Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

All these papers and articles show how our minds can affect things. Scientists are discovering the observer effect through quantum physics.

There is a common misconception about what an observer is in quantum mechanics. An 'observation' or measurement is actually any interaction with the system in question, usually a particle interaction. You'll notice that, in the experiment you linked, it was machines that 'looked at' the atoms and did the measurements - the experimenters can't see the atoms. When they say the results depend on whether you're looking or not, they mean whether the machine is set up to measure in a certain way or not. The idea that consciousness is required to collapse the wave function was originally called the von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation, and was fairly quickly abandoned. A modified version persisted into the 1960's, but is no longer considered sensible by the vast majority in the field. It's certainly weird, but our minds are not affecting the outcomes except in the sense that we decide how we're going to make the measurement or observation.

Some say that our reality is the product of our minds. Some tests have verified the observer effect. Other tests are showing that our minds can actually affect machinery or be tuned into each other or into global events as though they are all connected. Some say the universe is immaterial and we have created this with our minds.

People say a lot of unsupportable stuff. We do construct a model of reality in our brains, based on the very limited and noisy input from our senses, but it's an internal model.

Other tests have verified the power of prayer.

A meta-analysis of 14 well-controlled studies of intercessory prayer says no.

But these all seem to support the idea that our mind has more to it than just an organ with a bunch of neuron connections.

It's a little more complicated than that, but no, there's no plausible evidence for anything more than wishful thinking and self-deception.

I strongly recommend that you treat Dean Radin's pseudoscientific cherry picking with a humongous pinch of salt. He's a woo merchant of the first order.
What if Dean Radin's Right?
Dean Radin's Statistical Pitfalls
A Lesson in Paranormal Cheating with Dean Radin
Review of Dean Radin's 'The Conscious Universe'
and so-on...

 

[lesliedellow]

It's a little more complicated than that, but no, there's no plausible evidence for anything more than wishful thinking and self-deception.

The great problem science has in dealing with consciousness is, first of all, that it is extremely difficult even to define it, and secondly that science has spent the last several centuries trying to filter out the subjective in the name of objectivity, but now wants to turn round and include it as an after thought. That is unlikely to work. In order to include the conscious mind in your account of reality, you would have to include it from the outset, because no amount of wishful thinking will get it fitted into a model which basically has bits of solid stuff being pushed around by forces. The mind isn't a bit of solid stuff, and it isn't a force.

And before you come out with "emergent property," that sounds very much like hand waving, unless you can give an account of how it emerges.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The only acceptable hypotheses is when God said let there be life and there was life.

Sadly, that's not a scientific hypothesis; it's untestable, unfalsifiable, and involves an ill-defined, undetectable agency. Other than that...

If life instantly appeared of if live "evolved" over a period of time. Some refer to this as punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism or catastrophism and uniformitarianism.

Anyone who refers to it as such is seriously misinformed. The latter in particular, concerns geology, not biology.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sadly, that's not a scientific hypothesis; it's untestable, unfalsifiable, and involves an ill-defined, undetectable agency. Other than that...

According to Frances Collins the leading expert on DNA, this is the language of God. DNA is VERY testable.

The latter in particular, concerns geology, not biology.

Darwin got his a lot of his theory from Charles Lyell. Only with Geology Lyell worked it all through to get rid of any contradictions. Darwin was not able to do that with his theory.

 

[bhsmte]

According to Frances Collins the leading expert on DNA, this is the language of God. DNA is VERY testable.
Darwin got his a lot of his theory from Charles Lyell. Only with Geology Lyell worked it all through to get rid of any contradictions. Darwin was not able to do that with his theory.

I think you need to read a little more from Collins.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The mind isn't a bit of solid stuff, and it isn't a force.

Informed opinion has it that it's a process, or rather a set of processes; patterns of brain activity.

And before you come out with "emergent property," that sounds very much like hand waving, unless you can give an account of how it emerges.

