Re: Intelligent Design vs. Darwin

[John M <***>]

To answer your closing question: "not much".
So I read it again, applying my short term memory as
to what can I expect. Then I extracted some
repliables.

I think I found what you refer to. Paraphrased for
myself: to identify the phenomena usually (and
scientifically) referred to as 'life' in a format
which may be acceptable for me. And the numerical maze
of the math quantizing everything based upon
incomplete models. I earned the right to do so,
because I was for more than a half century a fruitful
builder of 'that' edifice of reductionist scientific
models. And so: successfully. I am searching the clues
for a better understanding. When I feel past a certain
level of our epistemic thinking I don't go back: I
look ahead. There will always be plenty who remind me
of the brilliance of obsolescence. I am the pauper who
has nothing but a dream. And RR helped me to dream.
Not by applying math to relational modeling, but by
the (mostly?) untold spirit of ways to think ahead in
connectivities unlimited. 

Your music-reference? If you call for using different
notes, that is fallse in fractal level: music is not
'notes', (they are noise) - music is "tunes",
interconnections of notes into some further
connectable networks (I almost wrote: its Tao,
patterns). And whoever tries to rationaize music into
a well ruled - logified understanding, doesn't know
what music is. Music is like life. (That was humor).

Now as to "emerged quale"? You know my position about
emergence: the word is usable as long as we don't know
HOW (by what process) it occurred. The 'quale'? I like
to use "quality" when I cannot identify something in  
better details. The "qualia" (plural of quale) came
into ubiquitous fashion from Chalmers  in his Hard
Problem. I think what you had in mind for "emerged
quale" was neglection of details - applicability to
whatsoever. 
The qualia as we observe them, are within model-view,
nobody observes them all (it is impossible), only "to
the point" of our limited interest (observation). As
in: AI has the qualia of a human mind (hogwash).

I identify math view as a limited quale (restricted to
quantities as they interact) omitting other planes of
observation (artistic, feeling-wise, repulse/attract,
prejudicial, etc.) It is a language with all the
possibilities/benefits of a linguistic complexity, but
just as with your perfect 'pitch' of English you
cannot converse with a monolingual Mongolian, you
cannot have artistic "understanding" by applying
math-logic. I feel something like this is behind your
mentioning 'qualia'.

There is more to a persons entailings than expressed
in a certain discussion.

One word to probabilities though:
I don't know about such. If you work within a well cut
model, you can count certain items included and sort
them. That is statistics. It does not include items
with different characteristics or connotations, only
within your model's rules. 
Then you count a certain aspect among that statistical
amount and calculate the (%?) frequency of it: the
larger such frequency, the larger the 'probability' of
its occurrence. (Observational logic 101). So the more
frequent findings are (supposed to be) more frequent
in coming events _ WITHIN the same model, of course.
My slogan refers to the 'average', an outgrow of this:
a man drowned in a wateflow 1 ft deep in average. The
"probability" of some big depth was almost negligible,
not even prone to be considered, except for the ONE
person who drowned in it. Variety of the world is not
a flat pattern and not a statistical average - not
even a probability. Epistemic enrichment produces
"improbable" novelties all the time. 
(Well, more than one word 'twas.)

I could not follow the "relation between the emerged
and the not emerged" (anything non-existing?). 

Life, consciousness, mind, energy, etc. are noumena 
(a noumenon is a group-name for poorly identified
ingredients, yet combined by some recognizability like
'dog') derived at an early time of their "emergence"
(ha ha) and enriched by additions according to the
persons' mental attitude towards the topic - or
similar). We are past the exclusive pattern of C-Aq
biochemistry of the Terra-sea-air-surface biosphere
which intrigued Darwin. We also know that reproduction
is superficial, especially in sexual processes, even a
repro of the species is only simulative. We know that
there is much more involved than described in the
books 
and I would add: emergentile, mutational or
paradoxical all have their entailing origination in
changes maybe not observed or even not yet discovered.


I don't like to write about this topic, because we (I,
for one) know so little about it and are so impressed
by the primitive explanatory imaginations of times
with much less information than later on acquired. 

Finally - to the topic - (ID) a "design" does not DO
anything, just gives instructions to the agency that
does the job. I wonder whether the "Intelligent
Design" people include a factor that in fact created
the world? 
A blueprint - no matter how intelligent - does not
build an automobile. 

Best regards and I regret, Jamie, that all this came
out upon your post. It was ready to be aired even
without your writing.

John 
(new private address <***>


--- James N Rose <***>
wrote:

> John,
> 
> Some times it is difficult to consider new
> realms of thought without revisiting territory
> already presumed covered.
> 
> This doesn't mean one is stuck in a conceptual rut,
> unable to move on, but simply cautiously
> re-evaluating 
> when a relationship comes forth again but in another
> guise.   You're a musician.  You don't encounter a
> new
> composition or different work by saying, "oh no, the
> composer
> is using the same set of notes all over again, even
> if
> different combinants; how boring; couldn't she/he
> have
> just used totally different note and not re-hashed
> the same old tired ones all over again?!"
> 
> definition of life   ?   
> 
> it absolutely includes:  exploring variations on a
> theme
> 
> (making a musical pun here).
> 
> One of my notions-primitive identifies just and
> exactly that -
> stemming from "mathematics as enviroment", where
> _mutually present_
> but differentially bounded math numbers -and- math
> relations
> establish a relationship between them that educe
> true existence,
> and specific actionable among themselves relations
> which
> set up just these juxtaposed correlations of
> gradients and
> variable possibilities .. and have the potential to
> instantiate
> Being .. which has as qualila and property, several
> impetus drivers:
> including variability optioned for, stability
> plateaus (of their
> inter-involved grouped presences) and clear survival
> benefits.
> 
> All of this coming from relational probabilitites
> and the
> -interaction- (!) of 'probabilities'.
> 
> In otherwords, primitive-notioned 'order' generates
> transfinite
> realms of infinite probabilities, which in turn
> generates 
> instantiated order.  The beginning of an ontological
> reconciliation
> and natural coordination of: quantum mathematics
> with continuum 
> (relativity) mathematics.
> 
> "Life" is an emerged qualia - composed of its prior
> pre-emerged qualia
> even while exhibiting qualia beyond the
> non-combinates.  Someway, some
> how there is a definable relation and specification
> of the qualii
> and relations between the non-emerged and the
> emerged.
> 
> This would umbrella Aristotle and give a foundationa
> rationale to Rosen.
> 
> Not that the 'numbers' are superior to the qualia. 
> Qualia stand as
> their own valuable ediface and nature of existential
> qualities.  The
> warning is to not give up all reasoning to
> reductionism after all the
> hard work to show its deficiencies, and say in some
> final analysis,
> that "all is inert insensitive non-spiritually
> associated 'numbers'".
> 
> That would to let the bad-notions we struggle
> against, win.
> 
> Does this make sense to you?  what I've written.  ?
> 
> Jamie
>