite evidence, you always cite hearsay. Evidence is the source. I have looked at the evidence, not what these people say about it. Big difference.
Your arrogance is breathtaking. I’ll ask again: have you looked at my publications to compare before making this claim?
In what way does my being a molecular biologist mean that I am not a biochemist?
For the record, I’m a geneticist, virologist, neuroscientist, and cell biologist too. In every single one of those fields, in addition to biochemistry, I have far more expertise and experience than Fuz Rana.
So your appeal to him as an authority is ludicrous.
I think you are “arguing that” ORCH-OR “involves a universal consciousness directly creating consciousness on earth”, when:
ORCH-OR DOES NOT posit a “universal consciousness”; and
ORCH-OR DOES NOT posit any consciousness “directly creating consciousness” anywhere.
In this, you are not only “not on the same page” as me, but you are “not on the same page” as your sources!
(Parenthetically, my subsidiary point was that none of “Eastern spiritual traditions, panpsychism, and the Objective Reduction theory of Roger Penrose”, that you previously highlighted in a quote, posit “a universal consciousness directly creating consciousness on earth”, and that “a universal consciousness directly creating consciousness on earth” was far closer to Abrahamic religions than any of those viewpoints.)
Utterly false!
Firstly, none of your ORCH-OR sources have made any mention of “digital information” being part of creating consciousness.
Secondly, the claim itself is clearly nonsensical, as digital information, unlike physical DNA, is abstract and thus inert. It therefore cannot ‘create’ anything. DNA on the other hand exists as part of self-replicating living creatures, which thus have all the mechanisms required for the creation of new life.
Thus, you have done nothing to rebut my point that:
I would also point out that this view of your interpretation of sources seems to be held by everybody on these threads with you.
Until you can convince anybody of anything, let alone most people of the majority of your claims, you have no chance of making any progress whatsoever!
Therefore the only rational thing to do would be to try and establish what claims you can make from your sources that people will accept, and build from there. Dumping large slabs of text containing large numbers of claims, none of which anybody accepts, gets you nowhere.
I was just responding to your objections when I used hearsay from other experts. More importantly, we are discussing whether the theoretical aspects of common design have scientific potential to be a better explanation.
What else does this theory need to be a better explanation? Or what else do you need to be convinced that it is? I feel like this ID theory is fully worked out now. Do you have any other questions about this ID theory you want me to answer?
Oh ok, I did not know. It just said Molecular biologist on your title.
STOPciting sources thatDO NOTsupport your position!
This article DOES NOT state that ORCH-OR posits “a [singular] universal consciousness”. The closest it comes is to state that Buddhism involves meditation, of which “one aim of this preparation is to connect the mind with the Universal Mind”. [Addendum: Buddhism seems to associate the phrase “Universal Mind” with the concept of Buddha-nature, which is a state of consciousness, that individual minds can reach, rather than a singular universal consciousness.]
(Parenthetically, “universal consciousness” does not entail a singular universal consciousness – it could alternatively mean panpsycism, whereby everything in the universe contains a low level of consciousness, without these consciousnesses needing to be part of a monolithic whole. The latter appears to be how the phrase is used within ORCH-OR.)
This article makes no mention of any consciousness “directly creating consciousness”. Rather, the article states that consciousness arises through the following process (which does not require the intervention of “a universal consciousness”):
The Orch OR hypothesis, which is based in quantum physics, proposes that, when a sufficient mass of tubulin molecules has assembled into cytoskeletal microtubules (MTs) within neuronal cells of the brain, these structures become sites of quantum computation and of quantum state reduction (OR) events resulting in moments of protoconsciousness.
This article, similar to all the articles you have previously cited, does not support your claim.
So instead of citing yet another article that likewise does not support this claim, I would ask you instead to tell me why you keep doing this?
No, he’s saying that transcription in and of itself is not a sufficient condition for the inference of function. It is necessary for expression, but expression is not sufficient for function. DNA deliberately designed to be nonfunctional will still reproducibly recruit transcription factors and get expressed, even though the resulting RNA transcripts do nothing of value or consequence.
You’ve had this explained to you before multiple times. Why do we have to repeat this?
Because your objection is one big strawman fallacy. For instance, transcription in and of itself is not a sufficient condition for the inference of function according to only your definition of function.
I have asked you guys’ numerous times to make objection related to the casual role definition of function, which is a well-established form of function. This has gone on deaf ears, sadly.
Because I don’t want to make the same mistakes I made in the past on this forum. The goal here is to prove that the Common design theory is useful NOT prove that it is true like so many theists have tried to do. You should understand this difference very well. Also, you just mentioned that this theory does not even qualify as a hypothesis for some unknown reason. This alone would prompt anybody to focus on proving a theory is scientific and useful first before showing it is true.