Emergence in this context isn't as vague as you make it sound. All it means is that the significant properties or behaviour of the ensemble is at a higher level of abstraction than the activities of its components (the neurons in their networks), and not directly derivable from the properties of the components. A simple example is the emergence of the interacting patterns in Conway's Game of Life.

As I see it (at present - I'm open to new, better, interpretations), the problem of subjectivity is not directly amenable to objective analysis because it involves being the entity under consideration. I'm increasingly sympathetic to the idea that the 'hard' problem is grasping precisely that - if you are a system that has been 'designed' by evolution to have autobiographical episodic memory, a simplified reflective self-model, a bunch of autonomous processes competing for focal time, and a goal-seeking monitor associated with the self-model, etc. (see Hofstadter's 'I Am a Strange Loop', Dehaene's 'Consciousness and the Brain', and Damasio's 'Self Comes to Mind', etc.), you will have a sense of consciousness and self.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I think you need to read a little more from Collins.

I am pretty sure I read the book we are talking about. I could check and see because I underline when I read.

 

[bhsmte]

I am pretty sure I read the book we are talking about. I could check and see because I underline when I read.

Did Collin's claim, he could objectively verify through science, that DNA was the language of God, or was this his faith belief?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

According to Frances Collins the leading expert on DNA, this is the language of God. DNA is VERY testable.

DNA is very testable, but the idea that it's the language of God isn't; nor is the concept of God itself.

Darwin got his a lot of his theory from Charles Lyell. Only with Geology Lyell worked it all through to get rid of any contradictions. Darwin was not able to do that with his theory.

Darwin's theory has itself evolved into the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis, as we've learned about genetics, population dynamics, and the wide range of evolutionary drivers; and it's still changing. What's important is the underlying principle of heritable variation with selection, not whether it was Darwin, or Spencer, or Kropotkin, or Lyell, who came up with it or worked out the details or contradictions.

 

[lesliedellow]

As I see it (at present - I'm open to new, better, interpretations), the problem of subjectivity is not directly amenable to objective analysis because it involves being the entity under consideration.

The problem, or one of them, is that the physical sciences, at least as they are presently constituted, haven't even got the necessary concepts available to them. If you ask a physicist for a definition of "red" he will give you a particular wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, but there is nothing in his lexicon which corresponds to what Joe Bloggs means by "red".

 

[[serious]]

well yes, that is the acid test.
you cannot say "this will work" then pass that phrase off as evidence.

Even processes that take millions of years? Can we not say the grand Canyon was carved out by its river until over the the course of millions of years we watch another river carve another canyon?

Must we discount all we know about stellar formation and evolution because of those timescales?

 

[whois]

Even processes that take millions of years?

where does this stuff come from?
have you got anything that confirms this, um, guess?
as a matter of fact, HGT happens immediately, it does not take this process millions of years.
yes, it's just one process but it confirms that this sort of thing does not take millions of years.
transposons are another process, and that happens on every generation.
base insertions and other mutations do not take millions of years to happen.
so, this "millions of years" nonsense is most likely that, nonsense.

 

[[serious]]

where does this stuff come from?
have you got anything that confirms this, um, guess?
as a matter of fact, HGT happens immediately, it does not take this process millions of years.
yes, it's just one process but it confirms that this sort of thing does not take millions of years.
transposons are another process, and that happens on every generation.
base insertions and other mutations do not take millions of years to happen.
so, this "millions of years" nonsense is most likely that, nonsense.

Hold on, we weren't talking about evolution (which can be and has been observed) but rather the origins of life from inorganic sources. We can observe necessary steps, but the key one; the random combinations to eventually get a self catalyzing strand of DNA, RNA, or protein; would not be expected to reoccur in the timescales we are talking about.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hold on, we weren't talking about evolution (which can be and has been observed) but rather the origins of life from inorganic sources. We can observe necessary steps, but the key one; the random combinations to eventually get a self catalyzing strand of DNA, RNA, or protein; would not be expected to reoccur in the timescales we are talking about.

Pardon me, butting in here. But I'm a little confused on your stance, [serious].

I realize the category on the profile page is worded improperly, since evolution is not relevant to the origin of life, but if you select atheistic evolution as the "origin of the life view" then you are saying there was a Godless abiogenesis.

 

[whois]

Hold on, we weren't talking about evolution (which can be and has been observed) but rather the origins of life from inorganic sources.

sorry, macro evolution has not been observed.

the acquisitions of RNA nucleotides would be the same process as gene mutations.
how do you think science knows this is a failure?
there are 3 reasons:
1. RNA cannot acquire enough nucleotides before mutations destroy it.
2. RNA cannot acquire a cell membrane for some reason.
3. it is unknown how RNA transitions to DNA.
the key point in the above is number 1.
every single experiment has ended because of it.

We can observe necessary steps, but the key one; the random combinations to eventually get a self catalyzing strand of DNA, RNA, or protein; would not be expected to reoccur in the timescales we are talking about.

i've yet to see any papers that support this idea.
frankly, i think it's a concept "invented" because gradualism required it.

 

[[serious]]

Pardon me, butting in here. But I'm a little confused on your stance, [serious].

I realize the category on the profile page is worded improperly, since evolution is not relevant to the origin of life, but if you select atheistic evolution as the "origin of the life view" then you are saying there was a Godless abiogenesis.

Yeah, it's trying to find the best fit. I believe the evidence points to natural origins and have no opinion on whether it was actively guided natural processes.

 

[whois]

Yeah, it's trying to find the best fit. I believe the evidence points to natural origins and have no opinion on whether it was actively guided natural processes.

i know the feeling.
evolution makes all the sane, rational sense in the world.
i can honestly see nothing that prevents it.
except for one flaw.
the empirical evidence just doesn't exist.
another major problem is that you cannot, CANNOT, seriously debate this issue.
the evolutionist vs evolutionist thread got deleted.
there are sources, VALID sources, that cannot be posted on this board.
when it becomes impossible to use VALID SCIENCE to discredit what is known about evolution, then you are left with nothing more than dogma.
the thread that was deleted had it right, it HAS gotten nasty.
but yet these evolutionists are allowed to continue with their status quo nonsense about "the fact of evolution".
the only "fact" about evolution is that there is no empirical evidence for it.

 

[[serious]]

sorry, macro evolution has not been observed.

you might need to define what you mean by macroevolution. It used to refer to emergence of new species which certainly has been observed in both nature and the lab. Some creationist/ID groups have attempted to redefine macroevolution more narrowly by saying it should be the emergence of a new genus or family, but those levels of classification are arbitrary, making the term functionally undefined. I'm afraid any discussion of macro vs microevolution must begin with definition of terms.

the acquisitions of RNA nucleotides would be the same process as gene mutations.
how do you think science knows this is a failure?
there are 3 reasons:

initial self assembly would be due to mechanical and chemical action around deep sea vents. These would be sequence independent random chains. This is a different mechanism than current intracellular processes.

1. RNA cannot acquire enough nucleotides before mutations destroy it.

as I said, initially, the RNA synthesis in this scenario would be sequence independant. Only when a sequence that can self catalyze arises would there be any issue with mutation. If a self catalyzing string was lost, no big deal, the sequence independant arrangement would continue until a self catalyzing bit survived.

2. RNA cannot acquire a cell membrane for some reason.

in this scenario, we have spontaneous generation of lipid membranes first, and synthesis of RNA within those lipid bubbles.

3. it is unknown how RNA transitions to DNA.

Reverse tran scripting is well known and studied. I'm not clear on what the issue here is.

the key point in the above is number 1.
every single experiment has ended because of it.

i've yet to see any papers that support this idea.
frankly, i think it's a concept "invented" because gradualism required it.

That's why I like the deep sea vent model. It bypasses the sequence selection until you have the rest of the elements in place.