Because you guys have not given me a threshold for what is the acceptable amount of evidence that passses muster in your eyes.
For instance, what percentage or number is feasible enough to be considered validation for the common design hypothesis rather than common descent (i.e. functional junk DNA, design flaws found to be optimal)?
Without providing a number on your end, I didn’t see the point of researching the number of cases on my end.
I did not apologize because I did not see the issue. I am sorry that somehow offended you, nonetheless.
Let me bring some context before I provide the evidence. Confirmation for this theory has primarily come from the teleological argument. For instance, to demonstrate INTELLIGENT design, we must show that non-functional features, such as vestigial structures, have functional utility. If there is already known functional utility, then we have to provide testable reasons behind why it is designed that way with respect to survival, reproduction, and adaptation. This confirmation would provide evidence for the theory, as Fuz Rana and Mike Gene have argued. There are many confirmed predictions, but let’s focus on one prediction at time so we don’t get disorganized:
We should find design trade-offs for suboptimal designs in nature
Design trade-off hypothesis
Fuz Rana described this as…" biochemical systems labeled as flawed designs are suboptimal in reality. Their suboptimal nature is necessary for the overall system to optimally perform. Routinely, engineers intentionally suboptimize facets of the systems they design to achieve overall optimality. This practice is necessary for complex systems built to achieve multiple objectives. Inevitably, some of these objectives conflict with others. In other words, these systems face trade-offs. To manage the trade-offs, engineers must carefully suboptimize the performances of the systems’ components, again, so that the systems will result in overall optimal performances."
I see that you’re making exactly the same mistakes.
I do. That still requires evidence, not your relentless misrepresentations of hearsay.
It’s not even close to being consistent with the extant evidence. On some level, you’re aware of this, which is why you only cite hearsay. You KNOW the evidence isn’t consistent.
Let’s start with >0.
That’s gibberish. The idea that there’s some magic number is absurd.
Well, that says a lot.
I accept your apology. Would you now quit citing the words of nonexperts to experts like us?
Arguments do not confirm theories. Evidence can, but you haven’t cited any.
Reasons aren’t testable. Hypotheses and theories are.
If a hypothesis is stated in a scientific way, no arguments are needed. This is why you avoid evidence.
I don’t care how he describes anything. He has zero credibility.
No. That’s not how real science works. You really should do some reading on scientific epistemology, because it’s obvious that you don’t have a clue.
I would bet a lot of money that you didn’t bother to look at a single datum in any of those papers before citing them.
There is no other sensible definition of function. Under your definition of function, the heart’s function is to add mass to the organism, or to make a sound when it beats, or to fill out the space that would be left in it’s place if it was absent. Or to shock people with it’s deep purple color when exposed to outside view. That’s literally what your definition of function entails.
Nonsensical functional roles where merely existing, or any imaginable consequence of existence, is a function in and of itself. My screwdriver is currently rusting. Under your definition of function, the causal role definition of function, that is what it is for. To rust. To take oxygen out of the atmosphere and chemically bind it to iron in my screwdriver’s structure. It exists to become red-brown with time. To make me type these words about it in my browser window. Etc.
That’s where your definition of function leads. To idiocy.
I would first note that you carefully quoted me out of context, to eliminate my explanation of the differences.
Here is what I actually said:
The “discernable difference[s]” I identified include:
ORCH-OR versus Buddhism – the former is a fringe scientific hypothesis, the latter is a religion. This is hardly “a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists”.
“Buddha-nature , which is a state of consciousness, that individual minds can reach, rather than a singular universal consciousness” versus “a universal consciousness [capable of] directly creating consciousness on earth.”
“Panpsycism, whereby everything in the universe contains a low level of consciousness, without these consciousnesses needing to be part of a monolithic whole” versus “a universal consciousness [capable of] directly creating consciousness on earth.”
“A sufficient mass of tubulin molecules [being] assembled into cytoskeletal microtubules (MTs) within neuronal cells of the brain” versus “a universal consciousness [capable of] directly creating consciousness on earth.”
Given these blatant differences, the accusation of a “distinction without a difference” is nothing but bearing false witness!
The question therefore becomes why should I, or anybody else, consider you to be anything more than yet another dishonest and ignorant apologist? The world, and particularly the internet, is full of this disreputable type – and many of them thoroughly earn the label ‘Liars for Jesus’.
You cannot convince anybody of anything unless you can first convince them of your own credibility. And blatantly misrepresenting both your sources, and the statements of people you are conversing with, is the exact wrong way to go about this.
You must understand that he doesn’t know he’s misrepresenting anything. He just can’t tell what anything means and is unable to evaluate any of what he reads or quotes. “Never attribute to malice…”
Does misrepresenting-out-of-ignorance make @Meerkat_SK5 any more credible than misrepresenting-out-of-malice? If not, then I think my point still stands, and I therefore won’t argue the issue with you. It is … <drum roll> … a “distinction without a difference”.