 

[whois]

you might need to define what you mean by macroevolution.

macro evolution, the diversity of life.
bacteria to man.
bacteria to starfish.
bacteria to plant.
bacteria to worm.

initial self assembly would be due to mechanical and chemical action around deep sea vents. These would be sequence independent random chains. This is a different mechanism than current intracellular processes. as I said, initially, the RNA synthesis in this scenario would be sequence independant. Only when a sequence that can self catalyze arises would there be any issue with mutation. If a self catalyzing string was lost, no big deal, the sequence independant arrangement would continue until a self catalyzing bit survived.
in this scenario, we have spontaneous generation of lipid membranes first, and synthesis of RNA within those lipid bubbles. Reverse tran scripting is well known and studied. I'm not clear on what the issue here is.
That's why I like the deep sea vent model. It bypasses the sequence selection until you have the rest of the elements in place.

nice explanation, but is simply hasn't happened in practice.

there are other areas in evolution that bring up some serious questions too.
like ancient HGT.
there is no possible way for science to determine ancient HGT as opposed to mutation.

another area is the ability to trace genes through deep time.
gene mutation and transposons would make such tracing impossible.

you cannot possibly say "i don't have a problem with that"

also, keep one thing firmly in mind, i am NOT arguing for a god, but for the truth.

there are other areas too, the outright blatant hostility and fraud associated with this subject.
when you start denying your own work in regards to evolution . . .

when i first started researching evolution and ran across this stuff, i assumed i might be missing something.
but when i discovered that this sort of thing happens over and over, with no adequate explanation . . .
this isn't a joke, this is reality, and it's happening right in front of our noses.

 

[stevevw]

There is a common misconception about what an observer is in quantum mechanics. An 'observation' or measurement is actually any interaction with the system in question, usually a particle interaction. You'll notice that, in the experiment you linked, it was machines that 'looked at' the atoms and did the measurements - the experimenters can't see the atoms. When they say the results depend on whether you're looking or not, they mean whether the machine is set up to measure in a certain way or not. The idea that consciousness is required to collapse the wave function was originally called the von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation, and was fairly quickly abandoned. A modified version persisted into the 1960's, but is no longer considered sensible by the vast majority in the field. It's certainly weird, but our minds are not affecting the outcomes except in the sense that we decide how we're going to make the measurement or observation.
People say a lot of unsupportable stuff. We do construct a model of reality in our brains, based on the very limited and noisy input from our senses, but it's an internal model.
A meta-analysis of 14 well-controlled studies of intercessory prayer says no.
It's a little more complicated than that, but no, there's no plausible evidence for anything more than wishful thinking and self-deception.

I strongly recommend that you treat Dean Radin's pseudoscientific cherry picking with a humongous pinch of salt. He's a woo merchant of the first order.
What if Dean Radin's Right?
Dean Radin's Statistical Pitfalls
A Lesson in Paranormal Cheating with Dean Radin
Review of Dean Radin's 'The Conscious Universe'
and so-on...

I find it hard to understand. But it seems from what the article is saying on the tests done on John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment that it is saying "The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured".

That to me seems like its saying that it has proven that reality doesn't exist according to quantum physics until it is measured. I would have thought that irregardless of whether it was a machine or a human that measured things its still something that effects the state of a particle. What it is saying is that when a proton or electron is not measured it in wave form which can have many possibilities. It hasn't taken any particular form and has the potential to take any form. But when it is measured thats when it takes a particular state or position. Thats when it becomes a particle and therefore something solid.

The tests are interesting as instead of using protons which are expected to be in wave forms they used atoms which are solid and have mass. They also done the measurements after the event and it wasn't until they measured the particle that it had taken a form. So it is indicating that a future measurement can affect a past state which seems even weirder. Along with quantum entanglement these things seem to give quantum particles strange abilities where they can instantaneously exist in more than one place and connect with another particle at a distance.

Considering we are talking about the way particles behave at the point of almost where something comes into existence from nothing t wouldn't surprise me that strange things happen. Afterall how can you explain how something can come into existence from nothing by classical physics. But along with the other results that I posted it seems that our minds or something within us has some sort of ability beyond the physical and material world. Call it ESP, prayer, the observer effect or the power of the mind there is something going on and it seems science is just starting to discover these things and put them into use.