I agree, and would also ask that @Meerkat_SK5 answer these questions.
@Meerkat_SK5: do you understand why this behavior is highly problematical? If you have not read the article you are citing then you have no idea whether the source whose interpretation of the article you are relying on is characterising the contents of the article accurately. This makes your comments pure second-hand hearsay not evidence, and so not credible.
And another voice saying that you are not credible.
@Meerkat_SK5: do you see that you have a severe credibility problem here?
. It does not matter if it is considered a function or not. What matters more is that it is a prediction from the universal common designer theory that has been confirmed. That’s it. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand? You are making this more diffcult than it needs to be.
“Whitehead’s low-level ‘dull’ occasions of experience would seem to correspond to our non-orchestrated ‘proto-conscious’ OR events. According to the DP scheme, OR processes would be taking place all the time everywhere and, normally involving the random environment, would be providing the effective randomness that is characteristic of quantum measurement” [Emphasis added] Journal of Cosmology (thejournalofcosmology.com)
Read further into this source to understand what Whitehead’s process philosophy involves so you can understand more on why they are virtually the same:
‘Whitehead enumerated three essential natures of God . The primordial nature of God consists of all potentialities of existence for actual occasions, which Whitehead dubbed eternal objects. God can offer possibilities by ordering the relevance of eternal objects. The consequent nature of God prehends everything that happens in reality. As such, God experiences all of reality in a sentient manner. The last nature is the superjective . This is the way in which God’s synthesis becomes a sense-datum for other actual entities. In some sense, God is prehended by existing actual entities.’
"(B) Consciousness is a separate quality, distinct from physical actions and not controlled by physical laws, that has always been in the universe. Descartes’ ‘dualism’, religious viewpoints, and other spiritual approaches assume consciousness has been in the universe all along, e.g. as the ‘ground of being’, ‘creator’ or component of an omnipresent ‘God’ . In this view consciousness can causally influence physical matter and human behavior, but has no basis or description in science. In another approach, panpsychism attributes consciousness to all matter, but without scientific identity or causal influence. Idealism contends consciousness is all that exists, the material world (and science) being an illusion. In all these views, consciousness lies outside science… "
“…Nonetheless, in the Orch OR scheme, these events are taken to have a rudimentary subjective experience, which is undifferentiated and lacking in cognition, perhaps providing the constitutive ingredients of what philosophers call qualia. We term such un-orchestrated, ubiquitous OR events, lacking information and cognition, ‘proto-conscious’. In this regard, Orch OR has some points in common with the viewpoint (B) of Section 1, which incorporates spiritualist, idealist and panpsychist elements, these being argued to be essential precursors of consciousness that are intrinsic to the universe.” [Emphasis added]
"Accordingly, our picture is that Orch OR underlies full conscious experience with perceptions and choices influenced by noncomputable Platonic values intrinsic to the structure of the universe.
The origin of eukaryotic animal cells 1.3 billion years ago is suggested to have been a symbiotic event in which motile spirochetes invaded bacterial prokaryotes, spirochetal flagellae being the apparent origin of microtubules which provided movement and internal organization to previously immobile cells (Margulis & Sagan, 1995).
As OR events in microtubules became more orchestrated over the course of evolution, the content of conscious experience became more cognitively useful, e.g., representative of the external world, and pleasurable, e.g., food, sex. Pursuit of positive conscious experience would foster survival. Optimization of Orch OR in conscious experience and associated noncomputational effects per se may be driving evolution."
Accordingly, one might speculate that the onset of Orch OR and primitive consciousness, albeit exceedingly slow and simple but still with useful conscious moments, precipitated the accelerated evolution of the Cambrian explosion. Only at a much later evolutionary stage would the selective advantages of a capability for genuine understanding come about, requiring the non-computability of Orch OR that goes beyond mere quantum computation, and depends upon larger scale infrastructure of efficiently functioning MTs, capable of operating quantum-computational processes." [Emphasis added]
A Universal Common Designer created life to survive, reproduce, and develop in environments of the globe.
Definitions
Universal common designer: Non-contingent immutable human
Life: Algorithmic information
If this is true, we should find design trade-offs for suboptimal designs in nature
Results
Here is the evidence from primary literature, but I only read them enough to find out whether they are truly referring to design trade-offs. Also, I relied on secondary sources for some of them to understand them better:
Yes, original research articles with methods, materials, results, etc.
No because it is not ethical or unethical, especially when I cite these qoutes every time. If these quotes are stating facts from the primary source, then I don’t see the issue of not citing them in these cases. But, if this personally bothers you, then I will make the adjustments here as well. .
